While acknowledging the choice of the mode of election inherent with the university autonomy, the committee suggests four models of elections.

It observes, “Organizations like NSUI, ABVP, AISF, SFI, etc…had a tendency, more often than not, to unnecessarily politicize the election process. The involvement of these organizations in student elections leads to the creation of rival factions within the students, which in turn leads to the subservience of the ultimate goal of democratic student representation”. So, according to the Committee, ‘democratic student representation’ has nothing to do with the political views or choices of the students! In keeping with this view, the Committee states that the “primary function of a university is after all education, not political indoctrination”, and that students are entitled to only a “certain basic standard of teaching and infrastructure”.

The Committee laments, “Gone are the days when the student movement was an integral cog in the Satyagraha machine” and observes that universities have instead become “feeder devices” for political parties. In the same vein, “disrupting” or “missing” classes is the ultimate crime in the Lyngdoh Committe’s eyes..

In addition to this, the Constitution guarantees all citizens with the following fundamental rights under Article 19 (1)(a) to freedom of speech and expression;(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms; (c) to form associations or unions. The Constitution itself clarifies that “the State shall not make any law which takes away or abridges the rights conferred by this Part (Part III of the Constitution which explains the fundamental rights) and any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void”.

They also have the right to belong to political parties.

Tania Kahlon

[Image source:http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0dRc5e07MZ2ol/610x.jpg]