E-Paper
‘Witch hunt’: Congress MP Bimol Akoijam slams JNU order to dismiss him
Akoijam, who represents the Inner Manipur parliamentary constituency, was a professor at JNU’s School of Social Sciences.
Prefer HTon Google
Congress MP Angomcha Bimol Akoijam, who was sacked as a professor from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) over sexual harassment allegations, on Tuesday hit back at the university, insisting that its inquiry disregarded established rules and procedures and was essentially a political witch hunt.
Akoijam said he was preparing to challenge the dismissal in court.
“This is nothing but harassment. They know that once this ‘khap panchayat’ [clan council]-style of JNU is challenged in a court of law, the court will take notice of the complete disregard for norms, rules and regulations,” he told news agency ANI.
Deep Dive
Akoijam, who represents the Inner Manipur parliamentary constituency, was a professor at JNU’s School of Social Sciences.
The MP’s statement came even as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) stepped up its campaign against him, organising protests outside Congress offices in Delhi and elsewhere. On Tuesday, a group of BJP women MPs is also meeting President Droupadi Murmu to apprise her of the allegations against the MP and seek his dismissal.
Akoijam was sacked on Friday after an inquiry by the varsity’s internal committee formed to investigate sexual harassment at the workplace. “Based on the findings, the IC recommended major punishment… upon following the due process and considering all available facts, the punishment of dismissal from the services of the university is hereby imposed on the professor with immediate effect,” the order signed by JNU vice-chancellor Santishree D Pandit said.
“The original complaint was submitted to the academic department regarding pedagogical matters, not to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). How did it suddenly become a case of sexual harassment under the POSH Act? Even the leaked allegations claiming ‘sex for marks’ do not exist in the actual complaint,” Akoijam said.
“The matter concerns academic issues and pedagogy. How does that become a sexual harassment case? It simply does not stand. They knew that, which is why they manipulated the entire process,” Akoijam said, further alleging that the complaint was not submitted to the university’s Internal Committee but to the department.
On September 6, HT reported, citing a person closely aware of the development, that 11 university students filed complaints against the professor this May, accusing him of “sexual misconduct”. The university formed an internal complaints committee that same month to investigate the allegations. According to the complaints, the professor was accused of making inappropriate remarks with sexual connotations during the viva examinations in the first week of May.
On September 6, HT reported, citing a person closely aware of the development, that 11 university students filed complaints against the professor this May, accusing him of “sexual misconduct”. The university formed an internal complaints committee to investigate the allegations that same month. According to the complaints, the professor was accused of making inappropriate remarks with sexual connotations during the viva examinations in the first week of May. Delhi Police also registered an FIR against Akoijam on October 11 following a complaint by the university’s chief security officer.
Questioning the speed of the disciplinary proceedings, Akoijam said he received an email at 12.40 pm informing him that the inquiry had concluded and by 2.30 pm, the news of his dismissal had reached media outlets.
“Everything happened on the same day, within a span of just a few hours…So how did they prepare the report in such a short time? The V-C herself said in the media that she had not even read the report. How, then, did she issue the dismissal order without going through the findings?” he asked.
Akoijam also disputed allegations that he did not cooperate with the inquiry. He disputed assertions that around 300 emails had been exchanged, saying the actual number was 43 or 44 and maintained that he had submitted his response and provided witnesses in a timely manner. “She is making all kinds of false statements. When these claims are exposed, the truth will become clear. I am not worried,” he said, countering the vice chancellor’s reported statement.
The MP alleged that the BJP was using the case to target him because he had spoken out against the treatment of people from Manipur and the Northeast. “They expect people from Manipur and the Northeast in general to remain silent, docile and submissive…That is why they are trying to silence me, but they will not succeed,” he said.
