Newswallahs have done everything that can be done with that 50-minute monologue. (Yes, we’re still on the Jawaharlal Nehru University Student Union President Kanhaiya Kumar’s post-bail speech.) They put in on front-pages (alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech), called it rousing, electrifying, fiery and various synonyms of brilliant. Listicles were composed, the complete speech was translated to English for non-Hindi speakers, tacky videos were made, and now that the initial awe is over, it’s time for a little backlash.

On Monday, this week, Makarand Paranjape, a professor of English at JNU, called out Kumar for factual inaccuracies in his speech. His talk was part of the ongoing ‘Lectures on Nationalism’ being held at JNU. Paranjape also asked if JNU is a Left hegemonic space: “…we don’t beat the people we disagree with. We can bully them…”

Paranjape’s criticism is fast becoming the new news point, putting the focus back on Kumar’s speech. (No prizes for guessing which organisation ran with the headline: “JNU Professor Exposes Kanhaiya Kumar On His Azadi Speech”.)

However, Paranjape is not the only one who isn’t completely bowled over with Kumar’s speech. Indeed, people within the Left fold have taken issues with Kumar’s speech, in which he categorically distanced himself from issues pertaining to Kashmir and the trial of Afzal Guru. “I am not asking for freedom from India, I am asking for freedom in India,” is one of the most circulated quotes from that monologue.

This, however, is almost at odds with the position that one slice of the Left holds in the Kashmir debate: the possibility of a plebiscite. The February 9 event at JNU was centred on the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination, which again is something that Kumar didn’t acknowledge or talk about that night. Did Kumar’s speech sideline those looking for a democratic space to debate Kashmir’s future?

A Kashmiri academic who teaches at a central university said he felt a certain level of disappointment listening to Kumar. “While Kanhaiya is entitled to his opinion, we are disappointed because he did not raise a couple of issues that he was expected to, like on the right to self-determination,” he said. “Kashmiri people must learn to represent their cause themselves.”

Kashmiri journalist Qazi Zaid felt there was cultural appropriation at play. “The slogan of azaadi is appropriated by a movement that doesn’t stand true to the meaning of the slogan,” he said. “This movement says that we did say azaadi, but it’s not for Kashmir, only against casteism. This is a disservice to the slogan and to thousands of those who died for the sake of this azaadi.”

David Devdas, the author of “In search of a future: The story of Kashmir”, was not surprised. He points out that Kumar belongs to the student wing of the Communist Party of India (CPI), which was far from being “ultra-Left”. “CPI is a centrist force within the Indian Left,” said Devdas. “Why should one expect Kanhaiya to be ultra-Left? There is no evidence that he ever supported ultra-Left politics. He wouldn’t enunciate such a position.”

Labelling the CPI as “anti-separatism”, Sania Hashmi from the Centre for English Studies at JNU describes supporting Kumar as a fight for what JNU symbolises. “The CPI is anti-separatism and it is their business. The fight for Umar and Anirban is the fight for voices of dissent. The idea is to accommodate all the voices and opinion which JNU essentially stands for,” said Hashmi.

Disagreeing with Kanhaiya’s views on “azaadi”, Hashmi said, “It is tremendously hypocritical of a democracy to keep people under its fold through measures like Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.”

In fact, Kumar did recently make a public statement against AFSPA and it may well have landed him in more trouble. Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha has filed a police complaint against him, saying Kumar has made anti-national comments.

Interestingly, there are Kashmiri voices that feel Kumar’s speech does more favour to the region and its people. Aman Kaul, an exiled Kashmiri studying at Jamia Millia Islamia, appreciates Kanhaiya’s speech because of its inclusive nature. “I am happy about the speech as it would create an inclusive society in Kashmir. We are here to integrate and not disintegrate India,” says Kaul.

Though Kaul condemns the atrocities meted out under the guise of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), he considers the separatist movement in Kashmir as exclusive because it does not represent the voices of minorities like Dogras, Ladakhis, Gujjars and Pandits.

Following the police crackdown, JNUSU Vice President Shehla Rashid talked about Kashmiri students going back home since they were afraid of being targeted. Rashid, the first Kashmiri woman to have been elected to the JNU student body, did not answer questions pertaining to the perception of JNU’s pro-freedom Kashmiri students regarding Kanhaiya’s recent utterances vis-a-vis Kashmir.

After much dilly-dallying, she finally sent a text message, which read, “Can’t answer your questions as there are many intricacies in the case.”

Perhaps Rashid is right. But what is emerging from the JNU row is that there are enough people who want to debate out the “intricacies” without taking to the gun or offering rewards to cut off heads. Indeed nurturing such spaces and dialogue would be the way forward for a democracy.

Professor Nivedita Menon, who has been at the forefront of the JNU resistance and was named in the recent BJYM complaint for being anti-AFSPA, is a proponent of Left, Ambedkarite and feminist solidarity. She feels that there is space for difference of opinion among them. “Of course, all sections of the Left, Ambedkarites and feminists don’t agree on everything, and certainly not on Kashmir,” said Menon.

“But a university has to be a space of debate on difficult issues, not a space where we are told not to think. You may remember Kanhaiya said about Afzal that he was punished according to the laws of the land, and the same laws permit debate over the punishment.”

Menon concluded that solidarity is built “not by agreement on every issue” but on the basis of “negotiating common minimum agreements”.