Newly elected Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union President Dhananjay with other AISA members and supporters celebrating his win.
Credit: PTI Photo
Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar recently announced that a committee will be formed to study the revival of student politics in Karnataka, following a letter from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi urging the restoration of the practice.
In a similar move, the Madhya Pradesh High Court last month sought an explanation from the state government for not holding student union elections since 2017. Interestingly, 12 members of the state cabinet, including Chief Minister Mohan Yadav, his deputies Rajendra Shukla and Jagdish Deora, and the state’s four-time CM and now a union minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, have all risen from campus politics.
The Madhya Pradesh government has been delaying polls for the last eight years, citing law and order issues. Even as Higher Education Minister Inder Singh Parmar, himself a product of student politics, has promised that campus polls will return, no concrete action has been taken. Instead, the state has sought more time from the high court to file its response.
College and university unions were once seen as the first testing ground for leadership, spaces where students learned to debate, organise, campaign and understand participative democracy. Higher education institutions also served as entry points for the political socialisation of students. Yet, despite nurturing leaders who shaped policies in the nation’s formative years after Independence and led mass movements, student politics has been curtailed in many universities, often by those who once benefited from it.
India has a long history of student politics dating back to the pre-independence era, with students significantly contributing to the ideological fight against colonialism.
Philip G Altbach, a former professor at Boston College, argues in his paper Student Politics and Higher Education in India that the 1920s brought significant political and educational change in India, marked by the establishment of universities and the rise of mass movements led by the Congress under Mahatma Gandhi.
The Non-Cooperation Movement was the first major mass movement to see the participation of a large number of students. Students formed youth leagues across educational institutions, providing both ideological and popular support to the agitation.
In 1936, the All India Students’ Federation, considered the first national-level student organisation, was formed. Initially an anti-colonial movement that later adopted Marxist-Leninist principles, it not only participated in agitations but also tried to shape students’ political consciousness on national and international issues through its journal.
The student movement peaked during the Quit India Movement in 1942, with students keeping campuses closed for extended periods, mobilising masses, disrupting British administration and acting as key liaisons between underground leaders and the movement. Altbach notes that around 15,000 students were involved in daily organisational work.
In the subsequent years leading up to 1947, the movement lost its momentum, with several groups growing disillusioned with the moderate approach of the Congress. The Congress leadership also sought to curb student activism despite its glorious run.
While addressing a Students’ Congress Conference in 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru pointed out a key ‘defect’ in the student movements, favouring depoliticisation of student movements at large.
Nehru’s concern reflected an early dilemma which remains relevant even today: should universities remain protected spaces for learning or reflect the political turbulence outside? The view that politics distracted from academics and created divisions became widespread among policymakers and administrators, prompting repeated efforts to restrict student union activity.
Independence, a unifying cause
In the post-Independence era, lacking a unifying cause like Independence, student politics largely revolved around and against Nehru’s Congress party.
The 1973–74 student movements in Gujarat and Bihar marked a new phase in Indian student politics. What began as a protest against a five-paise increase in hotel mess fee quickly escalated into a broader movement against the ruling Congress. Students, rallying against corruption and inflation, demanded the resignation of Gujarat Chief Minister Chimanbhai Patel, the dissolution of the Assembly and fresh elections. Though the government initially yielded, the agitation continued to grow.
Within weeks, Bihar’s students were fiercely challenging the excesses of the state’s Congress government. Inspired by veteran socialist leader Jayaprakash Narayan, the agitation came to be known as the JP Movement and was followed by the call for Sampoorna Kranti, events that altered the nation’s political course.
The JP Movement also produced leaders who influenced Indian policies and politics for nearly half a century, including Lalu Prasad Yadav, Nitish Kumar, Sushil Kumar Modi, Ravi Shankar Prasad and Ram Vilas Paswan. But in an anti-climactic turn, Patna University Student Union (PUSU) polls were suspended during the Emergency and remained frozen for 28 years from 1984. They were finally revived in 2012 and the union is now led by an all-women panel.
Campus body elections remain banned in Karnataka, even though the state has produced leaders such as Union Minister of State Shobha Karandlaje, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, State Transport Minister Ramalinga Reddy and MLC B K Hariprasad.
Student union elections in Karnataka were banned in 1989–90 after a court ruling blamed them for caste-based violence on campuses. The suspension was justified as a measure to “keep institutions free from politics and violence.”
Karnataka is not alone; several other states, including Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh, have also imposed similar bans that have persisted irrespective of the party in power.
Plan to revive student unions
In Karnataka, the Congress-led state government is now pushing to revive student unions. “While local leaders may be less receptive of the idea, it is driven by the top leadership, mainly to cultivate grassroots leadership for the Congress, which lacks other channels, unlike the BJP, whose leaders largely emerge from the RSS,” said political strategist Venkatesh Thogarighatta.
The absence of student leadership not only weakens accountability on the campus but also creates a leadership vacuum in the broader electoral arena at the state and national level.
“Well-managed, organic student politics can cultivate strong democratic leadership. In its absence, political parties resort to indirectly supporting candidates with little leadership experience,” said political analyst Harish Ramaswamy.
He also noted that many political leaders of today who forayed into politics from campus elections had their maiden experience of political nuts and bolts from their campuses, but failed to promote their experience because of the fear of competition and their interest in self-preservation.
Thogarighatta also said that the absence of student elections has made money a primary launchpad for political leaders. “High-quality leaders usually emerge from student politics. Without it, money and political legacy take over. Student leaders know how to organise, strategise and question authority, while those without it are often manipulated by senior leaders,” he said.
The absence of campus body elections also contributes to the general apathy of urban elite voters toward democratic practices. When students do not engage in debate, campaigns or collective decision-making in college, politics starts to feel distant and irrelevant.
When elected councils address student issues and balance power dynamics with the administration, these young citizens leave institutions with renewed hope and faith in the system, fostering participative democracy.
Without unions, students rarely practice negotiation, accountability or representation — skills essential for citizenship engagement. Consequently, many enter adulthood viewing elections as occasional obligations rather than participatory rights.
Void of ideology
That said, it would be naive to assume that student politics has remained pure and pious; like mainstream politics, it has evolved. While pre-Independence politics focused on achieving freedom, ideology shaped the politics of the 1960s and 1970s, followed by identity and representation politics during the Mandir-Mandal era.
Today, student politics is increasingly driven by money, muscle power and caste pride. Explaining this, Professor Bhupinder Kumar Chaudhary, who has been teaching at Agrasen College in Delhi for over three decades, said, “Caste-based polarisation in student union polls has risen. While caste is not a new phenomenon, it has grown more aggressive in recent years, a reflection of national politics. At the same time, the void of ideology is being filled by money, muscle and caste.”
“It is basically a reflection of society. Until the 1980s, politics, both student and mainstream, revolved around ideologies like liberalism, social justice and socialism. Since then, a binary of Hindutva and secular politics has emerged, resulting in a lack of clear vision,” Ramaswamy said.
On the other hand, psephologist Sandeep Shastry noted that student organisations are increasingly acting as satellites of political parties. “Students are growing disillusioned with party politics and are more interested in non-party activism. While student bodies remain important, fostering an ecosystem of activism is crucial to building political consciousness among students,” he said.
The Lyngdoh Committee, constituted in 2005 by the Ministry of Human Resource Development following a Supreme Court order, sought to ensure order and fairness in student body elections. It laid down clear rules on expenditure caps, age limits, academic criteria and prohibited political parties from directly funding or controlling campus campaigns. Yet, these guidelines are routinely flouted across many universities.
While the committee aimed to make campus elections cleaner and more inclusive, inconsistent implementation has allowed loopholes to persist. This raises a key question: if regulations exist but are not enforced, is it logical to ban elections entirely rather than properly implement the guidelines?
“Violence in any election reflects a failure of the administration. Denying rogue elements, a platform may push them to act elsewhere, but this should not justify depriving other deserving leaders of opportunities,” said Dr Chaudhary
The challenge is to preserve the idealism of student politics while curbing its excesses. Nehru once feared the politicisation of students, but today, amid the hyperpoliticisation of syllabi, the greater risk may be their depoliticisation. A generation untrained in democratic practice risks inheriting democracy in form, but not in spirit.