Security Concerns of JNU Campus: past learning and future directions

To

The Registrar

Jawaharlal Nehru University

New Delhi- 110067

Dear Prof. Ravikesh

This letteris a follow-up to the JNUTA statement issued on 25.03.22 after the massive case of theft in New Poorvanchal in a colleague’s house (please see attached). We present a detailed account of as many thefts in faculty houses that we had information of since 2019, and touch upon the nature of thefts, areas of concentration, occupancy conditions during theft as well as the follow up action by the security/JNU administration.

The list provided in Table 1 and 2 may not include all the cases of criminal trespass, break ins and theft, and is based on the information colleagues have shared with JNUTA at different points of time. From 2019 onwards, at the very minimum, there have been 13 incidents of theft, which points towards the extreme vulnerability that the campus residents have been exposed to in the recent years. There has also been a total lack accountability and commitment of the security service provider, JNU security staff and the JNU administration towards the safety and security of the residents in the past years.

Table 1: Nature of Theft since 2019

Sl. Number	Date	Khand	Nature of theft
1	24-03-2022	Poorvanchal	Everything of value: House ransacked
2	07-12-2021	OTH	Jewellery, Camera, other miscellaneous items
3	06-12-2021	New Poorvanchal	Keys stolen from car
4	11-01-2021	Uttarakhand	Cash, devices, other miscellaneous items: House ransacked
5	23-09-2021	OTH	Watch, door damaged: House ransacked
6	18-09-2020	Poorvanchal	Everything of value: House ransacked
7	05-09-2020	NTH	Attempted break-in
8	22-08-2020	Uttarakhand	Break-in, burglary thwarted, criminal trespass
9	16-05-2020	Uttarakhand	Everything of value:House  ransacked
10	26-11-2019	Poorvanchal	House ransacked
11	20-04-2019	Poorvanchal	Cash and device
12	20-04-2019	Poorvanchal	Break-in, burglary thwarted, criminal trespass
13	04-04-2019	Uttarakhand	Documents and devices stolen

Table 2: Nature of occupancy during theft and follow-up action by security/police/JNU administration

	Occupancy at time of theft	Security aware of absence	Security/ police informed after theft	Police/ security action?	Stolen goods recovered?	Compensation from JNU?
1	Home unoccupied for a few days	Yes	Yes	Nil. Culprits not apprehended	No	No
2	Home unoccupied overnight	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No
3	Car was unattended for a few minutes	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No
4	Home unoccupied overnight	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No
5	Home unoccupied for a few days	Yes	Yes	Same as above	No	No
6	Home unoccupied during lockdown		Yes	Same as above	No	No
7	Occupied	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	NA	No
8	Occupied	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	NA	No
9	Home unoccupied intermittently, during theft for 2 days		Yes	Same as above	No	No
10	Home unoccupied for 2 days		Yes	Same as above	No	No
11	Occupied	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No
12	Occupied	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No
13	Unoccupied as usual during daytime	Not applicable	Yes	Same as above	No	No

From the tables 1 and 2, map and the information we have verified from our colleagues, the following points emerge:

1. Out of the 13 cases, 4 involved single women faculty members; three of these were those in which the colleagues were in the house when the burglary was attempted/done, putting them at acute danger of life and inducing long term psychological trauma.

1. In 5 cases, the financial losses are immense where colleagues have lost all or most of the valuables they had in the house (Table 1).
2. Most of the thefts were concentrated in Uttarakhand and Poorvanchal (old and new), areas that are close to exit points from the University (see map), which are supposed to be guarded round the clock. The thefts, however, were not restricted to these two localities as 3 incidents of theft happened in the transit accommodations (old and new) (see map), which also have a 24-hour deployment of security personnel.
3. In 5 of the 13 cases, the houses were occupied (or vacant in daytime during office hours) when thefts occurred; in 8 of the 13 cases, the question of informing the security does not arise (Table 2).
4. Out of the 7 cases where the houses were unoccupied at night, 2 were unoccupied overnight, 2 others were unoccupied for 2 nights; in 2 of the 3 cases that had longer vacancy, security was informed in advance (Table 2). Given the security circulars dated 17.05.2020 and 08.10.2020 urging residents to inform security of their absence ‘so that the security guards can keep extra vigil’ there is a case for an investigation of complicity of the security services at least in the 2 cases for which the security was informed of the vacancy of the house.
5. It is evident that the houses and their occupants were watched, and the thefts are organised.
6. Though in all cases the security and/or the police have been informed (FIR lodged in many cases), no conclusive action has been taken terms of apprehending culprits, recovery of stolen items or compensation paid in any of the cases (Table 2).
7. The nature of psychological trauma that all the victims and their families had to undergo as reported by them is acute and long term.
8. Overwhelming number of faculty members and their family members reported having lost confidence in the security mechanisms on campus, and many reported additional expenditure in installing additional security measures in the houses allotted to them by the university.

We have learnt that the JNU administration has put a security committee in place, which is mandated to facilitate the hiring of an alternative security agency. While we appreciate the promptness of this required action, there are issues that are important and urgent that may go unaddressed, if the only objective is to terminate the extended contract of Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. and hire the services of a new company.

The Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. has to be held responsible for what can be described at best their complete dereliction of duty to carry out the services they were hired for. In the tripartite contract dated 12.06.2019 signed by JNU (Employer), Army Welfare Placement Organization (Facilitator) and the Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. (Service Provider), the duties have been clearly specified, which includes under ‘Special conditions of contract’ clause 4.b:

‘Protection of property (movable or immovable) and personnel (faculty/officers/staff/student, official visitors and residents) of the university against wilful harm’.

The AWPO and the Cyclops Security and Allied Services Pvt. Ltd. should be made accountable for their gross failure to carry out their duties as specified in the contract. The JNUTA demands that compensation be paid to all the victims of theft, criminal trespass and criminal intimidation as per the specifications outlined in their respective complaints, before the security arrangements are changed.

Failing the above, no security agency in future would honour the JNU administration’s contract. 

The JNU security personnel must be accountable to the JNU community which includes all its residents.  It should be respectful towards students, staff and faculty. There should be no complaints of sexual harassment, drinking on duty or infringement of privacy as has been the case with the present security agency. The security agency must not be used to create a hostile, partisan and unsafe environment on campus. At the same time, the security must be provided basic facilities of water, cabins and bathrooms by the university administration.

Learning from the past experience, we expect the current administration to adopt a transparent process of recruitment of an accountable security service provider. In particular, the following points needs urgent attention:

1. The process of tender should follow the letter and spirit of law. It should include in its advertisement the need for a professional and well trained security force which is sensitive and cognisant of the needs of students, staff and faculty on a residential university campus.
2. The subsequent terms and conditions of the contract, including indemnity conditions should be accountable to all residents and members of the University.
3. The said contract should be made available to representatives of different sections of the community, including the teachers, to facilitate an accountable and  consultative process of recruitment. The contract should have a zero toleration policy on sexual harassment or any form of violence that is perpetrated or supported by the security agency.
4. A grievance redressal mechanism should be put in place with respect to the security services of the campus, in which representation from all sections of campus community is ensured.
5. It has to be ensured that the system of security put in place is gender-sensitive, with inbuilt provisions of gender sensitization of the security personnel deployed on campus.