All of us are appalled by the fact that the action of two or three students of the university has brought such disrepute to an institution which has consistently stood by all the values that are dear to all of us and which are enshrined in the Constitution. What is really amazing is that if a secular institution with a secular record can be targeted so easily, what will be the fate of non-secular institutions? I feel very, very distressed. I have no reason to believe that the character of the institution has changed or that its commitment has been diluted in any way. Absolutely not. We are completely secular. We don’t even ask our students about their religion in their application form. There is no preference for Muslims per se and a large number of the teachers are non-Muslims. A large number of students who are non-Muslims have never experienced any sense of discrimination.

The role of the media has also been distressing. We all value freedom of expression but I think the way the electronic media, especially, has behaved is extremely alarming. Very often, there is no story and yet a story is invented. In this particular instance, the TV OB vans landed up in large numbers and virtually instigated students to say something. It’s as though you expect a Muslim student to say something that would project the image of ‘the Muslim’. And when that Muslim makes a liberal or a secular statement, that statement will seldom find mention because that statement is of no interest. A liberal and secular Muslim is not someone you can sell in the market.

Over the last few years, Jamia has promoted a liberal, modern and enlightened agenda. Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton and Harvard come to us with MoUs. But that is not something that will ever get reported. We name our buildings after individuals. Why? Because dead or alive we want to tell the world that Noam Chomsky is part of our intellectual legacy, that Nehru, Gandhi and Jamnalal Bajaj are as much a part of our legacy as Mohammad Ali or Syed Ahmad Khan. They are all secular figures. It’s been a Herculean effort to do this kind of thing. To see how easily, quickly, so ruthlessly and so crudely things have been twisted and distorted is distressing. In the last three years, Jamia has been the venue of at least seven conferences organised against Islamic terrorism. That people should even raise a question about our credentials is infuriating.

•Vandita Mishra: Why did you decide to offer legal aid to the accused students?

I have no doubt that what I did was absolutely right. The head of an institution is like a parent. Just as we would provide medical or travel aid to students, we would provide legal aid too. What is so wrong about it? This is a constitutional right that every citizen is entitled to in a free society. We are not defending the students. There is a difference between providing legal aid and defending them. I don’t know these students. But our position is clear: we will provide access to legal aid. Thereafter, they’re on their own. We are not going to defend them or go unnecessarily out our way to say they’re innocent.

•Coomi Kapoor: The criticism of your actions is that it sets a precedent. What if this precedent were to be applied to other universities with a high degree of criminality?

We’re not defending criminality. There is a specific context in which this whole thing has happened. This is the case of two students who haven’t been proven guilty as yet. It’s as simple as that. If they are proven guilty, there is no question of any kind of help—moral, legal or financial.

•Vandita Mishra: You said the university has held conferences to discuss terror. Has any discussion touched upon the issue that confronts us now—that of homegrown terror involving the urban, educated Muslim?

Of course, we have. We know there is homegrown terrorism. How will you address it? You have to isolate those who are out to undermine the democratic-secular edifice of our society. But how do you do it? You don’t do it by a legislation such as POTA. You devise effective legislation, the kind of legislation that would counter not only Muslim terrorism but the terror unleashed by the VHP, by the BJP as is evident from what has happened in Malegaon and in Karnataka. What is happening is a national problem and has to be dealt with in the larger framework of keeping our social fabric intact. You can’t isolate these things. The blast in Delhi’s Mehrauli hit headlines but when a similar one took place in Malegaon, it was a small story. This does not send out the right message.

It does not seem as if we, as a nation, are collectively engaged in fighting terrorism. It suggests that you only associate terrorism with Muslims. I was speaking at a conference on Gandhi and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. A whole auditorium can be filled up with books on Islam and violence but what about Islam and non-violence? What about Gaffar Khan? Does he not exist or is he of no consequence because he does not fit the stereotype that some people wish to create and perpetuate about an entire community?

•Suman K. Jha: Jamia has a street named after Arjun Singh. How would you defend his being given this privilege in the university, which he is said to be using to score political brownie points?

I don’t think it is fair to draw Mr Arjun Singh into this controversy because apart from vindicating the position of the academic council, he has no role to play. He has been tremendously supportive to the institution and I think the entire Jamia fraternity is extremely grateful to him for what he has done, having sensed the fact that Jamia has been the victim of neglect for the last 55 years. So if you want to grudge Arjun Singh for extending financial support, which was not out of proportion and was well within the rules, then I can’t help that, but please don’t associate his name with this controversy.

To suggest that he is using this, as some people said in a television interview, for the election is completely preposterous. Yes, we have named a building and a street after him. And I wish there were more buildings that I could name after him. He very strongly opposed the idea of a building being named after him and I think some of my colleagues persuaded him to accept it. He has done more for the institution than anybody else, and yes, may be the next building, a bigger one, can be called ‘Arjun Singh’.

•Seema Chishti: Some years ago, when you took a stand against banning Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses, you were targeted by hotheaded people who happened to be Muslim. Now you have some people in the BJP accusing you of supporting terrorists. How has this affected you?

The opposition of certain sections did not deter me from pursuing my intellectual agenda because I have no political interests. There has been no change in my understanding of the dangers inherent in fundamentalist positions, whether they are political or religious. I believed then, as I believe now, that an enlightened liberal and secular position is a position that both the majority and the minority communities must pursue. It’s been a difficult journey in many ways but then I suppose, as people say, one has to pay a price for taking positions.

•Shravan Sen: Would you say your university is being victimised just because it’s a minority institution?

We are not a minority institution. We’re created by an Act of Parliament, we’re accountable to Parliament, we have no reservations for minorities, for Muslims. We have the usual reservations for SC/STs and OBCs. If you want to see how a genuinely secular and liberal institution works in India, come to Jamia.

•Pranab Dhal Samanta: What practical measures, if any, are you now taking to prevent or to reduce the chances of such incidents being linked to your institution?

The day after the incident, I addressed students in our auditorium and said the answer to this is to be more secular, to be more liberal in your outlook, to be more enlightened in your perspective. The next day we organised a peace march. We had a big demonstration for peace and against violence and terrorism. It is being made out as if for the last 60 years, Jamia has been the hotbed of ‘sedition’. The assumption is quite ridiculous because nothing has ever happened on the campus.

What administrative step can I take? I can only do what I’ve been doing. Who in his right sense would not condemn terror and terrorism or violence of any sort? We are not inciting students. Our job is to make sure that students remain calm, as we’ve done in the context of this incident. But the role of a teacher is a very limited one because terrorists are produced, not by universities, but by the society that nurtures the students.

•C. Jayanti: Why doesn’t the liberal Muslim intelligentsia speak out more often against terrorism so that in people’s minds, Islam isn’t equated with it?

You probably don’t hear those voices because you don’t want to hear those voices. The media doesn’t represent those voices because the media is only interested in strident voices. They are not interested in the sane, liberal, rational voices. Look at the social science literature produced over the last 60 years and look at the Muslim writers—although they would be upset with this categorisation—Irfan Habib, Shahid Amin or scores of others. Are these not liberal voices? What do you want us to do? Stand on a terrace and announce that we are liberal Muslims and that we want to proclaim our loyalty to the nation? This is an expectation which, I’m afraid, we cannot fulfill. What have the Muslims done in 60-odd years which goes against the interests of the nation? Why don’t you ask the Sikhs to proclaim their loyalty? I’m sorry I’m being very blunt. Who spoke out on Gujarat? You all condemn the Muslim communalist and I join you in condemning the Muslim communalist. But I condemn the Hindu communalist as well, which you all don’t. What should the liberal Muslims do? The fact that they are still liberals in this sort of situation—caught between the devil and the deep sea—you should give them a Padma award.

You cannot play a constructive role by castigating your community. This is bad politics. You have to be sympathetic to the concerns and aspirations of the community because 150 million Muslims are not all mad, are they? If they have grievances you have to understand them.

•Shweta Dutta: How negative an impact has the constant ‘othering’ of the Muslim community had on young people of the community?

Young Muslims have no cultural baggage of Partition or ‘47. They were born and brought up in a democratic, secular India and have a stake in the system—as much a stake as anybody else. Yet, there is this distancing, this ‘othering’.

The problem today, sadly, is that the left forces have weakened, socialist elements have disappeared and the centrist forces are susceptible to communalism. This is a problem more essentially in the North. It is not a problem in the South where the barriers that existed in those societies have been overcome. Which is why, the Muslims are better integrated in those societies. Kerala, Karnataka or Tamil Nadu are models of a multi-religious and multicultural society. There the Muslims are a little more advanced and a little more forward-looking than in the North or even in Bengal.

•Neha Sinha: Many young Muslims in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar where the alleged terrorists lived, feel that they face a forced ghettoisation. They don’t get houses, they don’t get credit cards. Do you think that to challenge stereotypes in young people from the community and young people from outside the community we need curricular changes?

I think at this juncture the main task should be to restore the confidence of the people in the system. I think it’s extremely important that they should not feel alienated. I think it’s very sad that some Muslim students have been evicted from accommodations because the entire university is being dubbed as the hotbed of terrorism. I think it’s important to stress how life goes on normally, how despite the provocation, the situation is extremely peaceful.

I have said to people in government that there is a larger question that needs to be addressed: that of providing basic civic amenities to these areas. If you visit these areas you will be appalled by the conditions in which people live. It is very close to some posh Delhi enclaves but there is no clean water, no sewage. no sanitation, no Mother Dairy. The Delhi government has to defuse the tension in the area and stop the alienation which is very, very deep-rooted there.

Transcribed by Aneesha Mathur