JNU’S WALLS BECOME A BATTLEGROUND OF IDEOLOGIES AS ABVP DEMANDS ACTION OVER POLITICAL GRAFFITI
October 25, 2026
NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 25, 2026 — Jawaharlal Nehru University has once again become the centre of a political controversy after slogans reading “Free Umar Khalid” and “Long Live Naxalbari” reportedly appeared on its campus walls, prompting the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) to demand action against those responsible. The development has renewed debate over political expression, ideological confrontation and the preservation of an academic environment in one of India’s most politically prominent universities.
The ABVP’s JNU unit alleged that politically objectionable graffiti had been written on campus walls and accused activists associated with Left-wing student organisations of being responsible. The organisation also claimed that offensive remarks had been inscribed alongside a portrait of V. D. Savarkar, the Hindutva ideologue. These allegations have not been independently established in the available report, and the student organisations named in the accusations had not issued an immediate response.
The controversy centres partly on the slogan supporting Umar Khalid, a former JNU research scholar who has remained in jail since September 2020 in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy behind the February 2020 northeast Delhi riots. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The violence claimed 53 lives, and the case has remained a contentious issue in public debate, with supporters raising concerns about his prolonged incarceration and delays in the legal proceedings. The slogan demanding his release reflects the continuing political disagreement over his detention and the wider questions of civil liberties, criminal prosecution and due process that have surrounded the case.
The words “Long Live Naxalbari” carry their own ideological significance. Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal, became associated with the radical peasant uprising of 1967 that helped inspire the Naxalite movement in India. The movement’s legacy remains deeply contested, with supporters of revolutionary left politics viewing it through the prism of agrarian inequality and class struggle, while critics emphasise its association with armed insurgency and political violence. The appearance of the slogan on a university campus has therefore added another dimension to the dispute, placing competing interpretations of radical politics within the broader argument over the boundaries of acceptable political expression.
ABVP JNU president Mayank Panchal argued that freedom of thought could not justify disrespect towards opposing viewpoints or national figures. He maintained that writing offensive remarks beside Savarkar’s portrait and placing provocative political slogans on campus walls went beyond legitimate expression and threatened the university’s academic atmosphere. The organisation called on the administration to investigate the incident, identify those responsible and initiate appropriate action.
ABVP JNU secretary Praveen Piyush similarly accused Left-wing student groups of contributing to an atmosphere of political confrontation. He stressed that the university did not belong to any single ideological organisation and argued that students should not damage public property or allow political disputes to overshadow their educational responsibilities. The ABVP maintained that JNU should remain open to different viewpoints but insisted that freedom of expression must be accompanied by responsibility towards public institutions and the rights of others.
The university administration’s response will be significant in determining how the controversy develops. The incident has been reported as being under consideration by the authorities, who have indicated that they would not allow vested interests to disturb peace on campus. Establishing who wrote the graffiti, whether public property was damaged and whether any rules were violated will be central to any subsequent action. Allegations against particular student organisations should not, however, be treated as proof of responsibility without supporting evidence.
The latest dispute has emerged against the backdrop of a similar controversy at Jamia Millia Islamia, where slogans including “Free Kashmir” and “Free Sharjeel Imam” were reportedly found on campus walls. The incident coincided with student protests demanding restoration of the university’s students’ union and amid wider disagreements between students and university authorities. The tensions at Jamia escalated sufficiently for the institution to move classes online until further notice, according to reports.
The developments at the two universities have brought student politics, dissent and institutional discipline back into the national conversation. At both campuses, politically charged slogans have become part of a wider struggle over how universities should respond to ideological disagreement. The controversies also demonstrate how graffiti can become a focal point for larger disputes involving nationalism, revolutionary politics, civil liberties and the legitimacy of student protest.
Universities occupy a distinctive position in democratic society. They are expected to provide space for debate, criticism and the examination of political ideas, including arguments that challenge prevailing institutions or public figures. At the same time, institutions must maintain rules governing the use of public property and protect students and staff from intimidation or disruption. The challenge lies in applying those rules consistently, without treating political disagreement itself as evidence of wrongdoing.
In JNU’s case, a fair assessment requires separating the existence of the reported slogans from the accusations about who produced them and why. The ABVP has demanded action and attributed responsibility to Left-wing student groups, but a conclusive determination depends on the administration’s inquiry and any evidence it establishes. Likewise, support for an accused person or the display of a controversial political slogan does not, by itself, establish criminal conduct.
The episode once again illustrates how JNU’s campus has become a visible arena for India’s ideological conflicts. Whether the immediate controversy ends with the removal of graffiti or develops into a broader confrontation among student organisations, the administration’s handling of the matter will test its ability to uphold campus rules while respecting lawful political expression. The central question is not merely what has been written on the walls, but whether the resulting dispute can be addressed through evidence, institutional fairness and a commitment to keeping the university a place of education and open debate.
