Our mission is to make a positive difference in the career and lives of Aligarh Muslim University Students and Alumni of AMU.

Rule of law and the spirit of democracy is the most essential factor of the development of any academic institution. The recent problem with the AMU has its roots in the total disregard on both of them in case of students.

We want to congratulate the Vice-Chancellor to declare the winter vacation to minimize the academic loss and showing a will to reopen the university soon. However the press note by the Public Relation Officer is full of contradictions and shows a total disregard for the peaceful agitation by the students of AMU. At one place Deans of Faculties and Principals are asking the agitating students to call off the agitation and at the other hand they are endorsing the strict implementation of AMU Students Conduct and Discipline Act, 1985 for any act of indiscipline. This is only enraging us to continue with our peaceful agitation at the Dharna Site of New Delhi in whatever condition.
AMU Students Struggle Committee has already sent their minimum demands to the Vice-Chancellor in the best interest of the university through Hasan Kamal, Old Boy from U.S.A. The responsibility now lies with the AMU administration to end this deadlock.

AMU Students Struggle Committee would like to suggest the team who endorse strict implementation of such act for the students which violate many principles under article 19 of the Indian Constitution to sign an affidavit in another meeting that they shall also abide strictly by the principle AMU Act, Ordinances (Both Executive & Academic), Leave Rules, Purchase Rules etc in future in discharging their power and duties and any conscious violation of such act/ordinances/ rules in place of AMU would lead to their resignation. We respect our elders and our teachers but rules should be meant for everybody.
AMU administration has always taught the students that rules are only meant for them. The team who endorsed the strict implementation of the AMU Students Conduct and Discipline Act, 1985 should have also condemned in the meeting the imposing of Rs. 5000 as "Fines" by Proctor with the permission of the Vice-Chancellor violating the Part IV, 7( ii ) of the same act and advise the respective authorities to run the dining free of those students for a session as compensation who were consciously punished violating the act itself.

AMU Students Struggle Committee