JMI student groups call for boycott as Social Inclusion department invites Hindutva-leaning Arif Mohammad Khan on Constitution Day – Maktoob Media

Report on Student Protests at Jamia Millia Islamia and Their Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Introduction

A coalition of five student organizations at Jamia Millia Islamia has issued a joint statement condemning the university’s Centre for the Study of Social Inclusion (CSSI) for inviting Bihar Governor Arif Mohammad Khan to a campus event. The organizations have called for a university-wide boycott, citing a conflict between the invitation and the core principles of social justice, institutional integrity, and inclusive education, which are central to several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

2.0 Conflict with Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities

The primary objection raised by the student bodies directly relates to the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), which calls for the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or other status.

• Exclusionary Policies: The statement highlights Governor Khan’s vocal support for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and amendments to Waqf laws. These policies are perceived by the student groups as discriminatory measures that undermine the rights of religious minorities, thereby contradicting the goal of reducing inequality.
• Institutional Mandate: The organizations argue that the CSSI, a center established to study and promote social inclusion, is acting contrary to its mission and SDG 10 by providing a platform for a figure they associate with majoritarian and exclusionary politics.
• Targeted Language: The report cites past remarks attributed to Governor Khan, which the students interpret as demeaning to dissenting citizens and minority groups, further challenging the objective of fostering an inclusive society.

3.0 Implications for Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The protest also underscores deep concerns regarding SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which emphasizes the promotion of peaceful and inclusive societies, access to justice for all, and the building of effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels.

1. Institutional Integrity: The student bodies contend that the invitation compromises the academic and ethical integrity of the CSSI. They state, “A Centre built to study social inclusion is now lending its platform to someone who justifies exclusion,” suggesting a weakening of the institution’s accountability and purpose.
2. Constitutional Values: The event’s scheduling on Constitution Day is described as “ironic and shameful.” This timing is seen as a direct affront to the secular and democratic values enshrined in the Indian Constitution, which are foundational to achieving SDG 16’s aim of promoting the rule of law.
3. Abuse of Power: Critics cited in the report argue that Governor Khan’s actions represent a politicization of a constitutional office, turning it into an outpost for partisan agendas. This challenges the SDG 16 target of developing effective and transparent institutions.

4.0 Concerns Regarding Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education

The controversy raises critical questions about the nature of SDG 4 (Quality Education), particularly its emphasis on education for sustainable development and global citizenship, which includes promoting a culture of peace, non-violence, and appreciation of cultural diversity.

• Academic Hypocrisy: The joint statement accuses the CSSI faculty of hypocrisy, noting that professors “who lecture on exclusion, discrimination and majoritarianism in classrooms are now opening their doors to its representatives.” This perceived contradiction undermines the quality and credibility of the education being imparted.
• Role of Education: The students’ call to action urges a rejection of “academic neutrality” when it serves to legitimize ideologies they consider harmful. This reflects a belief that quality education (SDG 4) must actively promote justice and human rights rather than passively providing a platform for all viewpoints, especially those seen as undermining inclusivity.

5.0 Collective Action and Resolution

In response to these perceived violations of principles aligned with the SDGs, the student organizations have initiated a collective action.

• Participating Bodies: The call for a boycott is a unified effort by the All India Students’ Association (AISA), CRJD, the Dayar I Shauq Students’ Charter (DISSC), the Fraternity Movement, and the Students’ Federation of India (SFI).
• Proposed Action: The groups have called for a campus-wide boycott of the program and a peaceful but firm resistance on the day of the event.
• Objective: The stated goal is to prevent the university from being used as a “gateway for Hindutva” and to uphold the academic institution’s responsibility to foster an environment of genuine social inclusion and constitutional morality, in line with global development objectives.

1. SDGs Addressed in the Article

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • The article directly relates to this goal by focusing on issues of justice, constitutional values, and the integrity of academic institutions. The student organizations’ protest is a response to what they perceive as a betrayal of justice and constitutional principles by the Centre for the Study of Social Inclusion (CSSI). They criticize the invitation to the governor on Constitution Day as showing “deep disrespect for constitutional values.” The conflict highlights the role of institutions in either upholding or undermining principles of justice and non-discrimination.

2. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

   • This goal is central to the article’s theme of social inclusion versus exclusion. The student groups condemn the invitation because the governor has defended policies like the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and amendments to Waqf laws, which they describe as “attacks on minority rights.” The protest is framed as a defense of marginalized communities, specifically “Dalits and religious minorities,” against exclusionary politics and majoritarianism. The core argument is that the CSSI, a “Centre built to study social inclusion,” is platforming someone who “justifies exclusion.”

3. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • The article touches upon this goal by questioning the academic integrity and educational mission of a university centre. The students accuse the faculty of hypocrisy, stating, “Professors who lecture on exclusion, discrimination and majoritarianism in classrooms are now opening their doors to its representatives.” This suggests a conflict between the curriculum’s stated values (promoting justice and understanding discrimination) and the institution’s actions, thereby affecting the quality and credibility of the education provided. The call to “reject this farce of academic neutrality” is a demand for the institution to align its practices with its educational principles.

2. Specific Targets Identified

1. Targets under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions)

   • Target 16.B: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The article highlights the students’ opposition to the governor’s support for the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which they label an “exclusionary citizenship law.” Their protest is a direct call against policies perceived as discriminatory and an “attack on minority rights,” aligning with the goal of promoting non-discriminatory laws.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The protest itself is an example of civic participation aimed at influencing an institution’s decision-making. The student groups argue that the CSSI’s decision to invite the governor is not representative of the communities it “claims to represent,” particularly Dalits and minorities. Their call for a “campus-wide boycott” is a participatory action to challenge a decision they view as non-inclusive.

2. Targets under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… religion or other status. The entire conflict revolves around this target. The student organizations are advocating for the inclusion of religious minorities and Dalits by protesting against a figure they believe promotes their exclusion. They accuse the CSSI of lending its platform to “someone who justifies exclusion.”
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The students’ specific criticism of the governor’s defense of the CAA and amendments to Waqf laws directly relates to this target. They identify these as policies that undermine equality and attack minority rights, and their protest is an action against the normalization of such discriminatory policies.

3. Targets under SDG 4 (Quality Education)

   • Target 4.7: By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including… human rights… and promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence. The article implies a failure to meet this target. The students argue that an institution teaching about “Dalit mobilisation, minority politics and Muslim identity” is contradicting its educational mission by honoring a figure who allegedly opposes these values. Their protest is a demand for the institution to uphold its role in educating for justice and human rights, not “practising surrender.”

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied

1. Indicators for SDG 10 and 16

   • Existence of and support for discriminatory laws and policies: The article explicitly points to the governor’s “repeated defence of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and his support for amendments to Waqf laws” as evidence of his alignment with exclusionary politics. The existence and official defense of such laws serve as a direct, albeit qualitative, indicator of challenges to non-discrimination (Target 16.B) and equality (Target 10.3).
   • Public rhetoric and discourse on minority groups: The article cites the governor’s alleged remark describing Partition as having “took away the dirt and left the dirty water behind.” The student groups interpret this as language meant to “demean dissenting citizens.” Such public statements by officials can be used as a qualitative indicator to measure the prevalence of exclusionary attitudes and the state of social inclusion (Target 10.2).

2. Indicators for SDG 16 and 4

   • Level of civic engagement and protest against institutional decisions: The “campus-wide boycott” called for by five different student organizations is a clear indicator of a perceived lack of responsive and inclusive decision-making (Target 16.7) within the university. The scale of the organized “peaceful but powerful resistance” measures the degree of dissatisfaction with the institution’s actions.
   • Perceived institutional hypocrisy: The students’ statement that “A Centre built to study social inclusion is now lending its platform to someone who justifies exclusion” serves as an indicator of a disconnect between an institution’s stated mission and its actions. This perceived hypocrisy is a measure of the institution’s integrity (SDG 16) and the quality of its value-based education (Target 4.7).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: maktoobmedia.com