The mysterious death of Annamalai University student Udayakumar 54 years ago

Campus unrest is not uncommon in India. In recent weeks, Tezpur University in Assam and VIT University in Bhopal have become the latest examples of student protests.

A well-known case from Tamil Nadu deals with the controversy triggered by Annamalai University conferring an honorary degree of Doctor of Letters on the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi in July 1971. The sad aspect of the fight was the death of KP Udayakumar, a third year student of B.Sc. (Mathematics), under conditions that remain a mystery to this day.

A few months after he was sworn in as Chief Minister for the second time following Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam’s (DMK) landslide success in the Lok Sabha Assembly elections earlier the same year, Karunanidhi was conferred the institution’s 40th rank by the university.^This The university was of the view that he was “a rare combination of politician and man of letters, someone who in many ways mastered a new style in the field of Tamil literature and shaped the thought of the youth in this part of the country.”

At the meeting, Vice Chancellor SP Adinarayana paid his warm respects to the Prime Minister. “His dynamism, constructive idealism and bold thinking made him competent to deal with life’s challenges,” he said. Hindu As he said (July 24, 1971).

When protests broke out

In his autobiography Nenjukku Needhi (Volume 2)Karunanidhi argued that the biggest question at that time was whether an honorary degree could be given to a person who had not received formal education and had a degree from any university. However, the University’s move to honor the Prime Minister had irritated certain sections of the students, who were, in Karunanidhi’s words, “radical youth”. Inside Nenjukku NeedhiIt found these to be those belonging to the Annamalai University Students Congress and the Indian Students Congress, which had published pamphlets that “caused great outrage”.

R. Kannan, a United Nations diplomat-turned-writer, with his insightful writing DMK Yearssummarizes the situation as follows: “On July 22, the day before the award ceremony, a brochure allegedly published by the province’s ‘Youth Congress’ tastelessly described the award recipient as a ‘folklore writer’, while another with Marxist-Leninist tendencies said that only socialist societies could create employment.”

According to this newspaper’s report dated July 24, as the meeting was about to begin on the morning of that fateful day, the agitating students “were reported to have waved black flags and blocked some vehicles moving towards the Assembly Hall.” It was also claimed that the young people threw stones. The police then carried out a lathi charge and cleared the area. Students ran to a nearby hostel building.

After the incident was over, the second period of trouble began. The newspaper’s report stated, “…there was another stone-throwing incident. The police, who were heavily guarding the area, entered the graduate dormitory this time and carried out another lathi attack.” It was reported that in the afternoon, more than 100 students, hurling vulgar curses, started throwing stones again near the gate of the graduate hostel. The police captured most of the inmates of the Eastern Hostel, including some students who had received their degrees in the morning. The report claimed that while the police were collecting the detainees from the hostel, they broke the classroom doors and detained 31 students by force.

Sensing the seriousness of the situation, the DMK government had immediately decided to constitute a Commission of Inquiry headed by Madras High Court Judge NS Ramaswami to look into the incident in which more than 70 students and 25 police personnel were injured. On July 24, Minister of National Education and no. 2 In Karunanidhi’s Cabinet VR Nedunchezhian announced the government’s move in the Assembly.

However, the terms of reference of the panel (Terms of Reference) came under critical scrutiny after N. Ram, the then vice-president of the Students’ Federation of India, approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition and personally argued in the Court that the Terms of Reference were ambiguous. He also stated that the University was closed indefinitely, but the best evidence would come if the University opened, classes resumed and students were free to return to campus. According to a report of this newspaper dated August 28, 1971, he requested an injunction to prevent the Commission from investigating the events pending the determination of the petition, noting that, according to media reports, there was a misunderstanding that the government would pressure not to open the university until the investigation was completed.

Dismissing the writ petition, Justice T. Ramaprasada Rao disagreed with the petitioner’s contention that the Specification was vague. The terms of reference were broad enough to cover all events said to have occurred at the University. Regarding the opening or closing of the university, the judge stated that since the university is an autonomous body, it cannot be subject to judicial review, but the Commission also discussed this issue.

An unidentified body

Initial reports of unrest on campus made no mention of the college student’s death. In fact, on the morning of that day, the body of a 25-year-old young man was found floating in a tank on the university campus. “The body, which could not be identified by staff or students, is believed to be that of a former student. It was sent to the Government Central Hospital, Cuddalore, for post-mortem.” Hindu On July 25th.

Four days later, the issue was raised by Swatantra Party’s HV Hande, who later became the Health Minister in the AIADMK regime led by MG Ramachandran. In his reply, Karunanidhi showed the Opposition party leaders the photographs of Udayakumar and the deceased student and observed that they did not look like photographs of the same person. Neither his government nor its officials had sought to say that the body was not that of a student, but according to perusal of the House records (pages 266-277, debate of the Tamil Nadu Assembly on July 29, 1971) he said, “We, the members of this House, must be sufficiently careful that the wrong message should not be spread that the body discovered is that of a student.”

The Prime Minister based his stance on the statement given by the father and relative of the student in question when the body was found. Although the father said that the watch and ring looked like his son’s watch, they could not confirm that it belonged to the young man.

Commission Findings

Six months later, the Ramaswami Commission’s report was presented to Parliament. The panel concluded that the body of the teenager found on campus was “most likely” that of Udayakumar. In this newspaper’s news dated January 12, 1972, it was also stated that the student “did not die due to police excessiveness and should have died only as a result of suffocation on the night of July 23.” Justifying the police intervention in the events, the Commission stated that the police used only the “minimum necessary force” to remove the students who were throwing missiles.

On January 31, when Congress (Organization) Leader in the Assembly R. Ponnappa Nadar tried to corner Karunanidhi in the Assembly over his earlier statement regarding the identity of the body, Karunanidhi denied that he had stated that the body belonged to the student concerned. He pointed out that the investigation committee was established solely for the purpose of revealing the truth.

For many years, Udhayakumar’s death featured in political discourse. It is undoubtedly an event that continues to disturb conscientious people.