The HAU Student Movement 2025: A Historic Triumph of Unity and Resolve in Haryana

    On the night of July 1, 2025, the weeks-long students 'agitation at Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (HAU), Hisar, ended in triumph. After 21 days of disciplined protest, the students secured a written agreement from the university authorities restoring stipend/merit scholarships and Land Donation Villages (LDV) seats to their previous status, along with assurances of action against those responsible for assaulting peaceful demonstrators.

This victory is far more than an administrative concession—it is a powerful testament to the unity, courage, and democratic resolve of Haryana’s student community. It is also a milestone in the long and often turbulent history of student movements in the state.

Historical Context: Student Movements in Haryana

Haryana has a rich tradition of student activism dating back to the pre-independence era, when students took part in the freedom struggle. Post-independence, student movements continued to shape the state’s social and political fabric.

The Emergency period (1975–77) stands out as a defining moment: students across Haryana mobilized to resist authoritarianism and defend civil liberties. A strong movement under the banner of Haryana Students Union (HSU) spearheaded in the state under the dynamic leadership of Prithvi Singh Gorkhpuria, Shradhanand Solanki, Balbir Dahia and many other students leaders of different degree colleges and the universities. The protests against emergency and curb on civil liberties were led by Inderjeet Singh and Mahabir Narwal. Both these students leaders were arrested during the emergency and imprisoned for 18 months. In the first direct election held for students council, Inderjeet Singh elected its first president. He was later expelled from the university and he joined the people’s movement and he is now a distinguished Farmers leader who led the farmers of Haryana at Tikri Border against three draconian laws against the farmer community. Phool Singh Seokand was another prominent student leader pre-1980. He later on led a strong movement of employees of Haryana in 1987 and taken fast unto death for more than 55 days for the rights and genuine issues of employees. He is now a prominent Kisan leader of Haryana.  

In the 1980s and 90s, HAU itself became a crucible of student politics. Agitations for better scholarships, improved hostel facilities, and employment opportunities left a lasting imprint on campus culture. Virender Malik, O.P. Sihag, Bijender Sharma—emerged from these struggles, going on to play important roles in Haryana’s politics and public life. Historically, such movements drew strength from cross-caste solidarity and a shared student identity. While Haryana’s social fabric is complex and sometimes fractured along caste lines, its student movements have often transcended these divisions in the pursuit of common goals.

The 2025 HAU Agitation: Sparks and Spread and assault

The 2025 protest was triggered by students’ anger over the withdrawal or dilution of stipends/merit scholarships and the reduction of LDU seats—changes that disproportionately impacted economically weaker students and those from farming backgrounds.

A critical moment came when university security guards and some teachers assaulted students during their peaceful sit-in. Instead of intimidating the movement, this violence galvanized the students further, sparking outrage across the campus and beyond.

The administration’s response throughout was marked by evasion and pressure. Rather than engaging sincerely, it sought to divide, demoralize, and exhaust the protesters. The use of physical force and attempts to delay negotiations underscored a strategy of attrition rather than resolution.

After their peaceful representations were ignored, students launched an indefinite sit-in on June 10, 2025, determined to force the administration to restore their entitlements.

Unlike older movements often led by experienced union leaders, this agitation had no formal leadership at the outset. Its most remarkable feature was its organic, decentralized leadership. Young students learned on the ground—developing negotiation strategies, coordinating protests, and maintaining cohesion despite sustained pressure.

Resisting Divide-and-Rule Tactics

Perhaps the most instructive aspect of the 2025 movement was the way it confronted and overcame efforts to divide it along caste lines.

With the University’s Vice-Chancellor hailing from an OBC community, some attempted to brand the protest as “anti-OBC.” Had such narratives taken root, they might have fractured student unity along Haryana’s deeply entrenched social divisions which already charged after Jat Reservation Movement.

Instead, students showed striking maturity and clarity. They consistently asserted that their demands were purely academic and economic. They refused to allow anyone to communalize or caste-brand their protest. In doing so, they reasserted a universal student identity and demonstrated how disciplined communication and solidarity can defeat divide-and-rule politics.

This is a vital lesson for all popular movements in India today: unity on issues must override cynical attempts to sow division.

Broad-Based Support: Political, Social, and Legal

While students led the movement on the ground, they were not alone. Various social and political organizations provided critical moral, logistical, and media support.

The students organization of the students like SFI, AISA, NSUI, students wing of JJP and INLD extended their support to the the agitation and organized demonstration in different districts and campuses of the universities. The president of DUSU, students leaders from Ambedkar University and JNU visited the dharna site to extend their support. It was the breathing to the otherwise dying students movement in Haryana and will long way in connecting the students across the universities and colleges of the Haryana.  

Farmers and Employees Union come forward to support the agitation. In fact most of the students hail from rural Haryana and so, farmers and employees were deeply concerned as the students are their wards. Farmers with students organized a Nyaya Panchayat at the sit-in site.

Political parties except the ruling party whelm support this agitation by visiting the dhrana site and made this atrocities and assault on the students a state’s burning issue.

A significant role was played by the District Bar Association, Hisar, whose members offered legal aid to protect students from arbitrary disciplinary action and police intervention. Their involvement underscored the movement’s legal legitimacy and helped prevent repression.

Equally important was the support from HAU alumni, many of whom are now professionals across India and abroad. Former students offered solidarity, helped with strategy and fund raising, and reminded current students that they were part of a proud tradition of struggle and achievement.

Former Student Leaders: Rekindling a Legacy

Veteran student leaders of HAU—like Inderjeet Singh, Phool Singh Seokand, Virender Malik, O.P. Sihag, Bijender Sharma, and others—openly backed the movement. The other students leaders of yesteryear of Hisar and rest of Haryana come forward to support this movement which was emerged after 1996 on ban of elections of students council.

Their support was invaluable. It not only offered public legitimacy to the agitation but also provided institutional memory of how earlier movements had succeeded. Their messages reinforced morale at critical moments and helped prevent fragmentation or despair. Such inter-generational solidarity is a defining strength of Haryana’s student politics.

Role of HAUTA: A disgusting attitude

    Teacher-taught relationship has been great camaraderie of the HAU. Students and teachers of this university have always shown a great affinity and support to each other for the demands of each other, today's teacher was yesteryear student and has spent almost 8-10 years as student in the campus. Before an issue is raised and raked up, it has already been discussed in the informal manner in their day to day interactions. Unfortunately, the HAUTA not only remained aloof from this movement rather, aligned with the authorities to suppress and break the morale of the students. Office bearers of HAUTA were explicitly hand in glove with the authorities. It is more glaring to note that some of the teachers were involved in the attack on the students. The convention of long organic association of teachers was deliberately sabotaged by the vested interests who are at the helms of affair of the present day HAUTA. Although, its not surprising either as the HAUTA is represented by the elements who were never active in the students movements of their time and mostly remained docile. Interestingly, Teachers, Association of Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (LUVAS) which is led by a former student leader, Dr. Ashok Malik not only vocally support the agitation but also remain with the students during the whole process of agitation. Although some teachers of HAU in their individual capacity come forward to extend their all out support to the students. This new development of opposing a genuine protest spearheaded by the students by the HAUTA is a blot on the teachers of the HAU. Moreover, the Deans and Directors who have been the students of this very university failed to intervene constructively to resolve the impasse rather, plaint this movement as driven by the outside forces. They ostensibly sided with authorities to curb this democratic movement, which emerged because of attack on protesting students for their genuine issues.       

The Role of Government

Initially, the government seemed content to let the university administration manage the situation—even as it involved ignoring demands and using force against students.

Ultimately, however, sustained peaceful protest, legal pressure, and public support forced the administration to negotiate seriously. A ministerial committee of three ministers headed by Education Minister, Mahipal Dhanda was constituted to negotiate with agitating students, committee reached an agreement and announced in the media of resolution of the demands of the agitating students but didn’t release the agreement, in the line of old tactics of the present day dispensation who rules the state. Rather, handing over the written agreement, students were pressurized to vacate the dharna site, girls were seized in their hostels and basic amenities like food and water were curtailed. Under the new duress, farmers and students with the support of political parties and other social organizations announced to block all the four gates of university on 2nd July. Sensing the deterioration of law and order and diminishing prestige of the government, another round of negotiation initiated and Randhir Panihar, MLA was tasked to announce the agreement amongst the students on dharna site and a written orders were handed to the students in which major demands were accepted except removal of the Vice Chancellor. The resulting written agreement is a testament to the power of democratic mobilization.

This episode should serve as a lesson to all educational institutions and the state: dialogue and empathy must replace repression and evasion when students raise legitimate grievances.

Victory and Its Meaning

The final written settlement promises:
✅ Restoration of stipend/merit scholarships
✅ Restoration of LDV seats
✅ Action against those responsible for the assault on students

The students secured the restoration of stipend/merit scholarships and Land Donation Villages (LDV) seats as before, along with suspension of Sukhbir Singh, Security Officer, Transfer of Director Students welfare and other teachers who were involved in whole episode were transferred to some other places. However, the demand of removal of Vice Chancellor and  criminal proceedings against Registrar were not heeded upon. This culmination marks not only the resolution of pressing demands but also a significant milestone in the long, often turbulent, history of student movements in Haryana.

This victory is a clear vindication of the students’ demands and methods. It also stands as a warning against any future attempt to roll back student welfare measures without consultation.

More broadly, it reasserts the principle that student voices matter—and that attempts to ignore or suppress them will ultimately fail.

Lessons for the Future

The 2025 HAU student movement offers vital lessons for Haryana and beyond:

i. Leadership can emerge organically from the struggle itself

ii. Attempts to divide students on caste lines can be defeated through clear communication and disciplined unity.

iii. Broad community support—from alumni, lawyers, civil society—can transform a campus protest into a people’s movement.

iv. Inter-generational solidarity among past and present students is a powerful force.

v. This movement will inspire students across Haryana to recognize their collective strength and assert their rights fearlessly. It also exposes the limitations of “divide-and-rule” strategies that have too often blunted popular movements.

It is to be seen how the students of HAU payback this vital support they received from the different quarters and segments of the society. It is expected that they will support the genuine movements of students elsewhere in the state in particular and other organizations like farmers and employees in general.

The Challenge Ahead

With the agreement signed, the next task is ensuring its full and timely implementation. Students and their allies will need to remain vigilant, ensuring no participant faces retaliation and that promised actions are not diluted or delayed.

The students of HAU have set a new standard of courage, unity, and democratic discipline. Their example will inspire the next generation of leaders and ensure Haryana’s proud tradition of vibrant, principled student activism not only survives but thrives.

The importance of the election of the students council was raised by the former students leaders to formulate a vibrant platform for raising the common issues of the students and open a channel for taking up the genuine issues of the students to the authorities early and in appropriate manner. The basic issue although subsided in the din of charter of demands, but there is no permanent rectification until students councils are not constituted through the process of elections, democratically like in PU, JNU and DU. The gain of the today’s will not last long rather falter sooner in absence of the organized elected students councils. It is a new hope and bigger challenge before the students to think over it, organize and develop a concerted demand for the direct elections of the students council from the next session which is about to commence. The only long term solution for reckoning of the genuine issues warranted a strong student body in each and every campus across the Haryana.    

Bravo to these young fighters who paved the way. Their struggle proves once again: just demands, pursued with unity and conviction, will always find victory.

 

 

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU): A Legacy of Agricultural Excellence and Student Struggle; pinnacle to perils

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University (CCSHAU), Hisar, stands as a pivotal institution in India's agricultural landscape, born from the bifurcation of the erstwhile Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) in 1970. This detailed note traces its origins, achievements, role in national food security, the genesis and evolution of student movements within its campus, and the recent incident highlighting the need for student elections.  

Establishment and Earlier Origin

CCSHAU was established on February 2, 1970, through a Presidential Ordinance, later ratified by the Haryana and Punjab Agricultural Universities Act, 1970. This marked its separation from Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, following the formation of the state of Haryana in 1966. Its roots, however, are intertwined with the broader history of agricultural research and education in the region, which gained momentum in the post-independence era with a focus on self-sufficiency in food production. The university was named after India's seventh Prime Minister, Chaudhary Charan Singh, in recognition of his immense contribution to the welfare of farmers.  

Achievements in Agricultural Research and Food Production

HAU, since its inception, has been a beacon of agricultural innovation. Its contributions have been instrumental in transforming Haryana into a leading agricultural state and a significant contributor to the national food pool. Key achievements include:

Development of High Yielding Varieties (HYVs): 

HAU has consistently developed and released numerous HYVs of various crops, including wheat, rice, pearl millet, pulses (like moong bean MH-1142), and oilseeds, fruits and vegetables These varieties are characterized by their superior yield potential, disease resistance, and adaptability to local agro-climatic conditions. This relentless pursuit of genetic improvement has directly led to increased per-acre yields for farmers.  As per the variety cover published by Director Research, more than 265 varieties of different crops have been released by the HAU of the crops like Wheat (22), Barley (8), Rice (11), Pearl Millet (21), Maize (27) Oil seeds Crops (9 Crops, Indian Mustard (15), Rapeseed (Toria) (2), Taramira (1),  Til (Sesame) (2),Castor (1), Sunflower (2), Yellow Sarson (2), Brown Sarson (1) Groundnut (3) Pulse Crops (8 Crops)  Kabuli Chickpea (3), Desi (Brown) Chickpea (9), Fieldpea (8), Lentil(3), Mung Bean (7), Pigeonpea (2),  Urd Bean (1, Cotton (23), Sugarcane (7), Forage Crops (8 Crops) 40,  Medicinal & Aromatic Plants (7 Crops) 32 Vegetable Crops (16 Crops) and  Horticulture crops (2 Crops) 4. The most notable varieties developed by the university which contributed largely in green revolution and in improving the production at farmers’ field are C-306, WH-147, WH-157, WH-283, WH-291, WH 416, WH-533 and WH-542 of wheat, BG-105, BG-25 and BG-175 of barley,Haryana Basmati No.1 , Taraori Basmati and HSD-1 of rice, HC-4, HC-10, HC-20, HHB-60, HHB-67 and HHB-68 of bajra, RH-30, Prakash, Sangam of rapeseed and mustard, HK-1, HK-4, HK-4 of kabuli chana, C-235, H-355, H-208, Gora Hisari and Gaurav of chick pea, DS-1, DS-5, H-777 of cotton, Hisar Safeda and Hisar Surkha of guava are a few of the long list.

Development of Package of Practices: Beyond HYVs, HAU has focused on comprehensive "package of practices" for crop production. This includes optimized recommendations for sowing time, spacing, nutrient management (fertilizers), irrigation schedules, pest and disease control, and post-harvest management. These integrated practices have empowered farmers with scientific knowledge, leading to efficient resource utilization and higher profitability.  

Contribution to the National Food Pool: 

Haryana, heavily influenced by HAU's research and extension activities, has consistently been a top contributor to the central food grain pool of India, especially in wheat and rice. This surplus production has been crucial in ensuring national food security and self-reliance.

Role in Green and White Revolution

HAU played a pivotal role in both the Green and White Revolutions in India:

 Green Revolution: The university was a frontline institution in disseminating Green Revolution technologies, particularly the HYVs of wheat and rice, along with the associated package of practices. Its research, extension, and training programs effectively transferred scientific knowledge from lab to land, enabling farmers to adopt new cultivation methods. This led to a dramatic increase in food grain production, saving India from widespread famine and establishing it as a food-secure nation.  

White Revolution: While primarily an agricultural university focusing on crop production, HAU also contributed to the White Revolution through research in animal husbandry, dairy science, and fodder development. Its efforts supported improved livestock breeds and management practices, which are integral to a holistic agricultural economy and dairy development.  

Role of A.L. Fletcher in Establishing an Institution of Eminence

The first Vice-Chancellor of HAU, A.L. Fletcher, played a crucial role in laying the foundation for an institution of eminence. His visionary leadership was instrumental in shaping the university's initial structure, recruiting talented faculty, and establishing research and academic programs that quickly gained national recognition. He provided the necessary direction and administrative framework for HAU to emerge as a leading agricultural university.  

Role of Subsequent Vice Chancellors

Subsequent Vice-Chancellors have built upon this strong foundation, further cementing HAU's position in the broader spectrum of Indian universities. Their contributions have included: Expansion of research facilities: Investing in modern laboratories, experimental farms, and research centers, diversification of academic programs: Introducing new courses and disciplines to meet evolving agricultural needs, strengthening extension services: Enhancing outreach programs to ensure research findings reach farmers effectively, fostering collaborations: Forging partnerships with national and international institutions for advanced research and student exchange and securing accreditation and rankings: Ensuring high standards of education and research, as evidenced by its 'A+' grade from NAEB (ICAR) and high rankings in NIRF.  

Eminent Scientists of HAU with their Contribution

HAU has been home to many distinguished scientists who have made significant contributions to agricultural science. One notable figure is Late Rao Bahadur Dr. Ram Dhan Singh, an outstanding plant breeder whose work laid the strong foundation for crop improvement programs in Haryana and Punjab. Even before HAU's establishment, his development of famous Punjab wheat varieties like C-518 and C-591, and later C-253, C-273, C-281, and C-285, was crucial. He also contributed to rice and pulse varieties. His legacy continues to inspire generations of agricultural scientists at HAU. While specific detailed lists of other eminent scientists from the university are extensive, the focus has consistently been on crop breeding, soil science, entomology, plant pathology, and agricultural engineering, leading to practical solutions for farmers. Dr. M.S. Swaminathan (Visiting), Dr. VS Tomar, Dr. RS Paroda, Dr. SS Dahiya and many others have contributed significantly to raise the prestige of the university through their pioneer work in the field of agriculture sciences.

Teachers and students are the integral part of any institution, without the live contact and contribution of either, no institution can progress and earn a name for itself. The students of today are the teachers of tomorrow and there is need to inculcate values of rationality, right thinking, scientific temper and conscience of their rights and need space for themselves to raise the issues and concerns affecting the interests and rights. Neither administration and nor teachers can be allowed to take decisions for them unilaterally. There is always a need to understand the minds of the students, how they think for their welfare and rights, how much space has been provided to vent their ire and voices, how much the administration is prepared to provide a platform for their just and Democratic rights.

When the university was in its early period in developing in a center of learning and eminence, the authorities of that time taken the students as a herd and meek toll of students, and started taking the decisions without involving the students in those decisions. The authorities failed to understand the need and concerns of the students which are affecting them directly or indirectly. AL Flecher, the first Vice Chancellor of the university who was known for his engineering skills and vision failed to understand that the most of the students in the university comes from the rural Haryana and their thinking and understanding  about the society and its development is altogether different to a man of Ango-Indian origin. When he decided to organize a beauty contest in early 70’s, was not gone appropriately with the students and they opposed his move vehemently and made him to abrogate his idea. Here, it is worth to note that students of that era were not against the progress and new things but these can not be rolled out for one’s whim and wishes. This was the first instance of opposition of a decision that was unilaterally taken by the Vice Chancellor.  From here only, a sense of organization developed amongst the students to have an elected students council which have a right to   take up the issues of students with authority. In the absence of such a body, it was not possible for the students to put forward their demands with the authority. This demand of elected students body with time become shriller and loud. It was the crucial period of pre-emergency, when there was immense resentment amongst the students for their genuine and important issues across the country and the government at that time was highly authoritative. Although there was lack of organization in the campus but the influence of the voice rising outside the campus gripped the psyche of the students to have their elected body.

Genesis of Student Movement in the Campus

After the establishment of the new university, students of the university realized that there is need of an independent forum for the students through which they can raise their genuine and day to day issues before the authorities, in absence of the cognizant platform, students were unable to flag even the trivial   issues like mess, facilities in hostels, fee structure. 70’s is that period which witnessed deprivation of common rights and hegemony of the administration. At the center, dictatorial tendencies of Indira Gandhi and at the level of state, power was in the hand of Bansi Lal, an autocratic Chief Minister. Students all over India were opposing the autocracy in the universities colleges and getting themselves organized. In Haryana, a strong student movement under the banner of Haryana Students’ Union (HSU)was rising under the leadership of Prithvi Singh Gorkhpuria in Kurukshetra University which was spreading across Haryana like a wild fire. The other prominent leaders were Balbir Dahiya,Shardhanand Solanki, Krishan Swaroop and many others. At the national, in late 1970, AISF was vertically split and a new students organization came into existence, the influence of which  reached in Haryana and in the HAU. Student leaders like Inderjeet Singh, Mahabir Narwal taken the baton in their hands and organized the students under the banner of SFI who were activist of Haryana Students Union (HSU). Sooner, emergency was imposed in the India and leaders of political parties opposed to congress were put in jails across the Haryana. Inderjeet Singh and Mahabir Narwal, two prominent leaders of the HAU were arrested and put in the jail for 18 months. On revocation of the emergency, government changed at the national and state level. HSU was affiliated with SFI. Election of the students council were held across the Haryana, including HAU. Inderjeet Singh was the first elected president of HAU students union.Under his dynamic leadership and amiable behavior, relentless zeal to fight for the cause of the students, he become a leading force in student movement not only in HAU but across the Haryana. HAU become a hub of democratic, student oriented politics and ideological discourse. As happens in every sphere, an opposition to SFI ideology, more centred around opposition to its leaders, emerged and called themselves as “Anti-comrade”to avoid the discourse on issues, philosophy and plan and manifesto to tackle the problems of students which spearheaded by the leadership of SFI. This new grouping with roots in caste, region and opposition to leadership of SFI, become a strong pole of students politics in the campus. In early years, this grouping was not much influenced by outside political considerations except its leaders and was majorly a student agglomeration raised on the popular slogan of “Anti-comrade”. In 1987,Lok Dal came into power in the state and visible intervention of the party become a order of students politics in the campus. The candidates used to pick by their political bosses and with that advent of violence in the campus to sabotage the influence of the SFI.The prominent and torch bearer against the emergency and pioneer in founding SFI in HAU stated on completion of 50 years of SFI:

“My life and struggles under SFI banner : Inderjit Singh.
I first joined Haryana Students Union popularly known as HSU sometime in 1972 while studying at Haryana Agriculture University, Hisar. HSU later got SFI affiliation came to be known as HSU (SFI). Late Com. Prithvi Singh was one of the leading students leaders of Haryana after having expelled from Kurukshetra University University who started organizing students in Haryana on the issues of employment, cheaper education, students participation in decision making bodies etc .
It was under SFI motivation that we raised and fought for the issue of recognized students Unions and succeeded. I was elected it's first President in 1974 .
‌It was the period United struggles of school and college teachers, employees against onslaught on democratic right which were closely backed by Delhi University Teachers Association and all India SFI.
These rising struggles often met with police repressions and victimizations and so was the determined resistance.
This phase could not last long and Emergency was declared in June 1975.
Some of us were detained under Draconian acts like MISA while other activists had to work underground for months.
Finally , Emergency was lifted and restoration of democracy became the main issue. Later in 1979 I was reelected students union President. In subsequent decades students repeatedly elected SFI candidates as their leaders mainly for their firm commitment towards struggles on the issues of students community and solidarity with other sections of society.
The other thing that we learnt under SFI perspective was that education system needed a radical change to make it really pro -people. And also that change in education system was itself integrally linked to radical change of the socio-economic system.
This enlightenment actually led us join the democratic movement as a whole timer to work on trade union, Kisan front as well as to serve as a political activist with CPI(M). Many of the boys and girls later went on to play very leading roles in building democratic movement in Haryana in various leading position even today.
I feel proud to be with SFI that continue to be one of the biggest fighting organization of Indian students for the past 50 years with many of its martyrs who sacrificed their precocious lives fighting for the highest values of humanity. I also do feel specially proud that it was SFI that bestowed on me the real meaning how best one should live one's life.”

Erosion of influence of SFI in HAU:

Any movement which lacks the continuous growth in terms of ideology, bulge in strength, good clear headed principled leadership, management of inherent contradictions, compromise with principles under the influence of pressure groups,  fail to understanding the changing scenario around and to develop potent capacity to fight with new challenges, is bound to falter sooner or later. There might be numerous other reasons those can be assigned to the downfall but chiefly SFI’s decline can be traced in to not continuity of the ideological strong leadership, depletion in the strength post Mandal Commission Movement which was vehemently opposed by the SFI on the ground of its principles which was a correct line in that particular situation but it affected the organization unfavorably, the student community in the campus was vertically divided in pro-Mandal and against Mandal. The strength of the SFI lies in a significant forward caste of students belonging to central Haryana and good chunk of scheduled castes. The fallacy of this agitation resulted into forward gone with forward and backward gone with backward. A limited students remains with SFI who are ideologically associated with the organization but they failed to break the newly formed  line of thought despite having strong pro-students policies and programmes. The first line leadership has shifted its base outside the campus given their advance age and entered in their own family, the second rank leadership based in hotels was neither that much competent, nor had big influence amongst the students. Besides it, the murder of Sube Singh in 1989 who was a college unit president, and bother of earlier HAUSU president, Phool Singh and comes from a forward caste, was also an effective bridge between loyal leadership and followers and caste based opportunistic group having a loose association with SFI. The murder was not a result of the strong opposite group rather hooligans having roots in anti-SFI group.  This has shattered a popular view of protection of weaker section of students. Moreover, in election of 1989, SFI leadership failed to stick with its basic principle that leadership of the HAUSU will be given to the hardcore leaders. Although SFI won the election for the opposition of violence by general students, but failed to garner the strength as leader chosen was highly opportunistic and without having ideological leaning to the organization and sided with the authorities against the stance of the SFI to oppose the authorities for its decisions. From here erosion taken a shape of landslide and tormented the structure of the organization. Another major reason for slide was introduction of new streams of four year programme for undergraduate agriculture course that permitted the corrosion of rural area students and the breed of this stream introduced the highly formal, devoid of sense of aligning with organization and its ideology, sycophants and wicked, for whom their interest was the only priority, this new transition of the framework of students community infested the organization of a malaise of typical kind and generate a new leadership who choose to please the traditional leadership. At the same time old guard which was expected to organize the students on SFI’s principles sided with the authority for their vested interests and dug the death knell on the chest of organization.

Host-parasite dichotomy: 

This new genesis lead to a typical unilateralism in campus, the time old principled students politics given the way for who is more closer to authorities. This new brand of students politics given a way to attrition of sentiments and strength to anti-SFI group, this group too lose its potency which was basically comes from opposition of the SFI. Now, there remains nothing to oppose and the might of this group disintegrated into pieces. The equation can be understand best by dichotomy horizontal resistance concept of host-parasite relationship where both are dependent on each other for survival compromising a limited loss of both i.e. both counters each other acting as a check to maintain balance in the relationship. But here, SFI leadership adopted polymorphism and changed the colour to deceive the opponent, although survived for few years but become cause of death of both. And ultimately student movement bade its adieu in 1996 with no opposition from either of the group. The obituary was written with no reader to read it.

Obituary of student movement: 

The great and eminent history that was written during the pre-emergency period which was centered around students participation in general academic and social issues, influenced by the national student awakening of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Demands revolved around academic reforms, infrastructure, and student welfare. During Emergency (1975-1977)saw widespread suppression of civil liberties and dissent across India. Student movements, if any, would have been severely curtailed. Public protests and organized opposition were largely stifled, and student leaders faced significant risks of arrest and disciplinary actions.The post-Emergency period witnessed a resurgence of student activism. Universities, including HAU, became important sites for voicing dissent against authoritarian tendencies and demanding democratic rights. Students often agitated for greater autonomy, fair administrative practices, and improved facilities. Issues like fee hikes, scholarship policies, and examination reforms were common triggers for protests.   The vibrant and principled movement  was buried in 1996 by cumulative of effort of both the groups. It take just 20 years to reach the pinnacle to perils. The movement developed by leaders like Inderjeet Singh, Mahabir Narwal, Phool Singh, Virender Malik on one hand and sustained by opposite group under in the names of different leaders prominently; OP Sihag, Kuldeep Deswal, Naresh Yadav, KP, Singh, Rajender Sharma and Bijender Sharma whose plank was anti-SFI and sought solace in the laps of political masters but they were die hard opposed to SFI and perpetuated this notion of anti-SFI in their own way which was pivotal for existence of two opposite notions.  

State of Affairs of Students' Condition, Demands and Role of Authorities in Curbing Voice

Students at HAU, like their counterparts elsewhere, have consistently raised concerns about their living and academic conditions. Common demands have included: Scholarship policies: Ensuring adequate and timely financial aid, hostel facilities: Improving living conditions, mess services, and sanitation, academic infrastructure: Access to well-equipped labs, libraries, and classrooms, examination reforms: addressing issues related to exam scheduling, evaluation, and transparency, employment opportunities: seeking better career counseling and placement support and democratic spaces: demanding the right to unionize, conduct elections, and express dissent freely.

The role of authorities in curbing student voices has often been a point of contention. While universities need to maintain discipline and academic decorum, instances of heavy-handedness, lack of dialogue, and suppression of peaceful protests have been reported. This can involve disciplinary actions, suspension of students, deployment of security forces, and a general reluctance to engage in meaningful negotiations with student representatives.  

Present Day Situation after 10th June Incident of Brutality on Students

The recent June 10th incident at CCSHAU, where students protesting changes in scholarship policy norms and LDV (land donor village) seats were subjected to lathi-charge by university security staff, is a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges in student-administration relations. Reports indicate that over 20 students were injured, with some sustaining serious head injuries. This incident has led to: widespread condemnation from students, alumni, and political leaders, demands for accountability, including the immediate removal of the Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, and Chief Security Officer, allegations of an undeclared state of emergency on campus, with restrictions on student movement and assembly, the university initially claimed demands were met, but students rejected this, citing a lack of written assurance and continued protest, legal action against some university officials. This incident underscores a breakdown in communication and trust between the students and the university administration. It highlights the urgent need for a more democratic and transparent mechanism for addressing student grievances.

The situation after 30 years hiatus of organized students movement in HAU and in Haryana has posed serious challenges before the students. The today’s situation is altogether different from the 1970’s when this university experienced the genesis of organized students movement. The socio-political situation was quite different at that time, students struggle was common spectacle in those days because of popular unrest amongst the students across India. The political spectrum complete contrast, now the divisive forces are running the state and national governments which are master in diabolical designs and propaganda and master of tactics in breaking the unity on the grounds of religion and castes, these dispensation is brazenly naked in sabotage any movement that center around genuineness and have potential of uniting all segments of the society. It has onslaught the democratic movement of students in Jawahar Lal Nehru University (JNU)  and Jamia Milia Islamia University students agitation in Delhi on religion. Here too in Haryana they come out with their time tested weapon of caste to fragment the unity of students and to protect their protégé, without hearing the genuine demands of students. Past is a mirror image that cant be emulated as such rather have to have adopt the ways, means and tactics of today’s establishment. The fight is more challenging and arduous in absence of trained and experienced leadership. The administration and authorities are hell bent upon to malign this agitation as if spearheaded by the political parties and other social groups which are against the government. Students who are leading this protest need to understand this design of the government and have to have maintain their patience, integrity and will to fight. It is known to the world, struggles breed the leadership and this present day struggle of the students with all hope and possibility will able to emerge with a potent leadership not only for this agitation but also for future organization of a cognizant and viable leadership.  They will be able to press and compel the administration towards a more harmonious and productive campus environment that lies significantly in the restoration of regular and fair student elections. Student elections provide a legitimate and democratic platform for enabling students to elect their representatives who can articulate their demands and negotiate with the administration on their behalf, dialogue and Engagement: Fostering a structured channel for communication between students and authorities, reducing the likelihood of direct confrontations, making student leaders accountable to their peers and providing a mechanism for redressal of grievances within the university system, nurturing future leaders by providing them with practical experience in democratic processes, advocacy, and problem-solving, by having a strong, elected student body, the influence of external political parties can be channeled through legitimate student representatives rather than through informal or disruptive means.

While the university may have concerns about maintaining order and preventing disruptions, a well-regulated and transparent election process, coupled with a genuine commitment from the administration to engage with elected student representatives, can transform the campus into a space of constructive dialogue and shared responsibility, rather than one marred by conflict and mistrust. This would truly align with the spirit of an institution dedicated not just to academic excellence but also to fostering responsible and engaged citizens.

It is a huge opportunity time has provided to the students of HAU in particular and students of Haryana in general to organize themselves for their own betterment. In the last 30 years politics of Haryana is devoid from the leaders who trained in the campuses and have great understanding and have a hand on the pulse of students genuine concerns. Moreover, its the loss of democracy if students are barred from entering in the politics after having training in the campuses through struggles and acquisition of knowledge. The students must be feeder channel to the Indian political spectrum to enthuse it with compassion and knowledge. They are not the herds which are mange my the goat keeper. True democratic spirit lies in the institutions of learning  and must be allowed to flourish and manifest for the growth of future leadership of the nation through the system of political parties.