The University of Delhi (DU) saw controversy unfold over Savarkar, from demands to rename the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Office after V.D. Savarkar, to the installation of a pillar with his bust, along with those of Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh in the campus. The ideological warfare about his thoughts continues to be controversial.
As the DUSU elections approach, the University is grappling with the Savarkar Statue Controversy. The illegal installation of the bust, followed by its removal, reveals the ideological tussle between the different schools of thought.
An extremist in his thoughts, Savarkar was an Indian Independence activist who rebelled against the British rule through revolutionary means, and was imprisoned due to his anti-coloniser activities. Following a failed attempt to escape while being transported from Marseilles in France, he was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment, and eventually landed in the cellular jail or Kala Pani. Savarkar has been always been at the eye of the storm, for being viewed as a “coward” since he wrote letters to the British, pleading to be released from the torture of the cellular jail.
Being an atheist, he believed that Hinduism was a political identity having a powerful moral force. While in prison, Savarkar wrote the work describing Hindutva in which he defined that all people descended from Hindu culture as being a part of Hindutva, including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. The noted journalist, Manu Joseph, recently opined, “The erasure of Savarkar by intellectuals 1.0 was so complete that at the end of it all, he was not even a villain. He was not mentioned in textbooks even as one of the accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Savarkar’s insight was that Hinduism was a powerful political identity that does not require gods, or even the cow actually, whom he did not love very much, and that Hinduism is a fundamental genetic force in all Indians. In this way, he invented Hindutva.”
The very fact that the revolutionary ideas of Savarkar remain to be missing from our mainstream reading and textbooks, does not allow the discussion on his extreme views in the freedom struggle movement through Hindutva. Vaibhav Purandare, in his book The True Story of the Father of Hindutva reveals Savarkar’s professed hatred for Muslims. In his early years as a revolutionary, Savarkar asked Hindus and Muslims to get along, but eventually, he wished to subdue Muslims.
Earlier this month, on 12th August, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) demanded the DUSU Office be named after Veer Savarkar. Following this, the ABVP and DUSU installed the busts of
V.D. Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Bhagat Singh outside the Faculty of Arts in the North Campus and faced criticism, followed by the attack on the statue and smearing black colour on the bust by the National Students’ Union of India.
Shakti Singh, the outgoing President of DUSU, said, “Since the beginning of my term, I was requesting the DU administration for establishing the statues but never got a reply from them. The left-wing forces and the Congress party have always defamed Veer Savarkar. So, I wanted that this issue should be debated so that the youth can know about his contribution to the freedom struggle of the country.”
Madhu Prasad, former Professor of Philosophy, Zakir Hussain College said, “Bhagat Singh believed that the country won’t get freedom unless there is equality. However, the current scenario in this country does not allow debate, discussion, and dissent, and idolising Savarkar is against the essence of freedom.”
While he worked upon reforming and revolting the colonial rule, his extreme positions on Gandhi, Hindu Rashtra, and Muslims bestows him with political exclusion.
National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) launches its Delhi University Student Union (DUSU) election campaign- “Awaaz Uthao, Seeti Bajao, (to blow the whistle against inequality)” in a press conference on 27th August at the NSUI office in Raisana Road, New Delhi.
The NSUI stated that there is an unbridled inequality at several levels in the University of Delhi (DU) between the students (in terms of caste, religion, gender, etc), campuses, colleges and certain streams (science considered better than arts and commerce) which desists the youth from realising their full potential.
Speaking on the occasion, Neeraj Kundan, National President of the NSUI said that there are several inequalities existing in the DU in terms of campuses and colleges. “There is a major difference between the facilities available in the North Campus and South Campus of the university. Even within the North Campus, there are inequalities between colleges in terms of hostel facilities, different fees structure for same courses.”
Ruchi Gupta, the National In charge of the NSUI talked about the focus of the party’s campaign, “We are going to blow the whistle on inequality in Delhi University, and we are starting this as the beginning of a year-long campaign across the country to highlight unequal educational opportunities and inequality in our society and country.”
The NSUI through its campaign aims to highlight and bring to notice every single occurrence of disparity on campus level, college level and between the students and demand that the University of Delhi fulfils the implicit promise of “One University, Equal Opportunities”.
In the wake of the election season, the campaign aims at being inclusive and promotes equality which might be beneficial for the NSUI.
Since the night of the attack on the Savarkar statue, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) Delhi President, Akshay Lakra, alleges that he has been receiving disturbing phone calls, threatening to attack him if he doesn’t end the protest.
In the aftermath of the Vinayak Damodar Savarkar statue controversy, the drama continues to unfold at the University of Delhi (DU) as the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections inch closer. The illegal installation of the bust saw an immediate reaction from the NSUI, who threatened a mass protest if the bust was not removed within 24 hours. Lakra has now filed an official police complaint addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police to look into the threats that he has allegedly been receiving via phone calls.
This comes after NSUI members led by Lakra attempted to blacken the bust and ornament it with a garland of slippers. In his complaint, he claims that for the past few days he has repeatedly been receiving calls wherein he was subjected to life-threatening statements. The callers have been pressuring him to end his protest against the statue and photos from his Facebook account have been shared widely describing him as a hater of Savarkar. Due to fear for his family and friends, who can be easily identified through his social media accounts, Lakra has deactivated them. He says that he has been getting innumerable calls every second of the day from different states of the country, primarily from Maharashtra. While verifying, he realised that most of the numbers were registered on true caller by the names “Akhand Bharat”, “Hindu Ekta”,” Swaraj Manch”, “BJP supporter” and “Hindu Mahasabha” and even “Narendra Modi” himself.
He also mentioned that the callers have expressed their affiliation and solidarity to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The letter requests the police to take immediate actions against the perpetrators and Lakra has also given all the numbers via which he has been receiving troubling phone calls.
Lakra in the complaint states, “It has been a traumatising experience for me. The ABVP members mentioned should be held responsible for any harm and mishap caused to me.” To support his case, he has provided photographic evidence of several continuous missed calls on his cellphone. While all the other numbers are of Indian users, a number from South Korea and Bahrain has also been giving him calls which he suspects is originating from the accused group.
“People might say that what I did was a political stunt but it is clearly not because I am not running. I just want to start a conversation and have a debate. There is an attempt to impose one particular ideology in the country and to rewrite history. The ABVP has encroached on the property to forcefully install the statue but they have no proof to prove that Savarkar is Veer and no basis to equate him with Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose or Shri Bhagat Singh. I am not afraid of the wrath of the RSS”, he added.
Speaking to DU Beat, Saimon Farooqui, National Secretary, NSUI, said, “RSS & ABVP have always made dishonesty and bigotry as their instruments to cheat the nation and the universities. Earlier they tried to deceive the students by spending INR 22 lakh of the DUSU budget on “tea”. Last year, they deceived the students of the university by approving the candidature for the post of President of DUSU of a person who had fake documents and carried a fake degree. Today they are trying to brainwash the students of the university by trying to prove a bootlicker of the English Government as a freedom fighter and putting him on the same pedestal as Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Subhash Chandra Bose. I’m proud of our Delhi State President Akshay Lakra for this step and the entire NSUI family backs him for this move. If needed, each one of us would come to streets to blacken and remove the statues of thousands of Savarkars like this.”
Additionally, the negative attention that Akshay is receiving has gone well and beyond DU. Popular accounts on Facebook run by elderly men are openly abusing him and threatening him. Shiv Sena leader, Uddhav Thackeray, has also joined the wagon commenting that anyone who insults Savarkar should be beaten openly!
The National Media Convener for the ABVP, Monika Chaudhary, surprisingly, denies any involvement of the ABVP in this matter, and dissociates herself and her party from the scenario. She retorted that the complaint was “completely false” and that the ABVP does not engage with this level of politics. She also stated that none of the numbers mentioned on the complaint could be connected to any ABVP office-bearers. “It is not the actions of an official member of the ABVP. It could have been an ABVP sympathiser or a person who is a big fan of Veer Savarkar,” she said. She also went on to say that this complaint is merely a means to achieve “fame and popularity” for Lakra in light of the upcoming elections.
We are yet to see what steps the Delhi Police will take against the complaint filed. It is also important to note that if true, the scale of backlash being directed at Akshay Lakra is unprecedented and constitutes harassment. It speaks volumes about how students exercising their freedom of speech and action within university spaces are not immune to attacks from the vicious web of internet trollers who rely only on keywords to immediate make insensitive comments.
Following demands to rename the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Office after VD Savarkar, the DUSU has now installed a pillar with the busts of Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh in the campus, creating a new row.
In an incident that is causing a new controversy in the University of Delhi (DU), the DUSU– led by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the students’ wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)– on Tuesday, installed the busts of VD Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh on a pillar outside the Arts Faculty Gate No. 4 in the North Campus. This development comes a week after the student party raised a demand to christen the DUSU Office as ‘Veer Savarkar Bhawan’.
This episode has created a new row in the University circuit. The conflict has arisen because firstly, the DUSU allegedly not followed the proper procedure behind the installation of the busts, and secondly, the opponents of this move are raising a more fundamental criticism that placing Savarkar along with Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh is unjustified.
“Anti-national step”
In what seemed like giving the ABVP a taste of RSS and BJP’s own medicine, the Indian National Congress (INC) backed National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) called the move made by the DUSU an “anti-national step” and an example of “sheer pseudo-nationalism”.
Saimon Farooqui, the National Secretary of the NSUI, said, “ABVP has always considered VD Savarkar as their hero. [In spite] of him begging for mercy in front of the English Government, the ABVP wants to promote his agenda. We should never forget that he opposed Quit India Movement and refused from unfurling Tiranga, hence demanding for Hindu Rashtra. Comparing Savarkar to Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose is an insult to our Martyrs and their freedom struggle. Naming the august office of representatives of the students of one [of] the best universities after an anti-national person will bring disgrace to the university. It is an example of sheer pseudo-nationalism of ABVP. I, on behalf of NSUI strongly oppose this anti-national step.”
Similarly, on the issue of naming the DUSU Office after Savarkar, Sumit Kataria, the Delhi State Vice President of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party affiliated to the Communist Party of India (CPI), said, “They [DUSU] are not making any new institution and are just renaming an already existing one. All these are just political gimmicks by ABVP to cover up the fact that they have not done anything for the welfare of the student community over the past one year since the DUSU elections are around the corner. Also, this is just a part of their agenda of rewriting Indian history. Savarkar was a traitor to the Indian freedom struggle as he wrote many mercy petitions to the British and had pledged his allegiance to the British rule. Also, his views are completely against the idea of a secular democratic India. Naming DUSU office after such a person should be opposed at any cost and it will be.”
Akshay Chauhan, a student of History at Hindu College stated “I must say Bhagat Singh has died today. To be venerated with a Hindu nationalist who was in cahoots with the colonialists, Bhagat Singh died a shameful death.”
“Youth icons”
Not all were condemning the move of the DUSU. Professor Rasal Singh, a Member of the RSS-affiliated teachers’ organisation, National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF), said, “All three [Savarkar, Bose, Bhagat Singh] are great youth icons. It is high time for the youth to get inspired by them and inculcate those values for which they lived and died.” Prof Singh had contested for the post of the DUSU Vice President on an ABVP panel in 2000.
However, given that many contested and criticised Savarkar’s very ideals and actions, was it justified to consider him a hero? “Yes definitely,” replied Professor Singh, “This is distorted history [written] by communist and colonial historians. That’s why we demand rewriting of history with nationalist perspective.” He asked in return, “Members of DUSU, which is [the] largest students’ union in the country and ABVP, which is [the] largest organization of students in the world feel that Savarkar is a national hero. [Then] what’s the issue? [Do] not they represent youths of this country?”
DU Beat had previously quoted Siddharth Yadav, the ABVP Delhi State Secretary, as saying, “Our University has forgotten the heroes of our freedom struggle. If studied thoroughly, he [Savarkar] is the true inspiration for youngsters.”
Question of procedure
According to a report in The Indian Express, “The pillar came up overnight and, by DUSU’s own admission, without permission from university authorities.” The report stated that a guard, supposedly on duty outside the Arts Faculty Gate No. 4, had said, “a mini-truck was brought in a green tent-like structure around 2 am [on Tuesday], which was set up outside the gate and surrounded by ABVP activists. Around 9.30 am, the structure was removed to reveal the pillar.”
Shakti Singh, the DUSU President in the aforementioned report, stated “We have written to university officials several times asking for permission to set up such a monument — last November, this March, April and again in August — but we got no response. So we decided to go ahead and do it ourselves,”
The condemnation (and approbation) towards the installation of Savarkar’s bust alongside those of Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh was largely partisan. However, concerns regarding the adherence to the proper procedure were raised by even those who fundamentally supported the idea of installing the busts. Despite hailing the move itself, Professor Singh said, “However, I feel laid-down procedure should have been followed for this installation.”
Mr. Yadav, regarding the question of procedure, said, “ABVP is of the clear view that the busts should be installed in Delhi University campus only with the permission of the Delhi University Administration and other concerned authorities.” Despite reiterating the claim of the DUSU that their demands had been “completely ignored” by the administration, he added that “ABVP has clarified to the [DUSU] that the busts should be kept in the DUSU office till the permission is granted and the busts should be installed only after the due permission of the administration.”
The land on which the bust has been installed falls under the jurisdiction of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), as reported by the Indian Express.
Protest against the bust
The Indian Express had quoted Akshay Lakra, the NSUI Delhi Unit President, as saying, “If the statues are not removed within 24 hours, we will launch a strong protest.”
Then, early morning on Thursday, NSUI activists were seen approaching the Arts Faculty Gate where the pillar was installed. TheTimes of India reported that the incident took place between 2-2:30 AM. Mr Lakra, who was leading the members of the student party, first garlanded the busts of Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose and then tore off the garland from Savarkar’s. He then went on to place a garland of shoes around Savarkar’s bust but was stopped by the security personnel present there. With the garland of shoes off the bust, Mr Lakra then defaced it with what looked like black ink. The bust was, however, found clean in the morning today.
Akshay Lakra, NSUI Delhi President, was seen defacing the Savarkar bust around 2 AM. Image and Video Credits – Amarjeet Kumar Singh, AISA
It should be noted that these recent developments have come up when the DUSU elections are just around the corner. The University announced on 20th August that while the last date for filing nominations is 4th September, the polling will take place on the 12th of September.
Feature Image Credits – Kawalpreet Kaur – Delhi President, All India Students’ Association – via Facebook
Discussing the absolute belief with which we, at times, think we are right, providing no space for any sort of discussion.
As college students, who are always being bombarded with new ideas and often one-sided news on social media and other platforms, we are, at times, too quick to form certain opinions, which we then start treating as absolute truths of the universe. More often than not, we also get influenced by the talks and views of our professors and friends. Some people, on the other hand, enter college with already fixed notions which they then are ready to defend in the face of opposition and at times even reason.
Irrespective of how our believes and opinions are developed, for they are a result of our social and personal environment, most of us very strongly believe that we are situated in the moral and ethical corner at all times. Often, this hampers our understanding of why those who are in opposition to our views are so. Many of us who consider ourselves open-minded make statements like “everyone has a right to their own opinions”, but how often do we believe that or not belittler someone, when they hold, beliefs opposite to ours?
As students of the University for Delhi (DU), many of us consider ourselves as politically and socially conscious beings. We attend political rallies and go for protests and some students even join political organizations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) or the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI). However, most of us live in complete denial of even wanting to understand the other side of the argument, leading to a lack of empathy on all sides. Many times we also associate a particular policy with a party. A person who believes in right-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a right-wing political organization are correct and a person who believes in left-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a left-wing political organization are correct, leaving no room for doubt. Incidents of physical and social media bullying or social ostracizing of people because of their political or social believes is a global issue, from which our University corridors are infected as well.
In conclusion, with partial or complete information, opinionated or neutral media platforms and associates, many of us rush into making concrete judgments, completely oblivious to the fact that the other side must have their reason for their views, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with them. Dismissing the other side of an argument does not make us victorious on an imaginary debating platform. Perhaps then, at times we can agree to disagree, for discussion is not to win, but to understand and perhaps at times even empathize with those we do not agree with, in a patient and peaceful environment.
For instance, you may be inclined to follow my line of personal thought and agree with the beliefs behind this article, or disagree with it very strongly; you have a right to do so. I cannot admit to knowing it all but so can’t any of us.
The National Student’s Union of India (NSUI) held a protest march against the amendments made to the Right to Information Act (RTI) by the Government. Read on to know more.
On 1st August 2019, the NSUI held a protest march in front of the Faculty of Arts, North Campus, showing its strong displeasure towards the move taken by the Government to make amends to the RTI Act. The members of the students’ political party marched from the Faculty of Arts to Kirori Mal College, all the while chanting slogans like “RTI Bachao, Desh Bacho“.
Neeraj Kundan, National President, NSUI said, “Today the RTI is one of the most important laws in the country, it directly affects the people. In 2017, when the BJP Government saw that the RTI could expose high government officials like Smriti Irani, and even Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they started trying to curb its power. The Government is now trying to reduce its autonomy and cage it. NSUI is going to hold protests all over the country until our rights are given back to us.”
Students and associations like The North East Students’ Society, Delhi University (NESSDU) turned up in large numbers to support the NSUI’s protest against the RTI amendments. They marched with bold banners and enthusiastic slogans. The presence of the Delhi Armed Police and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) showed how protests in the DU are feared to turn violent, but this was an extremely peaceful protest.
Surbhi Dwivedi, National General Secretary of NSUI and the RTI Team Convener emphasised on the importance of the RTI for the student community. She said, “The RTI is the most effective tool in student politics. It helps students to find discrepancies in the University. A strong RTI is our right.” Robin Chaudhary, National Secretary of NSUI, said that they were determined to fight for democracy and that if the Government did not heed to their demands, they would go on a hunger strike.
The RTI Act, 2015 is an Act of the Parliament of India “to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens”. It has made the workings of the Government more transparent, helped to reduce corruption and has facilitated in the workings of this democracy. The RTI Commissioners used have fixed five-year tenure and their salaries were equal to certain posts in the Election Commission and the bureaucracy. The recent amendments made to the act by the BJP Government have changed this. According to the new amendments, the central government now has direct control over the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners’ term of office and salaries. The changes made to the RTI are being seen by many as the Government trying to control it, and as a result of this many voices in objection to the RTI amendments are being raised all over the country.
The University of Delhi (DU) recently saw a row emerge over the proposed syllabus changes in some undergraduate courses. To understand this better, we spoke to some of the key players involved.
The story developed rapidly in the last couple of weeks in what has now become an ideological battle as various organisations clashed over proposed changes in a variety of the University’s undergraduate programmes – English, History, Political Science, Sociology. Both sides levied a number of accusations on the other – in essence, ranging from trying to manipulate academic spaces to spreading propaganda against certain ideologies. However, some claim that the issue is not a Left vs Right matter at all.
A few characters seem important to this story: Professor Rasal Singh, the Academic Council (AC) member who opposed these proposals; the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which protested against these changes; a host of Left organisations like the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Collective, and others, who staged counter-protests against the ABVP’s demonstration; Professor Saikat Ghosh, another AC member who defended the recommendations of the departments. Our conversation with Professor Sanam Khanna, who was involved in the syllabus drafting exercise, is also of great interest.
But first, here’s the background. After objections from within the AC and the protests by the ABVP over the alleged negative portrayal of the RSS and its affiliates, and what was called “inclusion of false facts relating to Hinduism and nationalist organisations,” organisations like the SFI, AISA, Collective and others staged a ‘joint protest’ in return. As reported by The Indian Express, the University’s English department has decided to drop the “objectionable” portions as it did not want to “hurt anyone’s sentiments”. With “minor modifications,” changes in the Political Science and Sociology courses were reportedly passed, while the Head of Department of History said that the department may “consider changes”.
{One}
In a long text sent to us by Professor Rasal Singh, he detailed the reasons for his opposition to the proposed syllabus changes. Some of the more widely reported reasons were his objections over the alleged depiction of the RSS and its affiliates as “looters” and “murderers” in the story Maniben Alias Bibijaan – a background to the infamous 2002 Gujarat riots – and also the usage of Hindu deities, such as Vishnu, Shiv, Kartikeya and Ganesh, in readings about queerness, based on what he called secondary sources “written by Leftists on the basis of foundational texts of Indian culture like the Bhagavata Purana, Skanda Purana, and Shiva Purana.”
While his right-wing leanings might be apparent above, he also cited some concerns – which were not as widely reported – that perhaps blur the typical ‘rightist’ and ‘leftist’ lines, as we generally understand them. Among these were the alleged removal of the histories of Amir Khusrau, Sher Shah Suri and Dr B.R. Ambedkar, along with those of the Rajputs; the absence of social movements like Bacha Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar movement; the removal of topics on environmental discussions and nature worship in Sociology courses. In addition, he also alleged that the English Department had made close to “100 per cent” changes in the syllabus, instead of 30 per cent, as supposedly mandated under the rules of the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) curriculum. Yet, he also stated that the syllabus showed “tremendous predominance of leftist ideology and a ceaseless opposition towards nationalist ideology, Indian culture and the RSS”.
For more details on why the revised syllabus faced objections, read this author’s previous piece here.
We asked Mr Singh what was a bigger reason for his objection – the content of the proposed chapters or the English department allegedly not following the ‘30 per cent’ CBCS rule. While he said that the latter was also an issue, the content of the chapters remained more problematic. Objecting to what he called the “monopoly” of one ideology (read leftism) in the syllabus revision exercise, he said that a more inclusive process, accounting for teachers with “diverse ideologies and specialisations,” would have been less controversial.
At this point, we wondered whether Mr Singh had some reservations about the ideology of the left itself. He denied. He said that he did not have any issues with the priorities and politics of the left, but with their “exclusive” presence in the process. “Inclusion of other ideologies in the process would have made for better discourse,” he said. Mr Singh’s reservations over the inclusivity of the process also extended to the sources of information supposedly used. Claiming that most news sources used for the Gujarat and Muzaffarnagar riots case studies – The Wire, Scroll, Al Jazeera, to name a few – were ideologically-driven and not mainstream either, he said that other sources, such as Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV and The Indian Express, should also have been used.
An SFI press release had mentioned other instances of what they called attempts by the RSS and its “frontal organisations” to “tamper with the education curriculums”. There had also been allegations – such as the one by Professor Nandita Narain, former President of Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) – that the ABVP protest turned hostile wherein the protesters allegedly demanded that the Heads of Department of English and History departments of the University and AC member Professor Saikat Ghosh be “handed over” to them. Mr Singh – an ABVP leader during his student days – denounced violence and misbehaviour against teachers perpetrated by any organisation. However, he claimed with “full responsibility” that these allegations were false. Christening the ABVP “the most culture-conscious party” out of all student organisations, he said that while the protesters did enter the Vice-Chancellor’s office, they did not enter the Council Hall. “I’m disappointed that some AC members called the students ‘goonda’; students are also important stakeholders [in determining the syllabus],” he said.
{Two}
“This is the most ridiculous allegation that can be heard,” says Siddharth Yadav, the Delhi State Secretary of ABVP, when we ask him about the veracity of the alleged hostile nature of his party’s protest. “We have fundamentally opposed the changes, both technically and ideologically. Why would we demand the teachers be handed over? I don’t even know who comes up with these things. Technically we oppose the process which was adopted for these changes. We have been demanding student representation in the academic council for a long time. A handful of teachers made the entire course without any discussion with the stakeholders. This was our second protest in a row to prevent the mishappening,” he adds.
In their press release, the ABVP had said that they don’t want the “anti-Hindu mindset of the left” to dominate the curricula. However, professor Rasal Singh of the AC had raised other objections also. Was the ABVP against those issues as well or only against RSS’ alleged negative portrayal? We posed this question to Mr Yadav, to which his response was: “Ideologically we are opposing a lot of changes. All Dalit writers have been removed from ‘Hindi Upanyas’ curriculum, Ambedkar’s name has been removed from Dalit thinkers, Godhra riots have been wrongfully presented, a lot of ancient history has been deleted and only the colonial period is focused upon, Maoism and Naxalism is shown as a social movement, Hindu gods and goddesses have been wrongfully commented upon by relying on secondary sources and the list goes on.”
Saying that “all we wanted” was a “review of the syllabus”, Mr Yadav said that there was “a lot more than what is being told. I hope it comes out soon.”
{Three}
The Vice-President of SFI Delhi State, Sumit Kataria, says, “Whenever the BJP has been in power, they’ve always attacked our education system”.
There is a general belief that the academia is largely populated by left-liberals. From some of the most prominent historians of our country, who tend to belong to Marxist schools of thought, to litterateurs critical of the right-wing, there probably is a presence of a more left-oriented academia. After all, the ABVP and Professor Rasal Singh expressed clear displeasure over the alleged leftist character of the revised syllabi. This situation is perhaps not even unique to India either; conservatives in the United States have been claiming for quite some time now that their voices in the university spaces are shrinking. We asked Mr Kataria if he felt that there was a general dominance of the left in academia and if that could make the right-wing voices feel that they are not heard properly. “To say that there is a general dominance of the left ideology is a very ahistorical statement. When has the left ever dominated the academia? It [academia] has always been dominated by the elite and the upper caste sections in India. The left is not in power, so how can we dominate?” he responds. “It is the right-wing organisations’ propaganda and nothing else.”
Now that the revised syllabus has been taken back, essentially ending things the way the ABVP wanted, do parties like the SFI consider it a loss? Mr Kataria says, “It doesn’t mean that ABVP has won. It is our education system that has been defeated and not SFI or any other organisation…These are just attempts at destroying our democratic education system.”
{Four}
Professor Saikat Ghosh. AC member. Professor of English. Allegedly wanted by the ABVP to be “handed over”. Speaking to Mr Ghosh brings a few twists, and confusions, in the story.
He tells us that the information about the alleged “handing over” demand of the ABVP was given to him by the security personnel at the Viceregal Lodge, where the office of the Vice-Chancellor is located. “We were told by the security guards to disperse from the University premises at the earliest as the threat of violence is real.” He further added, “We were escorted out of a back entrance of the Viceregal Lodge in a clandestine way. We were also told that the lights surrounding the Garden outside the Viceregal Lodge were switched off by the ABVP to ensure that CCTV becomes ineffective in the case of an actual physical attack.”
“Unfortunate and indicative of vindictive rejection of the English Dept’s academic autonomy,” was how Mr Ghosh described the resultant withdrawal of the proposed syllabus by the English department. Claiming that the department’s “academic arguments are not being heeded,” Mr Ghosh alleged that the University Undergraduate Curriculum Revision Committee – tasked with overseeing the revision process – had “taken the role of a bully on behalf of the ABVP and NDTF (National Democratic Teachers’ Front)” – both linked to the RSS.
While Mr Singh had called for consultations with more teachers to ensure inclusivity in the process – he said only around 15 teachers of the English department drafted most of the new syllabus – Mr Ghosh contradicted him. “Prof. Rasal Singh is conveniently hiding the fact that 120+ teachers from across 50 DU colleges participated in the English syllabus revision,” he claimed. He further said that an “open call” was given in the English teachers’ General Body Meeting (GBM) in 2017 for voluntary participation in the syllabus revision, of which the “right-wing” teachers chose not to be a part. “Students, alumni and peers in the international academia recorded overwhelming praise,” he said about the revised syllabus, which was supposedly open for “public review and feedback for a month”.
“The NDTF and ABVP seemed to be sleeping through the entire exercise. The RSS is politicising it and not engaging with the academic merits of the syllabus,” he alleged. When we asked Mr Singh whether this was true, he replied that he said “whatever is fact.”
Mr Ghosh profoundly disagrees about the whole issue being an ideological one. He has been associated with the SFI in the past, but strictly maintains that his support for the syllabus has been on academic grounds and that he has not “asserted any party agenda.” He also said that many of the teachers involved in the exercise did not belong to any political background.
“The issue is not a battle between the Right and the Left. It is being given an ideological colour by those who don’t want the English department to give its students a world-class syllabus that allows them to engage with contemporary social and aesthetic concerns. The people opposed to the English syllabus are being unfair to thousands of students who dream of pursuing an English Honours degree from DU colleges,” he said.
Was the process really ideological in nature? Were only members of a certain ideology considered for the syllabus revision exercised, as alleged by some? Or was there an attempt made by the departments to accommodate as many teachers in the drafting exercise as possible, as was claimed by some others?
Professor Sanam Khanna, a teacher of English at Kamala Nehru College, also participated in the syllabus revision exercise. She said that the whole syllabus drafting exercise, which began two years ago, went something like this: “The English department called a General Body Meeting of all teachers from across the University. From the GBM, subcommittees were formed to look after clusters of papers. The drafting process starts from there based on what the teachers feel the students need, the shortcomings of the current syllabi, and feedback from their departments.”
DU Beat got access to some of the emails, dated 2017, which were sent as intimation regarding the syllabus drafting exercise.
E-mail 1E-mail 2The emails accessed by DU Beat show that invitations to be a part of the syllabus revision process were sent to a large number of professors and colleges.
The first and second images of the email dating 30 August 2017 show that the revision exercise was already underway at least as early as September 2017. Here, a clear request has been made for publicising the email as widely as possible and suggestions and recommendations have been invited. The email was sent by Professor Christel R. Devadawson, the then English HoD. The second email – also by Professor Devadawson – dated 29 October 2017, was sent to 357 recipients. The email seems to be about the committee on revising the syllabi for the core courses – an indication that multiple people were involved in the drafting exercise. “Mails such as these were sent to all principals and colleges as well as English teachers’ groups and email lists, inviting suggestions and participation,” Ms Khanna said. “So how can anyone say the process was ‘limited’? Whoever was interested came, attended and worked for over two years,” she added.
Ms Khanna also denied any ideological motivation behind the syllabi. “This is a huge collective effort. It decolonised the study of literature. For the first time in DU, so many Indian authors have been introduced in the syllabus. More than 100 Indian authors across different time periods and genres [were included]. What is leftist here? It is deeply painful to hear such unacademic responses,” she said.
We tried contacting Professor Sunil Kumar, the HoD of the History Department, via email but he did not respond to our queries by the time of publishing this article.
{Five}
What may have started as a purely academic exercise has now taken the form of an ideological and political tussle. The organisations holding protest after protest all come from one or the other ideological leaning; and the demonstrations seem to have taken an ugly shape. While all the politics is fair and well, we do wonder if the agitating parties have gone through the newly proposed texts. For all their claims of holding dialectics and discussion in high regard, did the right engage enough with the left and vice-versa? We may never know.
However, as things stand, another protest was held on 23rd July. Two days earlier, the revised syllabus was put before the Executive Council of the University for final approval; it was sent back for revision. Mr Singh welcomed this decision of referring back what he called the “propagandist” and “non-inclusive” syllabus to the respective departments. He said that the syllabi of these departments should be “comprehensively reviewed by including more teachers and stakeholders in the exercise.” He however expressed disappointment as “the teachers are hardly given any reasonable time to comprehensively and critically analyse all contents of these departments. The cosmetic and superficial approach on such an important academic matter will not serve the purpose.”
An oversight committee is now tasked with finalising the syllabi by 31 July. The syllabi of these departments was supposed to take effect from the current session onwards. While the revised syllabi of many other courses has been approved, as available on the University website, that of these departments hangs in the balance. Ms Khanna hints at this when she says, “We are worried about our students who are without a syllabus when every day is precious in this short semester system.”
March in defence of academic freedom and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s (ABVP) interference in the syllabus making of various departments of the University of Delhi, namely English, History, Sociology and Political Science took place at the Faculty of Arts on 23rd July amid tensions between the ABVP, departments involved and other student bodies. The protest took a political turn when the members of ABVP and Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) held a counter-protest expressing dissent over the protest.
Students from the English Department and student unions like Students Federation of India (SFI), All India Students Association (AISA), Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Pinjra Tod, along with the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA) held a march in the north campus of DU against ABVP’s opposition to DU’s syllabus-making process. An exercise that was meant to be academic in nature took a distinctly political turn at the meeting of the standing committee on academic matters, where the syllabus was presented on11th July. Rasal Singh, an elected representative of the National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) which is supposedly aligned with the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), took issue with parts of the English syllabus that he wanted to be removed and some of the history syllabus that he wanted to be added.
The protest came in the wake of the episode of ABVP barging into the compound of the Vice Regal Lodge, and was rumoured to be asking for three professors, including the Heads of English and History department, to be handed over to them. Since then, ABVP has been protesting against those departments.
Kawalpreet Kaur, Delhi State President of AISA said, “It is well known that the syllabus of Delhi University has an unmatching standard. This owes to the professors who worked hard to maintain the DU’s academic quality. Clearly, ABVP’s intervention calls for systematic destruction of the course content of Delhi University. It is high time that we should all join hands and resist all such moves.”
Changes in the syllabus proposed by the English department of the University were opposed in a meeting of the Standing Committee to review the Undergraduate syllabus on 11th July. Among the proposals was the inclusion of study materials related to the role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and use of Hindu deities in the reading of Queer Literature. DU, having one of the most prestigious and world-class education in humanities and social sciences intends to provoke a critical faculty among the students. However, the references to Hindu deities and Gujarat riots have irked the right-wing forces.
Mahima Chaudhary, a student of Hindu college told DU Beat, “In an academic institution, no party has any right to dictate what should be taught and what not. It is truly fascist and undemocratic.”
Protesters at the Faculty of Arts.
ABVP and Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) have sought support from the academic world for representation of the students with regards to the inclusion of three R’s in the syllabus i.e. representation, review of the syllabus and rational debate. ABVP emphasised on the need for democratisation of academia. However, the intimidation and threatening nature of dissent ABVP used turned out to be anything but democratic.
Addressing the students, Sachin Narayanan, who teaches English at Dyal Singh College, said, “The controversy over the short story ‘Maniben alias Bibijan’ exposes the sinister designs of RSS-BJP government-backed groups and individuals in academia. Factually, neither this story nor the text containing this story was part of the Syllabus Committee’s proposed Undergraduate Programme English language syllabus at any stage. Bunch of lies are being spread to misguide people which must be exposed.”
Given the fact that the revised syllabus was uploaded on the website of the respective departments in the month of May, and feedback from the public was invited before it was presented before the University’s statutory bodies on 11th July, none of the objections was raised, giving the whole syllabus-making process a political turn. The protest took a political turn when ABVP and DUSU held a counter-protest outside the office of HoDs of 5 Departments of English, Sociology, Political Science, History, and Hindi. Headed by the President, Shakti Singh, members were seen shouting slogans like, “Tum naxalvaad se desh todoge, hum rashtravaad se jodenge” and criticised communist and left-wing forces in the campus. The campus had a heavy presence of police in view of the political turn the events had taken.
ABVP Protesters at Faculty of Arts
Shakti Singh told DU Beat, “The way in which Hindu deities are being depicted in the syllabus is very unfortunate. We have written to the Chancellor of DU for the students’ representation in the syllabus making process, and we demand the administration to bring in a new syllabus considering the demands of the students.”
“The entire left-wing professors and the administration of Delhi University must be held responsible for this.” he further added.
The fact of the linkages between Hindu deities and LGBTQ being regarded as “unfortunate” is itself contradictory for a progressive institution like DU. The academic fervour of the University stands threatened and vulnerable by the political turn the events have taken. The subjects of humanities and social sciences are undoubtedly political in nature; however, they also amalgamate the confluence of various thought of schools and discourses. Turning a blind eye and creating a political situation on a dominant opinion threatens the academic stimulation of the various courses being taught in the University. The consequences of the ideological warfare have to be borne by the students and the politicisation of an academic affair raises eyebrows over the academic autonomy of the University
Feature Image Credits: Sriya Rane and Noihrit Gogoi for DU Beat
The University of Delhi (DU) works as a microcosm of the world. And like the bigger picture, it has its own sense of politics. Here is a brief intro to Delhi University Student’s Union (DUSU) and its significance.
Many big names in contemporary Indian politics have had a stint in their college elections. Be it Arun Jaitley, president of the DUSU in 1974, or Kanhaiya Kumar, the Students Union President of Jawaharlal Nehru University; these elections seem like a foundation for a career in politics.
The DUSU is a student body which held its first elections in 1954. It is the body which regulates and renegotiates the policies, rules and regulations agreed on by the varsity. DUSU actively involves itself in student-related issues and problems, tries to resolve them by pursuing the administration and works for the welfare of the students. DUSU has actively involved itself in the admission-related processes and issues of students.
However, this entity is not free from dirty politics and hooliganism. The student politicians are infamous for staging protests, illegal activities, and unnecessary violence. The rivalry between ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad)— student-wing of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI)—student-wing of the Indian National Congress (INC)—is representative of their much larger right-versus-left conflict.
Supplementing this circle of politics are organisations like Pinjra Tod, Student’s Federation of India (SFI), All India Student’s Association (AISA), Democratic Student’s Union (DSU), Krantikari Yuva Sanghatan (KYS) and many others.
The most important takeaway from the DUSU and its functioning for the university students is that it allows students to have an opportunity to contemplate their political choices, their freedom to vote, and the ‘apparent’ legacy of their family opinions. The first vote a DU student casts is for this simulation of National democracy.
Jaishree Kumar, a final year student of History from Ramjas College has experienced this circus for the past two years. She states, “Politics in the university can be intimidating, but it’s also a reflection of National politics, and in some ways, a caricature of it. Its apparent omnipresence is suffocating sometimes, but don’t get deterred by their loudness. Their freebies and niceness don’t matter. Their ‘may I help you’ signs disappear once the elections are over. Don’t run away from the politics, don’t take pride in calling yourself ‘apolitical’, don’t follow an ideology which has been passed down your family. You’re a university student, question everything.”
Some first-time witnesses of DUSU politics, like Prateek Pankaj from Hindu College call it “a social laboratory to understand how politics at the larger scale works”. He says, “More than anything, it teaches how democracy lives and breathes around us. When you see people protesting against the dismissal of sanitation workers or for the rights of ad-hoc teachers, it tells you how issues actually impact people.”
A humble advice to all the freshers: be aware, be involved and be alert. Form your own political opinions. I myself have experienced this ‘House of Shards’ for the first time last year, and I am already looking forward to this year’s dynamics.
Feature Image Caption: Students queued to cast their votes during DUSU Elections 2018-19.
The continuing problems related to admissions in the varsity have raised several questions on the functionality of the administration.
Student organisations Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and National Students Union of India (NSUI) of the University of Delhi (DU) have voiced their concerns and demonstrated against the DU Vice Chancellor regarding the difficulties faced by students during the time of admissions. The demonstation also sought to question the fee hike that has taken place for almost all courses in the University.
ABVP has voiced the concerns of the students by protesting at the Arts Faculty, addressing various issues related to admissions. The increment in college fees has been challenged along with irregularity in Sports Category admissions. Provision of admission by accepting undertaking, and introduction of EWS category in M. Phil/ PhD admissions has been requested. Importantly, inadequate arrangement in colleges for parents at the time of the admission process are some of the issues amongst other key issues that have been raised by the ABVP.
They (ABVP) has brought into the limelight how the admission staff in colleges who were admitting students to the first cut-off were not aware of the rules prescribed by the University. This caused problems in the smooth functioning during the admissions process. Admissions of students were also cancelled due to loopholes in the admission process.
Siddharth Yadav, the State Secretary of ABVP Delhi, said that if the demands are not met within the time period of ten days, then there will be more resolute protests against the administration.
DUSU President Shakti Singh also highlighted the issue of fee hike by saying, “There has been an arbitrary unaccounted fee increase in many DU colleges.” The issue Ramjas College’s fee hike has been previously reported on by DU Beat.
A memorandum to the Dean of Students Welfare had been submitted after the protest ended by the the ABVP delegation.
Attempts have been made by the student organisations so that the DU admission process does not become tedious and burdensome for the students. The true effects of the protests remain to be seen.
