Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is drawing some attention again. For the last two years in particular, JNU has become completely run over by Sanghis, to the extent that the RSS has recently, much to our dismay, marched through the campus in its trousers and saffron flags in a shameful display of power and conquest. All new recruitments, admissions, the National Education Policy (NEP), and the Higher Education Funding Agency (HEFA) have colluded to draw new maps of containment, vigilance and designs to quell every inch of the campus that was. 

It has become a mini version of what the rest of the country is imagined to be. The campus is infested with cameras, hyper-security and surveillance so that everyone is aware that they are being watched, controlled and brought into line with the administration's expectations.

Amidst this situation of cold and precise chessboard moves by the powers that be, it is heartening to see that a small portion of the fire of JNU still thrives and continues to work to break into power structures. I am talking about the two research scholars, Kanchana Yadav and Priyanka Bharti, who are today’s spokespersons for the Rashtriya Janata Dal – significant, given the backdrop of the upcoming Bihar elections. 

They have begun to weave in a new narrative that is earthy, unapologetic and consciously interpolated with an audacious laughter, an insolent grin or flaring eyes and serious sarcasm. They are often referred to as the demonic figure of Surpanakha from the epic Ramayana. However, it doesn’t fluster them as they flaunt their camaraderie with this mythological character very proudly.

They have set a new narrative that is like a storm, blowing away mainstream normativity. 

Yadav wears a malicious grin on her face as she speaks; and as a political scientist, she has data and historical facts at the tip of her fingers. Her grin completely disarms the aggression of the dominant caste representatives as they are not used to facing educated Dalit women. It changes into a smirk when she feels pressure, until it quickly disappears with a blasting statement to counter the position of her rivals, giving her point a final closure. 

The male participants are appalled and left open-mouthed, while the women are filled with scandal. This is the emotional control and strategic tool that she uses to dispel the point of contention of the dominant narrative. She can turn an insult into composure with a grin to show that she is not flustered at all by insults. Similarly, she can tell to their faces that they are lying by stating the official data on the spot to prove it.

Bharti, on the other hand, says very brazenly that she is the daughter of Phulan Devi and dismisses upper-casted co-panellists who try to allude her to Surpanakha because of her laughter. Her use of ‘casted’ instead of caste underscores that the social status of these men and women was actually a social construct, not divine births from the breath or brain or the arms of Brahma.

She takes the taunts in her stride and wears them through her feminist revocations of these mythological figures as a free and independent woman who makes her own choices, living on her own terms without male control. Witches, generally speaking, or dayan, in the Indian context, have been branded as such for their non-conformity, defiance and intelligence. Feminist reinterpretations, on the contrary, are framed as ‘deviant’ because they defy the passive, submissive ideal of femininity. 

Indian parliamentarians have been known to use the allusions of these female demonic figures to humiliate and demean their women colleagues for their laughter, political acumen and sarcastic responses.

Many TV anchors are not even aware and have often rebuked Bharti or felt pity for her ‘alleged indecency’. These people need to educate themselves with theories of Stuart Hall’s argument on how simple laughter can be weaponised against the toxic behaviour of slave owners; with Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of the carnivalesque, where laughter, humour and satire temporarily invert social hierarchies, creating a space for critique and liberation; with Henri Bergson’s theory of laughter as a social corrective, where humour targets rigidity or hypocrisy to restore fluidity in social relations. Theory is important because only then can they understand and appreciate the points that they counter. 

Without theory, politicians and the Godi media cannot understand and unlearn their positions of privilege and political ignorance. That is how the TV anchors are making a fool of themselves before the world. Yadav and Bharti have raised the standard and scope of their debates.

Furthermore, it is also significant to note the historical contexts of Ambedkar, Phule and Periyar in the lives of these girls as their ideologies, and of Dalit literature in Hindi as the fundamentals of their narrative.

Bharti insists that she is a daughter of Phulan Devi. She believes that in her lifetime, Phulan Devi was the most empowered Dalit woman who dared to fight back. 

The ‘insolence’ of these intelligent girls, their argumentative skills, and their Bihari accent irritate the upper-casted BJP men and women in the TV newsrooms. Ironically, TV channels can’t silence either of them because their voices bring in TRPs. Some anchors ridiculously try to discipline them into the courteousness and niceties of a woman. However, they respond with such fierce rigour and intimidation that these anchors keep quiet. The co-panellists are left shocked and unable to handle their challenge. 

Some co-panellists have refused to come to shows that included them, and for some time, the duo was even banned. However, they have been interviewed by podcasters and YouTubers like Sakshi Joshi and Arfa Khanum Sherwani, among others, where they could explain themselves properly. They often appear together and stand out for their unique individual styles. 

They think through their experiences of struggles against oppression and discrimination and so, they don’t need any papers or chits. Their boldness and spontaneity challenge all political parties to look out for their own spokesmen who are often not aware of anything close to critical thinking, gender sensitivity, human rights, or empathy and respect.

Indrani Mukherjee is a former professor of Spanish and Latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.