Achin Vanak’s statement at a recent event hosted by O.P. Jindal Global Law School, held in solidarity with the Palestinians, has raised eyebrows. In his speech at the university in Sonipat, Vanak drew a controversial comparison, asserting, ‘When we witness incidents like Pulwama, where soldiers lose their lives, it’s labelled as terrorism. However, when military actions occur elsewhere and bases are targeted, it somehow evades the terrorism label.’ Indirectly he went on to equate the Indian Army with groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, organizations infamous for their involvement in the 2019 attack that claimed the lives of 40 Indian soldiers.
Upon a thorough review of the event’s video footage, we, as a fact-checking platform, find it necessary to deviate from our customary approach. The subject matter at hand has the potential to influence the perspectives of numerous young minds in India. O.P. Jindal Global Law School, being an institution that imparts legal knowledge, holds a pivotal role in upholding the principles that distinguish right from wrong, and good from evil.
However, when such an “esteemed” law school hosts an event where Jihad is equated with patriotism, and where soldiers are likened to terrorists, it leaves us with no alternative but to address this matter with utmost urgency and unwavering resolve.
The event at O.P. Jindal Global Law School was hosted to show solidarity with the people of Palestine during the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel. During the event, there were presentations that included a distorted map and a fictional portrayal of Israel’s history. The event, in essence, was organized to express opposition to the state of Israel and to support the actions of Hamas on October 7th.
The event commenced with a discussion on the Israeli government’s perceived “occupation” of Palestine, framing Hamas’s actions on October 7th as an act of resistance rather than terrorism. Encouraged by the response, the guest speaker went further to draw parallels between the Indian government’s presence in Jammu and Kashmir and referred to terrorism in Kashmir as a form of resistance.
Also Read: 50 Lies Unveiled – Exposing Radical Islamists Propaganda in the Israel-Palestine Conflict
Apart from the invited guest, we also witnessed students marching with candles, openly expressing their support for the terrorist organization, Hamas. A student, holding a candle, expressed, ‘Debating the rightness or wrongness of what Hamas did seems futile and a waste of time in my opinion.’ This raises ethical questions regarding the boundaries of freedom of speech and expression. Is it morally acceptable to support an organization that has committed heinous acts, such as taking infants from their mothers’ laps and committing atrocities before them? Is it justifiable to equate our jawans with jihadists? The question arises: where does the scope of Article 19(a) end?
The case of Jindal Law School is not an isolated incident; we have previously seen similar occurrences in institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University, TISS, Jadavpur University, and many others that have cultivated communist ideologies, which can ultimately evolve into radical Islamism. Soon, supporting terrorists can become the norm.
After the deaths of individuals like Burhan Wani, Afzal Guru, and Yakub Memon, thousands of Islamists gathered in their support. While one might attribute this to an illiterate crowd, the students of Jindal Law School should not be excused on grounds of illiteracy.
When we examine the pattern of sympathizing with and supporting terrorists, it often begins with the normalization of terrorist acts. Subsequently, individuals may become inspired by terrorist organizations, leading to further radicalization. We’ve witnessed a similar trend in the radicalization of European teenage girls, drawing them into the fold of ISIS. In India, this influence is wielded by Western commentators and universities that promote such ideologies. For instance, prestigious institutions like Harvard recently passed a resolution in support of Hamas. Many students may have blindly signed it, while others did so knowingly. This influence is gradually seeping into Indian society.
In the realm of liberal education, it is a disconcerting observation that students at Jindal Law School may, in reality, manifest tendencies that lean far from liberalism. Their track record suggests that some among them exhibit uncouth behavior and harbor sentiments that are perceived as anti-Hindu and anti-India. They appear predisposed to oppose ideas that do not readily align with their worldview.
Notably, this group of elite students seems to have been profoundly influenced to the point where they may exhibit resistance to logic and facts. For instance, when attempting to engage in discussions about the historical context of Israel, they may display selective deafness, emphasizing events postdating 1948 while overlooking any historical narratives that predate this pivotal year. This tendency extends to domestic matters as well, such as the origin of the Gujarat riots. Presenting them with a comprehensive fact, which includes the Godhra train burning incident by an Islamist mob, may lead them to dismissively label the presenter as a ‘bhakt.’
Interestingly, in the pursuit of knowledge beyond Indian borders, these students often turn to left-leaning Western commentators. Conversely, when the subject matter pertains to domestic affairs, they are inclined to align with Indian Islamist left-leaning perspectives. Paradoxically, while they may perceive themselves as possessing open and liberal minds, they might inadvertently find themselves restrained by the chains of Islamist ideology, secured with the key of communism.
When considering the factors that may have led to the influence of certain ideologies within the Jindal educational institutions, it’s worth highlighting that the Chancellor of O.P. Jindal Law School, Naveen Jindal, has a political background as a former member of the Indian National Congress (INC) party. It should be noted that the INC stance may align with certain philosophies, including those associated with groups like Hamas. This alignment, in turn, may be reflected in the school’s position.
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that Naveen Jindal is facing allegations related to the coal scam, with serious charges under IPC 420. The connections and associations between individuals and political parties can sometimes influence the perspective of an educational institution.
It’s important to address the concerns raised by the recent events at Jindal Law School. The students’ display of solidarity with Hamas raises the question of whether they might extend their support to organizations like Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad. As esteemed guests endorse suicide bombers, labelling their actions as acts of determination, it raises the question of what might prevent law graduates from venerating figures such as Adil Ahmad Dar.
Conclusion:
In a world where such ideas are perpetuated, there’s a hope that the government will take measures to hold professors and experts accountable for not propagating personal inclinations towards terrorism to young, impressionable minds. It’s essential to ensure that educational institutions maintain a responsible and unbiased environment, free from the glorification of extremist ideologies.
Also Read: Did Israel Really Drop a Lethal White Phosphorus Bomb at Shati Refugee Camp? Read Full Report
