Kanhaiya Kumar: The Political Pendulum and Democratic Expression

Kanhaiya Kumar, the President of the Students' Union of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), has stirred up a political storm in India with his actions and words. His rise to prominence was a response to the political environment in which he found himself, marked by the left parties' expectations and his personal ambitions.

Origins and Political Status

Before the JNU incident, little was known about Kanhaiya Kumar in India. The political status of a JNSU president is seldom recognized outside the institution. He belongs to a specific caste and is associated with a party that is in decline. With his peripatetic change in allegiance, he sought to align himself with more favorable currents, but it seems his journey is fraught with challenges.

Though he has a PhD from the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), it is unclear if he holds a job worthy of his qualifications. In this context, his political future appears bleak for an extended period, regardless of how hard he tries. Yet, there is always a chance for a comeback in politics, as illustrated by numerous examples where politicians have risen from a similar background.

Support for Kanhaiya Kumar

The question of who supports Kanhaiya Kumar and why is complex. It is evident that not every true Indian supports him, citing anti-national sentiments. However, a significant number of people support him because they believe in the rightness of his points.

During the 2016 JNU elections, Kanhaiya Kumar’s AISA candidates successfully won all the seats. This suggests that the real support for him lies in the rightness of his arguments, not in his political aspirations or affiliations. The people supporting him are exercising their democratic right to express themselves, which is a fundamental aspect of Indian democracy.

Media and Political Manipulation

The media plays a significant role in shaping public opinion. Certain sections of the media have manufactured support for Kanhaiya Kumar, portraying him as a beacon of freedom of expression. However, his political stance is more aligned with a tactical move than an ideological one. His speeches on live TV were filled with exaggerated claims and theatrical performances, which drew initial support. However, his lack of substance and pseudo-patriotic rhetoric make his support base questionable.

Support for Kanhaiya Kumar is not about blindly following a political figure; it is about expressing one's opinion in a democratic society. While many Indians support him, this does not mean they agree with his means or methods. The diversity of opinions in a country of 1.2 billion people is a testament to the beauty of Indian democracy.

Conclusion

India’s democratic landscape is marked by a wide range of political ideologies and personal expressions. The rise and challenges faced by Kanhaiya Kumar reflect the complexities of Indian politics and society. While his temporary political stronghold is interesting, his future remains uncertain and indicative of the delicate balance of power in a democracy.