‘Where is Komal Sharma?’ row sparks JNUSU anguish, defamation fears
JNUSU said a vigil was held January 5, remembering 2020 campus violence amid controversy over “provocative” slogans.
The Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) on Tuesday strongly responded to the growing controversy surrounding the “provocative” slogans reportedly raised on the campus, calling it an “organised attempt to defame the institution and intensify the persecution of students.” The union’s statement comes amid mounting political attention following the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant bail to former students Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in connection with the 2020 JNU riots conspiracy case.
According to the JNUSU, the slogans allegedly directed against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Minister Amit Shah during a January 5 campus event were part of a vigil remembering the violent events that shook the university six years ago. The union emphasized that the vigil was intended to honour the victims of the 2020 attacks and to highlight the ongoing lack of accountability for those responsible for the assault on the Sabarmati Hostel and other parts of the campus.
the JNUSU statement read. It clarified that the vigil was not intended to provoke political figures but rather to remember the traumatic events that unfolded and to question why justice has yet to be served.
On January 5, 2020, masked armed attackers entered the JNU campus and specifically targeted students and teachers, causing widespread fear and chaos. “Six years have passed since that night of terror, yet accountability remains absent.”
The JNUSU also raised pointed questions about the role of certain individuals allegedly involved in the 2020 violence. the statement asked. The union contrasted the prompt police action against JNUSU office bearers for minor campus protests with the lack of arrests in the January 5, 2020, case. it said.
The union’s statement recalled that during the 2020 protest against the hostel fee hike, JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh was attacked by a mob on campus. Days later, an unidentified woman who had participated in the attack was recognized as Komal Sharma, yet no progress has been made in terms of legal action against the perpetrators. The union highlighted the lack of accountability as an ongoing issue, underscoring the sense of injustice felt by the student community even six years after the incident.
By framing the vigil as a commemoration of the victims rather than a political provocation, the JNUSU sought to push back against media narratives that portrayed the slogans as an attack on national leaders. The union stressed that the vigil was an attempt to keep the memory of the 2020 violence alive, a reminder of the threats faced by students and staff on the campus, and a demand for justice that remains unfulfilled.
The incident and the union’s response have sparked renewed debate about student activism, freedom of expression, and the role of political groups in university campuses. Observers note that the slogans and the vigil should be seen in the context of a long history of student movements in JNU, where protests over fees, policy changes, and social justice issues are often met with significant political scrutiny.
The JNUSU’s statement also reflected a broader critique of law enforcement and political interference. By questioning why certain attackers have not been arrested while minor student protests attract swift legal action, the union highlighted what many see as an uneven application of justice. This narrative resonates with alumni, academics, and student activists who view JNU as a historic hub for dissent and free expression, often caught in the crossfire of larger political battles.
In conclusion, the JNUSU reiterated that the January 5 vigil was a solemn remembrance of the 2020 attacks, an effort to honour the victims, and a call for accountability from authorities who have failed to act. By calling the slogans “provocative,” external observers risk misrepresenting the intent of the event, the union argued, framing it instead as a continuation of a long-standing struggle for student rights and campus safety. The union’s message was clear: commemorating past violence and demanding justice is not an act of defamation, but a necessary assertion of student voice and agency in the face of lingering impunity.