The Battle of Symbols, JNU Clashes and the Weaponization of Mythology in Modern India

The Battle of Symbols, JNU Clashes and the Weaponization of Mythology in Modern India

On the hallowed, and perennially contentious, grounds of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), a new chapter of conflict was written on October 3, 2025. The trigger was as symbolic as it was incendiary: the alleged depiction of two individuals, Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, as the demon-king Ravana during a Durga idol-immersion procession. This single act, occurring within a university campus that serves as a microcosm of India’s most intense ideological debates, instantly ignited physical clashes and a furious war of words. The event is not an isolated scuffle between student groups; it is a profound reflection of the deep sociological, political, and cultural fissures that characterize contemporary India. It represents the collision of religious symbolism with political dissent, the weaponization of mythology for contemporary polemics, and the ongoing struggle over the very soul of the nation’s public discourse.

This article will delve into the multiple layers of this incident, unpacking the historical and mythological weight of the symbols involved, profiling the key figures at the center of the storm, analyzing the competing narratives of the student groups, and exploring the broader implications for freedom of expression, communal harmony, and the state of India’s premier educational institutions.

Deconstructing the Trigger: The Immense Weight of Ravana

To understand the fury, one must first understand the power of the symbol. In the Hindu epic Ramayana, Ravana is the primary antagonist—the demon-king of Lanka who abducts Lord Rama’s wife, Sita. He is the embodiment of adharma (unrighteousness), ego, and evil, who is ultimately defeated by the virtuous Rama.

However, using Ravana’s effigy, especially during the festival of Dussehra or in a Durga Puja procession, carries a specific, widely understood cultural meaning: it is a ritualistic destruction of evil. By burning or otherwise destroying the effigy, the community symbolically vanquishes negative forces and celebrates the victory of good over evil.

Therefore, depicting two living, specific individuals—Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam—as Ravana was a deeply charged political act. It was not a generic statement against evil; it was a direct and visceral public branding of these two men as the ultimate embodiments of evil in the modern Indian context. This transforms a religious ritual into a potent political weapon, framing complex individuals and their ideologies not as subjects for debate, but as absolute, demonic forces that must be annihilated.

The Faces in the Effigy: Who Are Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam?

The choice of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam was deliberate and loaded with political meaning. They are not random figures but central, controversial characters in recent Indian political history, closely associated with the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in 2019-2020.

• Umar Khalid: A former JNU student and activist, Khalid was a prominent voice in the anti-CAA/NRC protests. He has been incarcerated since 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in a case related to the Delhi riots, allegations he and his supporters vehemently deny, framing them as politically motivated. To his critics, primarily from right-wing groups, he represents “anti-national” and “seditionist” forces. To his supporters, he is a political prisoner and a symbol of resistance against majoritarian policies.

• Sharjeel Imam: Another JNU alumnus, Imam gained notoriety for a speech in which he spoke of “cutting off Assam from India.” He has also been booked under stringent laws like the UAPA and sedition. He is viewed by his detractors as a secessionist, while his supporters argue his words have been taken out of context to paint him as a traitor.

By depicting these two men as Ravana, the participants in the procession were making an unambiguous political statement: that Khalid and Imam are not just political opponents but are the “evil” that threatens the integrity and moral fabric of the Indian nation, akin to the mythological villain who threatened Rama’s kingdom.

The Clash of Narratives: ABVP vs. Left-Affiliated Groups

In the aftermath, the two main student political wings presented diametrically opposed accounts, each framing itself as the victim.

The ABVP Narrative:
The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing affiliated with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s ideological parent, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), claimed that their “Durga idol-immersion procession” was attacked by “Left-affiliated student groups.” From their perspective, this was an assault on their right to freely practice their religion and conduct a traditional ritual. They would likely frame the depiction of Khalid and Imam as a legitimate, symbolic expression within the bounds of their religious and political freedom, equating their political opponents with evil as a core part of their ideological worldview.

The AISA Narrative:
The All India Students’ Association (AISA), a Left-affiliated student union, condemned the act as a “blatant and dastardly display of Islamophobia.” This accusation is central to the counter-narrative. Both Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam are Muslim. The act of depicting them as Ravana, a demonic figure, is seen not just as a political attack, but as a deliberate act of communal vilification. It taps into a long and painful history where minorities have been demonized. For AISA and its allies, this was not a religious procession but a provocative political rally using religious symbolism to target and dehumanize individuals based on their religion and political dissent.

JNU: The Perfect Petri Dish

This incident did not occur in a vacuum but within JNU, an institution renowned for its fierce political activism and intellectual fervor. For decades, JNU has been the epicenter of left-liberal politics in India. In recent years, it has also become a key battleground for the BJP’s and RSS’s project of reshaping Indian educational and cultural institutions to reflect their nationalist ideology. The campus has witnessed numerous high-profile conflicts, including the 2016 sedition case, making it a symbolic arena where the nation’s ideological wars are fought in miniature. The clashes are, therefore, a symptom of a much larger conflict over nationalism, dissent, and the direction of the country.

Broader Implications: A Nation’s Fraying Fabric

The JNU clashes have ramifications that extend far beyond the university’s gates:

1. The Weaponization of Religion: The incident highlights a dangerous trend of using religious symbols and rituals as tools for political mobilization and to delegitimize opponents. This blurs the line between faith and politics, potentially alienating minority communities and co-opting religious practices for partisan ends.

2. The Shrinking Space for Dissent: The branding of dissenters as “demonic” or “anti-national” is a tactic to sideline and criminalize opposition. It moves beyond disagreement into the realm of moral and existential condemnation, making reasoned debate impossible.

3. Polarization and Communal Fault Lines: By targeting two Muslim individuals in this manner, the act risks deepening communal divisions. It reinforces a narrative where a specific community and its dissenting voices are portrayed as internal enemies.

4. The Role of Educational Institutions: The event raises critical questions about the role of universities. Are they spaces for open, even fierce, debate and the contestation of ideas? Or have they become mere extensions of the political battleground, where intellectual disagreement is replaced by physical violence and symbolic demonization?

Conclusion: Beyond the Broken Heads and Shattered Idols

The clashes at JNU over the depiction of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as Ravana are a tragic allegory for the state of Indian public life. It is a story where mythology is stripped of its spiritual nuance and transformed into a cudgel for contemporary political combat. It is a conflict where the complex realities of dissent, legal processes, and ideological difference are reduced to a simplistic, mythological binary of pure good versus absolute evil.

The broken heads and shattered idols on campus are the physical manifestations of a much deeper crisis—the breakdown of a shared language for political discourse. Until a way is found to disagree without dehumanizing, to debate without demonizing, and to separate political opposition from religious ritual, the grounds of JNU, and by extension the nation, will remain a field of endless, symbolic war. The true victory of good over evil will not be found in burning effigies, but in rebuilding the bridges of dialogue that have been so thoroughly scorched.

Q&A: Understanding the JNU Clashes

Q1: Why is the depiction of Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam as Ravana considered so provocative?
A1: The provocation operates on two levels. First, mythologically, Ravana is the ultimate symbol of evil in the Hindu epic Ramayana. Portraying living individuals as Ravana is a powerful act of public demonization, framing them not as political opponents but as absolute, evil entities that must be destroyed. Second, politically and communally, both Khalid and Imam are incarcerated Muslim activists. Depicting them as a demon-king is seen by critics as a deliberate act of Islamophobia, using religious symbolism to vilify and dehumanize dissenting voices from a minority community, linking their identity and politics to evil.

Q2: What are the opposing narratives from the ABVP and AISA regarding how the clashes started?
A2: The narratives are completely opposed:

• ABVP’s Claim: The ABVP states they were peacefully conducting a traditional Durga idol-immersion procession when they were attacked by Left-affiliated groups. They frame themselves as victims of an assault on their religious freedom.

• AISA’s Claim: AISA asserts that the “blatant and dastardly display of Islamophobia”—the depiction of Khalid and Imam as Ravana—was the primary provocation. They imply that this politically charged and communal act justified a response, framing the ABVP’s actions as the initial aggression.

Q3: What is the significance of JNU as the location for this incident?
A3: JNU is not just any university; it is the symbolic heart of left-liberal student politics in India and a key battleground in the country’s ongoing “culture wars.” It has a long history of intense political activism and has been a focal point for clashes between left-wing and right-wing student groups. Incidents at JNU instantly gain national attention and are seen as a barometer of the country’s political temperature, making it the perfect stage for such a highly symbolic confrontation.

Q4: What are the wider implications of using religious figures and symbols in political protests?
A4: The implications are deeply concerning for a secular democracy:

• Co-opting Religion: It transforms personal faith into a public, political weapon, which can offend devout believers and trivialize religious sentiments.

• Escalating Conflict: It raises the stakes of political disagreement from a contest of ideas to a holy war, making compromise or dialogue impossible.

• Communal Polarization: When religious symbols are used to target individuals from another community, it deepens societal divisions and can incite violence.

• Erosion of Secular Space: It undermines the principle of keeping the state and political discourse separate from religious identity and symbolism.

Q5: How does this incident reflect the current state of political discourse in India?
A5: The incident is a microcosm of the severely degraded state of Indian political discourse. It demonstrates a shift from:

• Debate to Demonization: Instead of arguing against ideas, the trend is to demonize the person holding them, branding them as evil or anti-national.

• Dialogue to Violence: Verbal and intellectual disagreement frequently descends into physical clashes and intimidation.

• Complexity to Caricature: Nuanced issues like the CAA protests and the legal cases against individuals are reduced to simplistic, mythological caricatures, preventing any meaningful public understanding.
  This environment makes reconciliation and consensus-building nearly impossible, fostering a perpetual state of political and social conflict.