<p>The Karnataka government’s move to revisit the ban on student union elections has brought back into focus an issue the state had shelved for more than three decades. Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s declaration that campus elections nurture leadership and must be reconsidered has reopened a debate that has remained dormant since the state imposed a blanket ban in 1989. </p><p>But as the government moves in this direction, it must confront the very real and troubling history that led to the prohibition in the first place. Student unions in the 1980s had ceased to be mere platforms for representation; they had become battlegrounds where political parties, caste groups, and even the underworld jostled for influence. Violence was endemic. Clashes between rival groups — often caste-aligned — disrupted classes, damaged property, and made campuses unsafe for ordinary students. The atmosphere in several leading institutions in Bengaluru and elsewhere became so vitiated that education took a backseat to mobilisation, agitation, and turf wars.</p>.<p>More worryingly, the student leadership of the era was deeply entangled with criminal networks. It was an open secret that rowdy elements funded campaigns, offered ‘protection’, and used student leaders as foot soldiers. Elections became proxy contests between gangs backed by political patrons. The triangular nexus of politician-gangster-student leader hollowed out the very idea of a representative union. It is this criminalisation — not just political activism — that ultimately compelled the government of the day to outlaw campus elections. That history should serve as a red flag as the state contemplates a return to student politics. However, while a ban may have shielded students from the worst excesses of the past, it also insulated them from democracy itself. Universities are meant to be training grounds for the future. Elections teach leadership, negotiation, public reasoning, and accountability — skills no classroom lecture can impart. The absence of a union has left students without a legitimate voice on issues affecting their academic lives.</p>.<p>The challenge, therefore, is not a simple choice between an unregulated past and an over-controlled present, but finding a workable middle path that derives the best of both. The task before the committee is to design a system that harnesses the advantages of student representation while preventing a relapse into violence and criminal patronage. This will require strict codes of conduct, limits on external political involvement, transparent funding rules, and swift disciplinary mechanisms. If the government is determined to revive campus democracy, it must tread cautiously. Karnataka should remember the havoc unions once unleashed, but it should also recognise that democracy with safeguards is better than no democracy at all.</p>
<p>The Karnataka government’s move to revisit the ban on student union elections has brought back into focus an issue the state had shelved for more than three decades. Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar’s declaration that campus elections nurture leadership and must be reconsidered has reopened a debate that has remained dormant since the state imposed a blanket ban in 1989. </p><p>But as the government moves in this direction, it must confront the very real and troubling history that led to the prohibition in the first place. Student unions in the 1980s had ceased to be mere platforms for representation; they had become battlegrounds where political parties, caste groups, and even the underworld jostled for influence. Violence was endemic. Clashes between rival groups — often caste-aligned — disrupted classes, damaged property, and made campuses unsafe for ordinary students. The atmosphere in several leading institutions in Bengaluru and elsewhere became so vitiated that education took a backseat to mobilisation, agitation, and turf wars.</p>.<p>More worryingly, the student leadership of the era was deeply entangled with criminal networks. It was an open secret that rowdy elements funded campaigns, offered ‘protection’, and used student leaders as foot soldiers. Elections became proxy contests between gangs backed by political patrons. The triangular nexus of politician-gangster-student leader hollowed out the very idea of a representative union. It is this criminalisation — not just political activism — that ultimately compelled the government of the day to outlaw campus elections. That history should serve as a red flag as the state contemplates a return to student politics. However, while a ban may have shielded students from the worst excesses of the past, it also insulated them from democracy itself. Universities are meant to be training grounds for the future. Elections teach leadership, negotiation, public reasoning, and accountability — skills no classroom lecture can impart. The absence of a union has left students without a legitimate voice on issues affecting their academic lives.</p>.<p>The challenge, therefore, is not a simple choice between an unregulated past and an over-controlled present, but finding a workable middle path that derives the best of both. The task before the committee is to design a system that harnesses the advantages of student representation while preventing a relapse into violence and criminal patronage. This will require strict codes of conduct, limits on external political involvement, transparent funding rules, and swift disciplinary mechanisms. If the government is determined to revive campus democracy, it must tread cautiously. Karnataka should remember the havoc unions once unleashed, but it should also recognise that democracy with safeguards is better than no democracy at all.</p>
