A university that cannot host a discussion about a book has a problem. Not with the book. With itself. JNU cancelled the booking for an event to discuss Umar Khalid’s book ‘Fractured Communities: Adivasi Histories and the Politics of Power’. The reason given: “non-disclosure of full facts.” The Dean of the School of Social Sciences approved it, then cancelled it.
Umar Khalid has been in jail for almost 6 years under UAPA without trial. The event was to mark the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. Speakers included professors, an artist, and an activist. JNU says it was not informed that the discussion would be about Khalid. The organizers say all procedures were followed and the Dean had given advice on the form. JNUSU says: “If permission was given in good faith, why cancel it now?”
This is not about one book or one person. This is about the shrinking space for debate on campus. A “democratic and decentralized institution” cannot function if permissions are granted and withdrawn overnight, without consultation.
If the concern was legal, let the courts decide. If the concern was law and order, let the administration say so. But citing “non-disclosure” after approval looks less like procedure and more like pressure. Universities are not supposed to be comfortable spaces. They are supposed to be contesting spaces. Where uncomfortable ideas are discussed, debated, and dissected. That is how students learn to think.
When an auditorium booking is cancelled a day before the event, the message is clear: certain names, certain topics are now off-limits. That does damage far beyond one evening’s program. It teaches students self-censorship.
JNU has a history of debate, dissent, and disruption. That is what makes it JNU. To protect that legacy, the administration must explain transparently why the event was cancelled and who took the final call.
A university that fears discussion, fears its own students. And a democracy that fears books, fears its own future.