NSUI, ABVP for debate on Lyngdoh suggestions
SUPPORTING general recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee that were accepted by the Supreme Court on Friday, State units of the NSUI and the ABVP ? the two major student organisations ? called for more debate some of its aspects.india Updated: Sep 23, 2006 15:20 IST
SUPPORTING general recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee that were accepted by the Supreme Court on Friday, State units of the NSUI and the ABVP – the two major student organisations — called for more debate some of its aspects.
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) said though party politics should be fully banned, it is impossible to keep student organisations away from the entire process. The National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) objected to the
impracticality of cap on the election expenditure at Rs 5,000 and ban on use of printed posters and banners.
Both student organisations said the Supreme Court interim ruling would be studied in greater details and points raised in the apex court before the final hearing.
NSUI State president Hemant Wagadre said though the NSUI was not opposing the recommendations, student union polls could not be contested on such low budget. Use of banners and posters, he said, is necessary to reach out to students and popularise student wing’s achievements and future plan. He, however, hailed fixing the age limit of candidates at 25, the rule of candidates being regular students and more than 75 per cent attendance.
The State and national office-bearers are studying the recommendations in detail and will soon take up points as part of the hearing, NSUI State chief said.
Welcoming the general recommendations, ABVP national secretary Vishnu Dutt Sharma of Jabalpur said it seems that the committee recommended disengaging student organisations totally from the process –something that is not possible.
The ABVP always opposed party politics in students’ affairs and thus the role of organisations like NSUI having direct political affiliations should be thoroughly reviewed, Sharma said. Maintaining that cap on election expenditure and use of canvassing material is important to prevent criminalisation of the process, Sharma said the ABVP, which was the intervener in the case, would take up points of debate.
Intellectuals hail committee report
Academicians and intellectuals in the city on Friday hailed the Supreme Court’s approval to the Lyngdoh committee report on Student Union elections saying that the outrage over Professor H S Sabharwal’s murder had an important bearing on the apex court decision.
L N Verma,Principal of Government Madhav College, where Professor H S Sabarwal was killed during the student union election, said the recommendations are fine but more important is how they are implemented effectively.
The college administrations alone could not do much in this regard as they lacked adequate administrative powers, he opined. Verma suggested constitution of a separate statutory body to conduct student union elections.
Vikram University Vice Chancellor Ram Rajesh Mishra said though he has not gone through the details of the Lyngdoh committee report, whatever the apex court has approved must be useful in purging the electoral process in colleges.
Noted writer Shiv Sharma said the death of Sabharwal infused a sense of urgency in the Supreme Court to act tough on hooliganism during student union elections.
“Real tribute to professor Sabharawal would be the proper implementation of the reforms,” he said. However, he doubted the sincerity of political parties in this matter. ABVP secretary Vishnu Dutt Sharma claimed that his organisation had submitted similar suggestions to the Lyngdoh committee.
NSUI city unit president Umesh Sanger, however differed saying “how could student union elections be separated from political parties when the Constitution has empowered youth over 18 years of age to elect governments.”
He also termed as ‘unjustified’ the limit of Rs 5,000 for campaign and handmade posters in the student elections in the present hi- tech age.
He said the NSUI would put forth its point before the apex court during the hearing.