Imphal, June 01 2009: This was known to Prof Islamuddin but he was only lying.

Quoting opening part of the May 4 clarification of Prof Islamuddin, "The MUSU election is generally held in accordance with 1) the MUSU constitution, 2) convention 3) Eligibility criteria for candidates as per Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dated 22.09.2006", the outfit pointed out that Prof Islamuddin contradicted himself in the latter part of the statement saying that he had no right to comment as the Dean's role and functions were defined in any statute or constitution.

But submission of written representation to Dean for dissolution of MUSU, endorsement of EC by Dean, issuance of election notice through Assistant Registrar, appointment of RO and monitoring scrutiny process by the Dean have been in practice as convention even though all these functions/activities were defined in any statute.

Prof Islamuddin himself was also following the same convention though he pushed aside the same convention after igniting the issue.

In his clarification of May 4, Prof Islamuddin said, "MUSU president ....Prof RK Hemkumar Singh, Returning Officer.

The Dean endorsed it as per convention......and send copies to all concerned".

Quoting the same clarification that the primary and conventional task of the Dean, Students' Welfare was over after issuance of election notice and compilation of voters' list and henceforth the Dean's role was purely observatory in character, the outfit questioned Prof Islamuddin's meaning of the word "observatory".

Saying that the word would mean "looking after", Lanngamba asked whether he would be looking at cows grazing on paddy because he was told only to look after the field and not specifically instructed to keep the field away from harm.

Above, his primary and conventional task could not be assumed over after the RO resigned on the day of scrutiny.

The situation demanded conducting the same process anew.

But he did not do anything in this regard.

This was an irremissible fault, the outfit asserted.

Had Prof Islamuddin thought of re-conducting the election process later, he should have declared the appointment of the new RO without his knowledge as invalid rendering the election process null and void.

After this, he should have initiated necessary procedure to take up actions against the Assistant Registrar who appended her signature on the letter of appointment of the new RO.

Questioning the motives behind the arguments raised by Prof Islamuddin at this stage, Lanngamba asked if there was any reason not to term Prof Islamuddin's conduct as a conspiracy.

Forbidding issuance of identity cards 35 days ahead of the election, his inaction against the new rule for compulsory attachment of class XII original certificates, his silence against conducting scrutiny with the new RO appointed without his knowledge, his inaction although he claimed to be doubtful about the cognizability of the process, his absence at the meeting of Dean's Committee and the contradictions in the May 4 clarification all made Prof Islamuddin guilty of irremissible faults.

The moot question here is, should a Professor be awarded capital punishment for all these faults.

Here, the outfit's perspectives is that the faults of Prof Islamuddin should not be weighed separately outside the context.

The faults of Prof Islamuddin was not about a particular individual indulging in corrupt activities for his/her own selfish ends.

He was acting under a hidden agenda of a clique set up to depreciate Manipur University over an extended period.

As such, the trial of Prof Islamuddin should be done in accordance to the hidden agenda.

The KYKL's judgement was "what was acceptable to both men and Gods" (Meenasu yaba lainasu yaba wahel) or Rawls "justice as fairness" in western jurisprudence, it said.

Reiterating that abolition of the clique was a firm stance of the KYKL, Lanngamba said that efforts to abolish the clique demanded severe punishment.

For every judgement, there would be people who felt against it.

Number of such people should be more in the case of Prof Islamuddin.

Every member of the clique would appear a gentleman, but their activities were more vicious than those perpetrated by a thousand goondas.

The judgement of Prof Islamuddin was not a matter of judgement only.

It was a part of a social programme aimed at sanitising MU, the outfit claimed.

Saying that sanitisation exercise in MU would continue, the outfit cautioned that there would be no halt in attacking people who joined the clique knowingly or unknowingly if they fail to mend their ways and stop indulging in wrongful activities.

Claiming that this was the wish of the people, Lanngamba said that even if there are people who don't like it at present, they would realise later.

To save the society, it was crucial to save MU.

Indulging in several irregularities in their effort to occupy MUSU office was a serious fault on the part of the EC.

The EC refused to rectify the faulty rule even after the Dean asked them.

This was a conspiracy, asserted the outfit while claiming that some members of the EC, if not all, were members of the clique.

The VC was also guilty for his inaction even after he was intimated clearly that the Dean would not be doing his duty, the outfit pronounced.

Accusing the VC of being a party to the conspiracy, Lanngamba said that the issue blew out and resulted in violence and death because of his failure to take up any action.

The students who claimed to be representing MUSU, even after knowing well that the election process was faulty and that the matter has become a major issue, were also guilty.

There was no reason not to call them members of the clique.

Those students who posed irrelevant questions to the KYKL in a mocking manner were also guilty.

In addition to being party to the conspiracy and members of the clique, they were guilty for deriding the outfit.

Some people including the VC might have thought that the issue surrounding the MUSU election was put to an end by the Chancellor's statement on student's organisation of MU.

But they were wrong.

The Chancellor's statement and the MUSU election were two separate issues.

The MUSU election issue could not be allowed to fade under cover of the Chancellor's statement without being judged.

The Chancellor was asking to amend rules and regulations under which MUSU elections were held but the issue besetting MU at present was the demand to correct the faulty procedure followed in the MUSU election process.

One batch of MUSU, constituted/elected under the rules and regulations followed earlier, should be there for at least one year before a statute for MU is drafted.

The new statute should not be enforced in the middle of academic session.

It should be put into force from the next academic session.

The MU authority/VC should understand that keeping wrongful activities wrapped up would bring severe negative implications in future, the outfit exhorted.

Appealing to Meitei Pangals not to undertake protest demonstrations with communal overtones, Lanngamba claimed that posterity would prove the non-communal principle of KYKL.

Sometimes it felt suspicious that the Pangal brethren were the ones who were communal, the outfit asked the Meitei Pangals what they would have said if Prof Islamuddin was not a Pangal but "other Meitei".

Asking whether they meant no Pangal should be harmed, Lanngamba said that MUMSU and DCMSU should be aware of the statements published in media in the last two months on the MUSU elections, even if the general people were not aware of it.

The outfit also questioned how could one view Pangals separately when all the people have been living together.