Latest
DU Beat – Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper
Author

DU Beat

Browsing
Features

NEP: Changing Norms for Teachers and Students

By

 

In this conversation with Prof. Pooja Thakur, a professor at the Department of History at St Stephen’s College, we explore how the NEP has transformed the everyday realities of teaching and learning in universities. 

 

Correspondent: Could you please describe how the hiring system within the university has changed with the NEP, and how it impacts the future of academics and academicians?

 

Prof. Pooja Thakur: Firstly, I would like to clarify that the ad hoc system and guest system are not new provisions that came with the NEP.  The ad hoc system was introduced way back in 2007 at the University of Delhi. In short, ad hoc appointments were to be made against vacancies for a period of more than one month but less than 120 days. 

 

Prior to this ad hoc system, the university also made recruitments of Assistant Professors on a temporary basis. The difference being that temporary teachers’ appointments were made for a period of one year, and, if I am not wrong, the teachers in these positions also received medical and other forms of leave. The Ad hoc system, however, allowed for a basic pay scale with no social or medical security. That means teachers in ad hoc positions could not avail maternity leaves, study leaves, sabbatical or receive a pension, gratuity, etc., all this while they have been teaching for over a decade. 

 

The Guest Faculty system was perhaps brought into the university around 2010. This was to be made for short-term vacancies created for less than a month. Initially, teachers were to be paid Rs. 1000 per lecture and a maximum limit of Rs. 25000 in a month. In 2019, guidelines were changed, and now guest faculty teachers are to be paid Rs. 1500 per lecture and a maximum limit of Rs. 50000 a month. And even if you make a maximum of Rs. 50000, after tax deduction, in-hand income would be only Rs. 45,000 a month. But in months in which there are fewer classes, like mid-semester break, examinations, and summer break, then you either earn way less than Rs. 50000 in a month or you earn nothing at all, since there are no classes held. Of course, it goes without saying that a teacher working under a guest position also does not get any social or medical benefits, gratuity, pension, etc. 

 

The permanent appointments had not been made since 2009. In 2014-2015, if I remember correctly, there were some appointments made in some courses in some colleges across the university, but a full-fledged permanent appointment drive really started in 2022. But, even then, it has left many teachers, who have taught for years in the university system under such circumstances, out of jobs. 

Certainly, with the introduction of NEP, recruitment on an ad hoc basis has stopped, and now appointments are made only on a guest basis, but this is not necessarily due to the introduction of the policy itself. However, with an ad hoc, at least there was surety of a standard monthly income and a regular job, but with a guest faculty position—that too is gone! So yes, certainly it makes for a more vulnerable teaching community. 

 

 

C: What are your views on teachers being arbitrarily allotted papers to teach which they have no prior knowledge of?

 

PT: As per my knowledge, earlier, there used to be a committee of teachers in various departments across the university. These committees looked into syllabi revisions, and teachers across colleges would participate in the making of the curriculum, after which the syllabus was passed by the University of Delhi. Now, that does not seem to be the case, at least for several new components in the course structure under NEP. 

 

For example, the SEC and VAC papers, which are a central pool of papers, are not necessarily made by deliberation amongst teachers of a particular department. I am not sure what exactly the process is here, but it doesn’t appear to be the same as it was earlier. So, you have many papers which are not strictly aligned with your courses and are meant to enhance skills in different areas. And to my understanding, any department can teach any paper from this central pool of papers. However, amongst many problems with its implementation, one can also see that many of these papers are difficult to execute, as their practical components require infrastructure that most colleges are not equipped with. However, SEC was a component under the previous CBCS (LOCF) syllabus as well. Under this scheme, each student pursued their SEC in the third and fourth semesters (i.e., in their second year of college). These papers were aligned to core courses and introduced allied fields, helping students make informed choices at the end of graduation.

 

Now, the current courses require students and teachers to engage for 3–4 hours (depending on the lecture and practical components), but not always with meaningful outcomes. To engage students for these hours, we must devise ways for them to interact meaningfully, which is not always achieved. The new courses, they naturally require more preparation time.

 

C: New papers are being given to teach every semester, with some having little to no relevance to the actual coursework—The Art of Being Happy, for instance. How does this additional load impact you as a teacher?

 

PT: In a way, it does take more time to prepare for lectures with many different papers to teach. The total hours of teaching for core, discipline elective, and generic elective papers have been reduced from five to three hours to make space for two-credit courses, like SEC and VAC have either one lecture and two practical hours or four practical hours.

 

The addition of new components in the NEP syllabus has increased the total number of papers taught to students. For instance, first-year students now study seven papers instead of four under the earlier syllabus. This leaves little time for other activities and also adds to teachers’ workload, as they now handle more, often new, papers. With reduced hours, teachers rush through topics just to complete the syllabus. The earlier rigour of undergraduate teaching helped build strong conceptual understanding through a balanced pace of learning, reading, and writing. 

 

The internal assessment structure has also changed. Earlier, it was 25 marks for internal evaluation and 75 for the final exam. Under NEP, 30 marks are allotted for internal assessment and 40 for continuous assessment, based on tutorial activities. Although slightly different for 2-credit courses like SEC and VAC, the outcome is clear: more submissions for students and continuous evaluation for teachers. Consequently, alongside preparing for numerous papers, teachers are burdened with constant assessment, affecting the overall quality of teaching and learning. 

 

C: How do you see the future of public universities in India?

 

PT: I do believe that change is constant and do hope for better schemes for education and higher education in particular. Public universities hold immense importance for many of us—most of us wouldn’t have received a good education without them. They play a vital role in fulfilling a basic human right to education, and we cannot abandon the idea of a public university. But yes, one has to constantly strive to provide meaningful education to students and fulfil the promise that it lays out for lakhs of students who join the university each year. 

 

I remain hopeful that better change will come. How that will happen, I cannot say. But I do believe it will require all stakeholders—teachers and students alike—to speak up for the values that have sustained our universities so far. 

Read Also: EXPLAINED: The NEP’s Multiple Exit System and Beyond: What it Means For You

Image Credits: Madhav for DU Beat

 

Madhav Choudhary 

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

EXPLAINED: The NEP’s Multiple Exit System and Beyond: What it Means For You

By

The NEP introduces a flexible degree system with multiple exit points, aiming to make higher education more adaptable while raising questions about its real impact on students.

 

The National Education Policy (NEP) has changed how undergraduate degrees work in India. The new system introduces the multiple entry and exit model, which means students can choose to leave their college course after one, two, three, or four years and still get a recognised qualification.

 

If a student completes one year, they will get a certificate. After two years, a diploma; after three years, a bachelor’s degree; and finally, after four years, they receive a bachelor’s degree with honours (in the case of BAP) or research. The government has also introduced the Academic Bank of Credits (ABC), where each student’s earned credits will be stored online. If a student leaves after two years and wants to continue later, they can rejoin and use the credits they’ve already earned instead of starting over. The change is part of a bigger shift towards a four-year degree system, which is now being adopted by most central universities, including Delhi University. Under this system, the fourth year includes research work and a more detailed study of the chosen subject.

 

At first glance, this sounds like a fair and progressive model. It helps students who face financial or personal problems and may need to pause their studies. It also aligns Indian degrees with global standards, as many countries have four-year bachelor’s programmes. However, the ground reality has been mixed, especially in the first few years of implementation.

Many students and teachers say the system looks better on paper than in practice. In Delhi University, where the four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP) was reintroduced under NEP, the transition has not been easy. Students report heavier schedules, confusing syllabi, and uncertainty about how their degrees will be valued in the future. The course load has increased, and many are still unsure what difference an extra year will make.

 

The exit options, the certificate and the diploma are also under scrutiny. While they are officially recognised, their real-world value is not yet clear. Employers, postgraduate institutions, and even the students themselves are unsure how useful these qualifications will be. In professional courses like engineering or vocational programmes, a one- or two-year diploma might make sense, but in general academic fields like English, History, or Political Science, a certificate after one year is unlikely to help much in getting a job.

 

Even though the NEP tries to normalise the idea, there is still stigma attached to leaving college early. Many people still think of it as “dropping out”. Until employers start valuing these exit degrees equally, the social hierarchy between a full degree and a certificate will likely continue. Further, students from well-off backgrounds are more likely to complete the full four-year programme, while those from poorer backgrounds might have to leave early. If the early exit options are not respected in the job market, a new form of inequality may arise unintentionally, where only some students can afford to stay long enough to earn the most valuable credential.

 

Moreover, while some universities have adapted their courses and credit systems, others are still figuring out how to manage the new structure. There is confusion about credit transfers, subject combinations, and how the fourth-year “research” part will function for every stream.

 

At Delhi University, students have mixed feelings. Some welcome the flexibility that NEP has brought, while others feel the transition has been rushed. For students planning to study abroad, the four-year degree might be beneficial, since it matches international standards. But for most students who plan to work in India or appear for government exams, the three-year degree remains sufficient.

In the end, the new hierarchy of degrees represents both opportunity and uncertainty. For now, most students prefer to stay for at least the full three years to get a complete bachelor’s degree. NEP’s flexibility could make education more inclusive in the long run, but for that to happen, there must be clarity, awareness, and real value attached to every level of the new degree hierarchy. The lack of infrastructural mechanisms, however, render its provisions useless. For the NEP to truly work, students need clear guidance on what each exit option means and offers. Universities should tie up with industries or training bodies so that the one-year and two-year qualifications have actual career value. Until then, the 1-year certificate and 2-year diploma will continue to carry an invisible question mark in the minds of students and employers. 

Read Also: Foreign Students and NEP

Image Credits: Devesh for DU Beat

Anjali Kumari Jha

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

Foreign Students and NEP

By

The NEP has ushered in several changes to the field of Indian education, from what and how students study to how teachers teach. On paper, the NEP has made education more flexible and overall more ‘glamorous’, incorporating global exposure and digital learning. However, the NEP looks at knowledge and education through an ‘Indian’, and arguably ‘saffron’ lens. Hence, many curriculum alterations made by the NEP are of little value to foreign students.

 

One of the most beautiful attributes of Delhi is that it is a melting pot of diverse cultures from around the world. It is a hub of globalisation where cultural differences meet, mix, and are adopted. This diverse population is indicative of a diverse student body, one that cannot be fully served by education policies that view learning through the eyes of unilateral exchange. Yet, the University of Delhi was the UGC’s first experimental candidate when it came to implementing the NEP.

 

The NEP has not only failed to accommodate the needs of the multitude of foreign nationals who have chosen India as their study-abroad destination, but it is actively forcing them to learn subjects that seldom contribute to their academic and/or professional aspirations. For instance, departments of Astrology, Rituals, and Vastu have been established in universities like Banaras Hindu University and Jawaharlal Nehru University. Superstition has been incorporated into education in the name of “value addition.” Ironically, this added value is undetectable.

 

Some syllabus alterations in particular courses simply make no sense; these are barely of measurable utility to Indian students, let alone helpful to foreign students. For example, journalism students would benefit more from writing or political science classes as opposed to learning about Bharat Muni’s Natyashastra. The NEP has replaced several logical, intellectual, and scientific parts of curricula with Indian feudal values. Japanese exchange student Kenta Terada questions the relevance some subjects have in his journalism course, and says, “I would rather have practical classes.” It also attempts to write the “history of India from an Indian perspective.” Some argue these are attempts to saffronise the country through education. However, that claim is ambiguous and a topic of heated discussion.

 

Living in a country and learning its language(s) and culture is one thing. It is both necessary and, a lot of the time, recreational. But, when it is enforced and delivers content that is devoid of practicality (which is often what the NEP’s changes have done), it becomes a tedious waste of time and money spent on education. As Mary Flaviah, a Kenyan student at the Delhi School of Journalism, said, “I just didn’t see the relevance, and to me it felt like a pure waste of time since at the end of the day I’ll go back to my country…some courses still don’t make sense to me as a foreign student. The Indian Philosophy, for instance. I am so sure I am never going to apply that anywhere, but because it’s part of the coursework, I am forced to study it.” 

 

Many other foreign students share the same opinion, with Nigerian student Nneoma Marvellous Anyaogu saying that though she appreciates being able to gain a deeper understanding of India’s culture and traditions, as someone who is not Indian, and may not build a career in India, she “sometimes finds these subjects less connected” to her personal or professional goals.

Read Also: The Politics of Evaluation: Continuous Assessment and the Disappearance of Depth

Image Credits: Mahin for DU Beat

Souparnika Rajkumar

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

The Politics of Evaluation: Continuous Assessment and the Disappearance of Depth

By

The classroom has turned into an assembly line of submissions, and teachers, overwhelmed by grading requirements, have little time left for meaningful mentorship or feedback.

Education has long been regarded as a process of intellectual discovery—of thinking deeply, questioning boldly, and learning meaningfully. Yet, this ideal is steadily eroding. Across universities and schools, students now live within an unending cycle of evaluation—internal assessments, projects, presentations, assignments, and the list goes on. The logic behind this system seems sound: frequent evaluation is meant to encourage consistent learning, reduce exam stress, and provide teachers with an ongoing understanding of student progress. However, beneath the promise of fairness and engagement lies a troubling paradox—when everything is assessed, very little is actually learned deeply.

The shift towards continuous assessment has been one of the most significant changes in modern education policy. From the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 in India, the trend is clear: move away from high-stakes final exams and towards a “holistic” evaluation system that values participation, projects, and internal assessment. On paper, it sounds progressive—a model that rewards effort and creativity rather than last-minute memorisation. But in practice, this model has created a culture of constant performance, where students are perpetually producing rather than reflecting.

One of the major drawbacks of this system is the disappearance of depth. Instead of allowing students to spend weeks exploring a concept or topic, reading beyond the syllabus, or revising and refining their understanding, the system demands quick, measurable outputs. Every week brings a new deadline, a new rubric or stylesheet, and a new mark. Students, caught in this cycle, quickly learn the art of strategic compliance—doing just enough to meet the criteria without engaging deeply with the material. The intellectual curiosity that education is meant to nurture is replaced by a survival instinct: What’s the word limit? How many marks is this worth?

This is not laziness; it is adaptation. When evaluation becomes omnipresent, students prioritise what is measurable over what is meaningful. In such an environment, thinking deeply—the hallmark of genuine learning—becomes a luxury few can afford.

The continuous assessment model has also reshaped the teacher’s role. Instead of acting as facilitators of thought, teachers often become administrators of evaluation. With dozens or even hundreds of students to assess weekly, providing detailed, personalised feedback becomes almost impossible. The lack of time for thoughtful evaluation has profound consequences. Feedback, when rushed or generic, loses its value. It neither guides improvement nor encourages reflection. What should have been a dialogue between learner and teacher turns into a transaction. This mechanisation of feedback erodes the relationship between teacher and student as co-thinkers. 

The push for continuous assessment is not merely educational. It reflects a managerial mindset prioritising accountability, data, and efficiency over critical inquiry. Pressured to show measurable outcomes, institutions reduce education to quantifiable deliverables. Learning becomes performance, not understanding; students turn into data points, teachers into evaluators. This technocratic approach, appealing for its promise of transparency and productivity, flattens intellectual depth, replacing curiosity with compliance. By reducing growth to checklists and metrics, efficiency begins to matter more than thought, and deep, reflective learning becomes a luxury modern education can no longer afford.

At the heart of this crisis lies a more basic issue—the disappearance of time. Both students and teachers are caught in a perpetual rush. There is no pause between one assessment and the next, no breathing space for reading beyond the syllabus, developing skills, pursuing their hobbies, interests, etc.

Deep learning, however, requires slowness. It requires the patience to wrestle with difficult ideas, to make mistakes, to reflect and return. The constant churn of assessments denies this possibility. Students move from one topic to another without the chance to consolidate their understanding. What remains is surface learning—fragmented knowledge held together by deadlines rather than comprehension. This commodification of learning undermines intrinsic motivation. The joy of discovering something new, of following a thought simply because it is interesting, is replaced by a transactional mindset. Over time, students internalise a dangerous belief: that knowledge is not something to live with, but something to complete and move past.

None of this is to argue for a return to the anxiety-inducing system of one-shot final exams. Continuous evaluation can, in theory, support learning if implemented thoughtfully—with fewer assessments, better feedback, and more emphasis on reflection rather than output. To reclaim depth in education, institutions must reimagine assessment as a process of dialogue, not surveillance. Teachers need time and trust to mentor rather than manage. Students need space to think, fail, and revise without the constant fear of being graded. Education must once again become a space for intellectual risk-taking, where questions matter more than answers and where thinking slowly is valued as a form of courage, not inefficiency.

Read Also: NEP’s Three-Language Formula for Schools

Image Credits – Hindustan Times

Richa Choudhary

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

150 Years of Vande Mataram: Celebrations across DU Colleges

By

To mark 150 years of “Vande Mataram”, nationwide celebrations were held, with mass singing of the full version of the national song, highlighting the celebrations along with an address from the Hon’ble Prime Minister. Colleges across DU, including the Delhi School of Journalism and the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, tuned in to the celebrations.

The year 2025 marks 150 years of “Vande Mataram.” This milestone was celebrated with mass singing of “Vande Mataram” across several public spaces, including the University of Delhi, colleges such as the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, and the Delhi School of Journalism, on 7 November 2025. Nationwide celebrations will be held until 7 November 2026. An Inaugural Ceremony was held at the Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium at 10:00 am, in the presence of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, Shri. Narendra Modi. Arrangements were made to telecast the Prime Minister’s address. 

At the Delhi School of Journalism, the celebrations commenced at 10:00 am with a mass singing of the full version of “Vande Mataram,” after which the entire institution tuned in to the Prime Minister’s address through YouTube LIVE, which brought to light the historical significance of the song. The Prime Minister also talked about how the song evoked a sense of patriotism in civilians and soldiers alike, increasing the enthusiasm of the country’s protectors on the battlefield. As the address was brought to an end, the students and faculty of DSJ once again sang the “Vande Mataram.” The program concluded with the distribution of sweets to all students and faculty members.

At the Delhi College of Arts and Commerce, students expressed pride in being able to sing the national song as one. Mohammed Asad, a second-year B.A (Hons.) A journalism student at DCAC said, “I am grateful beyond words to the college for this opportunity. This event also marks how our freedom fighters fought for the freedom of our country.” At DSJ, a student who chooses to remain anonymous said, “Everyone was singing the song together as it should’ve been..the whole of DSJ came together to sing the song, and that symbolised unity.”

Read more: JNUSU 2025-26: Left Unity dominates the Union

Image Credits: The Indian Express

Souparnika.S.R

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Delhi HC Orders Expedited Police Protection for Former DUSU President Ronak Khatri amid alleged Death Threats.

By

The Delhi High Court directed police to expedite protection for ex-DUSU president, Ronak Khatri, who reported receiving ₹5 crore extortion and death threats allegedly from gangster Rohit Godara via WhatsApp.

The Delhi High Court, in its hearing on Thursday and in a  bench consisting of Justice Ravinder Dudeja, ordered Delhi Police to expedite the request for police protection seeked by former Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) president Ronak Khatri, after he alleged that he received extortion and death threats from gangster Rohit Godara. He stated that  “to expedite the request for police protection” as sought by him, as he “perceives threat to (his) life”.  Additionally, the court instructed that until a decision regarding police protection is made, the beat constable must regularly visit Khatri, “at least once for the next two weeks to ensure his well being”.

 

Khatri stated that he received a WhatsApp message from a phone number traced to Ukraine, demanding ₹5 crore and allegedly sent at the behest of Godara. Following this, an FIR was lodged at the Narela police station. Khatri further informed that he is “not able to campaign and step out of my house”.

 

In response to this, the Delhi Police informed the court that Khatri has received the local Station House’s and the beat constable’s contact number. Khatri’s application for police protection and security has been forwarded to the DCP (Outer North), who has further  forwarded it to the Special Cell.  The police stated that since the threat assessment is still pending, the Special Cell will make the final decision on whether Khatri will be provided protection.

The Court, while addressing Khatri’s case, stated that:

This Court being the constitutional court is expected to further the constitutional protection of citizens. Since the petitioner perceives threat to his life, the DCP Outer North and DCP Special Cell are directed to expedite the request for police protection.

It  further directed that “beat constables and SHO be duly counselled to attend the call if made by (Khatri)”.

Read Also – DUSU Executive Committee Dates Released

Image Credits- The Print 

Divyanshi Dusad

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

JNUSU 2025-26: Left Unity dominates the Union

By

On the night of November 6th, election results were released, cementing Left’s dominance in JNU student politics as the alliance Left Unity swept the central panel. Unlike last time, AVBP was unable to get a hold of a seat in the central panel and especially in the councillor seat of School of International Studies (SIS) or School of Social Sciences (SSS) which it has previously won. 

On November 4th, elections for the new Jawaharlal Nehru University’s student union (JNUSU) was held. Many student unions formed panels to fight in the elections, namely the RSS backed Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (AVBP), Indian National Congress Student Wing National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and an alliance of All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students Federation of India (SFI) and the Democratic Students Federation (DSF) named Left Unity. Many smaller organisations and independent candidates also stood in the elections.

The counting began on the night of the 4th November and finished on 6th November night. A total of 5,802 votes were casted of the 9,043, 64% voter turnout. The alliance Left Unity swept all the central posts. For the president position, Aditi Mishra got 1,977 votes, around 33% of the votes, beating the AVBP backed candidate, Vikas Patel by 449 votes. The vice president Kizhakoot Gopika Babu won a staggering 3,101 votes, more than half of the total votes. For the general secretary Sunil Yadav secured 2,005 votes and Danish Ali secured 2,083 votes for the joint-general secretary. 

AVBP which had won seats in the last election, was unable to make a comeback in the central panel neither in many of the councillor seats especially SIS or SSS which they had previously won. Asking a JNU student as to why this was the case, they opined that it was due to an increase of violence. They recalled that the SSS general body meeting (GBM) had turned ugly when people started fighting, using abusive and casteist slurs against each other. It turned violent when elected councillor candidates and the JNUSU President were attacked. Another factor that they said was when a FIR was lodged against the students who went to report the above mentioned incident. Due to these incidents the alliance Left Unity was able to consolidate its hold.

The votes being divided in the last election due to two different left alliances was, for many, a major reason as to why ABVP was able to consolidate a seat in the central panel. This time however left organisations were able to come together and form a single alliance. Critics have, however, pointed out that the alliance has sidelined many smaller organisations and accused them for slacking on student issues. 

The results have cemented the Left Unity’s dominance in the university’s student politics and has marked a change in its strategy to organise, marking a significant shift from the previous election.

 

Read More: DU Cancels a Seminar from DSE’s Longest-Running Colloquiums, Convenor Resigns

Image Credits: Times of India

Reva Rawat
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

DU Student Dies by Suicide; BAPSA Alleges Institutional Apathy

By

A first-year Dalit student from Deshbandhu College died by suicide on Saturday, with BAPSA alleging “institutional apathy” and police negligence.

A 19-year-old Dalit student of Deshbandhu College, Delhi University, was found dead in her rented Govindpuri flat on Saturday. The student was the sister of Raj Ratan Rajoriya, the JNUSU presidential candidate from the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA).

BAPSA has alleged “institutional apathy” by Delhi University and procedural lapses by the police in handling the case. According to Rajoriya, police arrived without a doctor and denied requests to call for one, saying that too much time had passed. It was also alleged that they asked the deceased’s brother to check the vitals and subsequently declared the person dead verbally. Rajoriya also claimed that no female officers were present during the investigation except for one woman from the crime department who came to collect evidence. He added that there were not enough personnel to carry the body from the sixth-floor flat, forcing them to use a blanket instead of a stretcher.

BAPSA alleged that Delhi University offers hostel accommodation to only 0.71% to 1% of its students, making it difficult for marginalised students to find safe and affordable housing. The deceased, they said, lived in a congested rooftop flat with poor ventilation and no lift, reflecting unsafe and isolating living conditions. “This questions the legality of such structures and the complicity of the authorities,” they said.

The organisation also highlighted the lack of mental health support on campus, stating that DU has only one visiting psychiatrist and no clinical psychologists for over seven lakh students. A police officer reportedly told the group that this was the sixth suicide linked to Deshbandhu College in 2025, none of which have been officially recorded by the university.

“Will Delhi University take accountability? How long will Dalit students have to die in universities due to institutional failure?” BAPSA asked. They urged Bahujan and progressive students to unite and demand accountability for “the systemic neglect that continues to push marginalised students to the brink.”

Read Also: DU Cancels a Seminar from DSE’s Longest-Running Colloquiums, Convenor Resigns

Image Credit: Deshbandhu College Website

Anjali Kumari Jha

[email protected] 

 

Keep Reading
By
News

IIT Delhi Tops Indian Universities in QS Asia Rankings, DU Slips but Stays in Top 100

By

India’s performance in QS Asia 2026 Rankings shows mixed results; while IIT Delhi leads nationally, Delhi University’s slip to 95th calls for renewed focus on research and global partnerships.

In the latest QS World University Rankings: Asia 2026, the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi) has once again emerged as India’s highest-ranked institution. Ranked 59th in Asia, IIT Delhi has retained its top spot among Indian universities for the fifth consecutive year, though it fell from 44th place last year.

Across India, the rankings reveal a mixed picture. 7 Indian universities made it to Asia’s top 100, 20 in the top 200 and 66 in the top 500. However, many top institutions, including IITs and IISc Bengaluru, saw declines in their ranks. The Indian Institute of Science dropped from 62nd to 64th, reflecting the increasing competition from East and Southeast Asian universities.

The University of Delhi (DU) maintained its presence among Asia’s leading universities but slipped from 81st to 95th this year. For one of India’s most prominent public universities, this decline highlights the need for renewed focus on research impact, international collaborations, and faculty-student ratios—key metrics emphasized by the QS methodology.

Despite the dip, DU continues to hold a distinctive position in India’s academic landscape, given its diversity, rich intellectual legacy, and contribution to social sciences and humanities research. Experts believe that with strategic emphasis on research funding, interdisciplinary studies, and global partnerships, DU could strengthen its standing in future rankings.

While IIT Delhi leads the national chart, the broader story points to a crucial transition for Indian higher education—one where greater emphasis on quality research and global visibility will determine which institutions rise to meet the demands of a changing academic world.

Featured image source-   QS Quacquarelli Symonds

Madhav Choudhary 

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

DU Cancels a Seminar from DSE’s Longest-Running Colloquiums, Convenor Resigns

By

Delhi University abruptly cancelled a long-standing DSE Sociology colloquium on ‘Land, Property and Democratic Rights’ citing “administrative reasons.” The move prompted convenor Nandini Sundar’s resignation and sparked criticism over academic freedom, contrasting with DU’s promotion of the ‘Rashtriya Godhan Summit’ focusing on cow-based innovations.

 

A seminar titled ‘Land, Property and Democratic Rights’ which was scheduled to be held today, 31st October, Friday, at 3 p.m. as part of the Department of Sociology’s ‘Friday Colloquium’ series at the M N Srinivas Seminar Room in DSE—was arbitrarily cancelled by the University of Delhi’s administration without any formal reason. This academic seminar is known to be part of one of the longest-running colloquiums at the Delhi School of Economics (DSE). As reported by The Wire, the direction to cancel the event came in a WhatsApp message from the DU registrar, Vikas Gupta, to the head of the Sociology department:

“Good Morning Ma’am. Due to administrative reasons, please cancel the lecture programme scheduled for Friday the 31st October 2025. A compliance report may also be submitted immediately. Thanks.. Regards…Vikas”

Sociologist Nandini Sundar, the convenor of the colloquium, expressed her dissent on Facebook with a post that read, “ Since I can no longer guarantee the intellectual integrity of the research colloquium and that it will not be cancelled arbitrarily at the last minute, I have resigned as convenor of the colloquium.” Her post further read that,

No reasons for the cancellation were given, in writing or otherwise, so we can only speculate that the RSS-led government is scared of any discussion around land and democratic rights.

 

The severity of the issue and her distress over not paying heed to the sanctity of the event was seen as she further wrote,

“ The Friday Colloquium is among the oldest institutions of the Department of Sociology, at the Delhi School of Economics, and has functioned independently through the Emergency and all the other decades since the department was set up. The colloquium is not like any other seminar being cancelled – something we have sadly become inured to in the last decade. It was part of our teaching practice and graduate students are required to attend. It was a space for serious discussion where our students interacted with some very fine minds, and speakers came away impressed by the quality of our students.”

 

On this, Vice chancellor Yogesh Singh told the Indian Express that,

“We have cancelled the event because no prior permission was taken (by the department). The university has no problem with the tradition of the colloquium being followed… we just wanted to be informed.”

During this, DU directed college principals to share with faculty members and students the details of the ‘Rashtriya Godhan Summit’, a five-day event focused on the “welfare of cows and promotion of cow-based sustainable innovations”. The contrast between the two communications “highlights a conscious move away from scientific temper and academic integrity towards the promotion of an unscientific and regressive political agenda,” said Abha Dev Habib, professor, Miranda House, as reported by The Hindu.

Read Also: No Acid, No Attacker: Police Reveal DU Student Faked Assault on Father’s Orders

Image Credits: Nikita Bhatia (2017 report), DU Beat

Shreya Bhushan 

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By