Plan to revive campus polls in Karnataka invites enthusiasm, unease

E-PaperSubscribeSubscribeEnjoy unlimited accessSubscribe Now! Get features like The Karnataka government’s move to restore student union elections has set off a familiar mix of enthusiasm and unease, reopening questions about representation, political influence and the memory of campus unrest that once led to the system’s dismantling over three decades ago. Plan to revive campus polls in Karnataka invites enthusiasm, uneaseAt a meeting in Bengaluru on Wednesday, ministers sat across the table from student leaders representing rival ideologies, many of whom agreed on at least one point: elections should return, and soon. The government indicated that polls would be conducted in line with the recommendations of the JM Lyngdoh Committee, a framework designed to regulate campus elections, though with adjustments to reflect current conditions. “Elections will be held this academic year with modifications suited to current conditions on campuses,” higher education minister Dr MC Sudhakar said. The consultations followed chief minister Siddaramaiah’s budget announcement proposing the reintroduction of student unions to encourage leadership and democratic participation. Medical education minister Dr Sharan Prakash Patil described the exercise as “complementary in making students aware of the democratic aspirations of the Constitution.” For many student groups, the announcement marked the return of a space that had long been absent. Between 2001 and 2016, for instance, Bangalore University’s academic council operated without student representatives. When students were brought back into the council in 2016, they occupied just five seats in a body of 54, limiting the role they had come to play in institutional decision-making. Yet the push to revive elections also carries the weight of history. In earlier decades, student unions were central to campus life in Karnataka, shaping policies and mobilising protests on issues such as fee hikes. Several political figures built their early careers through these platforms. But the close ties between student organisations and mainstream political parties often meant that conflicts outside campuses found their way into classrooms. A retired faculty member from a government arts and science college in Bengaluru, speaking on condition of anonymity, recalled how quickly tensions could escalate. “There was an instance where remarks by leaders from rival parties led to slogan-shouting on campus, which quickly escalated into clashes,” the faculty member said. Over time, the nature of campus contests shifted, the faculty member said. “Money and influence from outside started shaping campus contests, and that is when tensions began to rise,” the member added. In some cases, the consequences were more severe. “There were instances where individuals linked to the underworld entered campuses to intimidate or attack candidates before elections. It was not constant or across every college, but there were enough such cases to raise concerns about the direction campus politics was taking,” the professor said. By the late 1980s, such incidents had begun to draw legal scrutiny. A series of lower court rulings on campus violence contributed to a decision by the state government led by Veerendra Patil to ban party-based student union elections in 1989. While elections continued in some colleges through informal arrangements, the structure was altered, with “syndicates” — groups of candidates contesting together without formal party affiliation — replacing recognised student organisations. Even this system was eventually discontinued by 1997. The present effort to restore elections appears aimed at balancing that history with demands for representation. At Wednesday’s meeting, student organisations outlined differing priorities. Left-affiliated groups called for structured representation, including reservation for women. Aditya N Raj of Vidyarthi JD(S) proposed that 70% of seats be reserved for Kannada-speaking students. Other groups focused on regulating candidates. Representatives of the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) suggested eligibility criteria such as a minimum attendance of 60% and no pending FIRs or academic backlogs. The proposal drew pushback from others, who argued that such rules could exclude students active in protests. “It is not fair to bar a student based on attendance or an FIR. Everyone should have a fair chance,” representatives from the Congress-affiliated National Students’ Union of India and Vidyarthi JD(S) said. Even as student leaders pressed for immediate elections, some university authorities expressed concern about the potential for disruption. They indicated that while elections need not be opposed outright, safeguards would be necessary to ensure that academic activity is not affected and that campuses remain free of violence. Arun Dev is an Assistant Editor with the Karnataka bureau of Hindustan Times. A journalist for over 10 years, he has written extensively on crime and politics.