Author

DU Beat

Browsing

Behind the Blue Curtains of Canons and Classics, a dive into the Industry saturated with combined ensnare of Elitism and Misogyny, contextualising the recent accusations against acclaimed author Neil Gaiman and more.

TW: The Article has mentions of Sexual Abuse and Related forms of Violence.

‘On a day like today it’s worth saying, I believe survivors. Men must not close our eyes and minds to what happens to women in this world.’

stood a tweet by erstwhile proclaimed feminist and literary icon Neil Gaiman in September 2018, a solidarity to the MeToo Movement; what remained catastrophically unknown was that half a decade down the road, the author too would face allegations of a heinous degree. 

The accusations trace back to February 2022, when the author, infamous over the internet for breaking the COVID protocols and fleeing to his private island, returned to New York and met Scarlet Pavlovich, a 23-year-old drama student, for the first time. Pavlovich, who by then had become a close confidante to Gaiman’s wife, occasionally also babysat their son. On the 4th of February 2022, Scarlet arrived at the author’s residence for her periodic babysitting requirement; however, the folds of the incidents that day became reflective of what lay behind the apparent charade of the women-rights-activist power couple that Gaiman and his wife portrayed to be.

Fractions of short conversations later, transversed what Pavlovich describes as “a subtle terror,” when the author, in the guise of making her relax at the property, sexually assaulted her. A queer woman with a history of childhood sexual abuse, Scarlet’s attempts to resist proved vain when, despite making Gaiman aware of the same, he refused to stop. 

‘An author who specialises in depicting tales and narratives of those traditionally marginalised in literature.’ was the prima facie that prompted a 15-year-old me to pick up the hardcover edition of Gaiman’s most popular publication, American Gods, at the bookshop; a diverse cast, in relation to ethnicities and sexualities, was a primordial characteristic. For an author who was celebrated for his portrayal of Lucifer as a woman, the allegations reveal a hard-hitting truth about the masquerades of the literary industry.

In July 2024, a British podcast titled Master covered stories of two women accusing Gaiman of sexual misconduct. What followed was several other women accusing the author of coercion, assault, and sexual violence, with the youngest being 18 years old. In due respect and solidarity with the survivors, the article doesn’t delve into graphic details and instances to prevent even an accidental misinterpretation of their ordeals; within the limits of the same, it can be divulged that the author also engaged in non-consensual forms of BDSM, child grooming, and misappropriation. 

Seven years past the MeToo movement that initiated tremors of humanitarian changes within differing industries, the literary industry continues to nurture and foster the sexual predators under its aegis. The phenomenon, however, is not that of modern day; back in the 20th century, the sexual crimes of authors like Roald Dahl and Ernest Hemingway were covered up by publications and largely went unaddressed, while the authors remained celebrated as pioneers in their respective fields. Despite the contemporary presence of the far-reaching internet, while the cinematic industry witnessed the demise of directorial and acting careers of prominent faces, the literary industry continues the practice of whitewashing the crimes. A 1080×1920 pixels PR-Curated Instagram Post Apology ensures that the authors continue to have an ever-expanding success; YA authors like James Dashner and Jay Asher of The Maze Runner and Thirteen Reasons Why continue to enjoy the fame despite the allegations, ironically being celebrated for covering similar topics in their respective books.

Two weeks after MeToo allegations were pressed against celebrated Indian author Chetan Bhagat, his 2018 publication ‘The Girl In Room 105‘ made a bestseller debut upon its release. In an industry and audience that actively propagates to push down female authors for acts measurably minute compared to their male counterparts, the rampant sexism becomes reflective. When the likes of Colleen Hoover, Veronica Roth, et al. get justifiably cancelled, but authors like Junot Diaz continue to enjoy an increased honour and appreciation despite being sexual predators, the industry and our active role in protecting the male elite writers can be realised.

A rampant reasoning towards the continued success of the apparent celebrities despite the sexual assault cases lies in the idea of ‘separating the art from the artist,’ an ideology that inherently feeds into the clutches of patriarchy and elitism. Idol worship and the inherent heroism that propagates, albeit subconsciously, due to the consumption of media, becomes the foremost reason why art cannot be separated from the artist. In more than a few cases, our interpretation of the art prevents us from acknowledging the crimes of the artist, often leading to a counter victim blaming and protection of the culprit. The general public’s lack of support for Tanushree Dutta and Vrinda Nanda when they pressed charges against Nana Patekar and Alok Nath, respectively, on the grounds of the latter being the idealistic heroic characters in the cinematic verses, is reflective of the same tendency. Similar instances were witnessed on a global scale when misconducts came forward against Kevin Spacey and Bill Cosby.

To then consume media often becomes an imperatively challenging aspect, one that involves a deep-rooted understanding of the backgrounds and behaviour of the curator. The aforementioned, in retrospect, becomes a challenging situation. If, as consumers, we fail to undertake the apparent herculean task of the same, a bare minimal approach that largely appears to not be the norm of vocalising dissent against the perpetrators, boycotting and calling out publications that aid them, and solidarizing with the victims is the least proportional change that could be undertaken in the largely misogynistic and elitist status quo that literature presents itself to be. 

 

Read Also: DU Vice Chancellor faces heavy backlash following his endorsement of ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang’

Featured Image Credit: Google

Shikhar Pathak

[email protected]

A distortion of democracy? A betrayal of a social contract? A passive receipt of benefits or an active political participation towards a welfare state?

The language of democratic exercise often employs, not merely as its endorsers but also its practitioners, various sweet shop owners who incentivize capital-based campaigning. The Delhi state elections are a display of such a state of war, which has as its highlights, the various monetary biddings made over very selective and political demographics.

It is not unknown that the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), in its manifesto, has promised a sum of INR 2100 to women under the aegis of the ‘Mukhyamantri Mahila Samman Yojna’. The certainty of this scheme is contingent on the party securing a majority. However, a serious delirium of such schemes is the incompetent and biased nature of such claims. While it is true that a welfare state works for its marginalized citizens, the composition of Delhi and its voters demands serious scrutiny. The marginalized of the capital are an extremely heterogeneous group, and certainly, when a distinction is made in the category of women by the state, the exclusion of migrant and transgender women disallows any serious engagement towards actual welfare.

Nitara, a transgender woman and a student of Delhi University told DU Beat:  

There are about four to five thousand registered trans voters in Delhi, the official number of which I believe to be much higher. Women are promised INR 2100 in monetary assistance by AAP, following which the Congress and BJP have promised INR 2500. While it’s good they do it, why don’t trans women get similar aid? Don’t we deserve it? In fact, a trans woman is more vulnerable than a cis woman is. This is the bare minimum we can be provided with. We are not promised incentives because our numbers are low. Nobody wins elections with 2-3 thousand votes. Delhi Vidhan Sabha elections tell you that you’ll only be cared for if you are a big vote bank, else nobody is with you.”

Nitara’s statement underscores the transactional nature of electoral promises where welfare is not a matter of rights but of electoral arithmetic. The exclusion of transgender women from such schemes reveals the shallow inclusivity of political manifestos, which are tailored to appease large vote banks rather than address the systemic vulnerabilities of marginalized communities. This is not merely an oversight but a deliberate strategy to prioritize electoral gains over equitable welfare. The Delhi elections, in this regard, are a microcosm of a larger national trend where democracy is reduced to a marketplace of freebies, and voters are treated as consumers rather than citizens.

With the imposition of the Model Code of Conduct, a partial hiatus has been put to the mockery of democracy and development. However, desperate attempts to milk out this inconsistent idea have not stopped. AAP, for instance, has included a ‘Pujari-Granthi Samman Yojana’ for temple and gurudwara priests.  Arvind Kejriwal, the National Convener of AAP explained the scheme in a Economic Times report,

Pujaris and granthis are an important part of our society, but they are often a neglected section. For the first time in the country, we are introducing a scheme to support them, under which they will receive a monthly allowance of INR 18,000.”

This circles back to questioning the intentionality of such a culture of voting. Lest it be taken as a pitting of one religion against the other, it is a certain fact that other religious minorities such as the Muslims and Christians undergo neglect and invisibility at much deeper scales but any affirming reality escapes them during election season. The culture of freebies, while seemingly beneficial on the surface, is a hollowing democratic practice that undermines the very essence of governance. Political parties, in their bid to outdo each other, have turned welfare into a competitive sport where the highest bidder wins. For instance, in the 2021 Tamil Nadu elections, the DMK and AIADMK engaged in a bidding war, promising everything from free laptops to cash transfers, with little regard for the fiscal sustainability of such schemes. Moreover, the freebie culture perpetuates a dependency syndrome among voters, where electoral choices are driven by immediate monetary gains rather than informed deliberation on policies and governance. This undermines the democratic ideal of an engaged and informed citizenry, reducing elections to a transactional exchange of votes for cash or goods. 

The critique of freebie culture is not a dismissal of welfare schemes but a call for their rationalization and equitable implementation. Welfare measures must be designed to address structural inequalities and empower marginalized communities, rather than serve as tools for electoral manipulation. For instance, schemes like the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) have been lauded for their focus on creating sustainable livelihoods rather than doling out cash handouts. While the hollowing of democratic ideals is saddening, it is not very different from what we as participants are used to believing as development at all times. This makes one question if a democratic ideal is but a sweet shop economy?

Read Also: Yeh Kya Hua, Kaise Hua: Dissecting the Congress’ Lapsus Regnī 

Featured Image Credit: Sourav Rai for Indian Express

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]

Delhi University Vice Chancellor, Yogesh Singh, faced heavy criticism from faculty members on 16 January, 2025, Thursday, after he endorsed Ashok Srivastava’s ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang.’

On 16 January, 2025, Delhi University Vice Chancellor, Yogesh Singh, appeared to endorse the Bharatiya Janata Party ahead of the Delhi election scheduled for February. The endorsement came at a book launch held at the Convention Hall of the Vice Chancellor’s office, organised by the Council of Media and Public Policy and Research along with the Silence Foundation in collaboration with Delhi University. The book titled ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang’ has been authored by Ashok Shrivastava, a news anchor for the state-sponsored public broadcaster, DD News.

Khan Market Gang was notably a strategic attempt to take digs at the opposition in the lead-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. It was in response to the opposition parading “Chowkidar Chor hai” at the incumbency at the time. Khan Market, a double-storey complex amidst bungalows that pay host to lawmakers and civil servants, is often considered the most expensive retail area in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who doesn’t shy away from letting people know about his humble beginnings, uses this as a political binary against the elites of the Indian socio-political system.

The main objective of the book, according to Srivastava, was to make people in academia aware of the fake narratives that have been thrown around during the incumbent’s tenure. As has been a recurring theme of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) attempts to deal with critics, Prime Minister Narendra Modi once again was talked about synonymously with India at the event. Those who weren’t uncritical of the government, both the journalists and notably institutes abroad, were called out and mocked subsequently.

Sweden, smaller than most Indian states, decided to establish V-Dem several years ago and deemed India undemocratic ahead of both the 2019 and the 2024 elections. A nation as small as that critiquing us makes sense when you look at the people funding it,”

said Yogesh Singh whilst talking about the various anecdotes Srivastava had used in his book to prove how the “Khan Market Gang” transcends borders and nationalities.

Singh didn’t shy away from his allegiances at a time when the model of conduct was placed in the state. He suggested that the Indians enjoy unprecedented freedom and that the global rankings and indexes are all part of a broader narrative against the prime minister and thus India. India curiously ranks 159 out of 189 countries in the latest edition of the Press Freedom Index. His statement comes at a time when central universities have never been more politicised. The changes brought forth by the National Education Policy (NEP), in the curriculums and the regular seminars and events in colleges that align with the ideological tilts of the government, reflect a growing trend of educational spaces turning into arenas for parroting the broader narrative set forth by the ruling party and a slow departure from the intelligentsia.

The event was attended by the members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, the youth wing of the BJP, who have themselves been in hot water following the incident where they were seen assaulting students in Ramjas College. Several high-profile BJP leaders were also present at the event where Yogesh Singh was described as the “Chief Organiser” by Ashok Srivastava.

Several Delhi University faculty members condemned the book launch at a time when the model of conduct was in force in Delhi.

Abha Dev Habib, an assistant professor at Miranda House, deemed the event “a political misuse of a publicly funded university” in a conversation with The Print.

I am amazed to find that in a premier public-funded university, where scores of faculty members routinely publish their work on a myriad of issues, including publications in support of the current ruling regime’s policies or critical of the ruling establishment, the university administration has decided to privilege a publication like that of Mr. Ashok Shrivastav, who is an outsider to the university,”

said Maya John, an assistant professor at Jesus and Mary College, in an email to the vice-chancellor.

Prakash Singh, part of both the organisation team and DU’s South campus director, denied that the event was linked to DU and that DU had simply received a “request” for the use of its space for the event, despite Srivastava deeming Singh the “Chief Organiser” of the event.

 

Read also: Student protest in Ramjas College against the sexual harassment charges on Prof. Dhani Ram violently disrupted by ABVP

 

Featured Images Credits: @UnivofDelhi on X

 

Yash Raj

[email protected] 

 

India now stands at the cusp of becoming one of the global powerhouses, especially in South-East Asia. The real heroes behind this remarkable achievement are the working class, operating the country. However, can we only consider economic metrics as the real indicators of development or are there other factors too? With growing cases of sodomy and workplace harassment, there is a much bigger story to unfold before we truly consider ourselves as a developed nation.

The three-member Justice Hema Committee, established in 2017, unveiled its report on August 19, 2024, exposing harrowing accounts of discrimination, exploitation, and sexual harassment faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The committee was tasked with examining issues of sexual harassment and gender inequality within the Malayalam film industry. The WCC itself was formed after a Malayalam actress publicly alleged abduction and sexual assault in Kochi. The subsequent investigation by the Kerala Police pointed to Malayalam actor Dileep as a key suspect. Following the release of the report, the spotlight has shifted, and major movie stars are now under fire this time not from film critics, but from the public. Pay scale disparity has always been one of the leading contentions of debate in Bollywood. Still, the Hema Committee Reports narrate a bigger story of the regional production houses behind the glitz and glamour of the movie screens. One of the long-lasting concerns the reports have showcased is that even after celebrating 75 years of independence and painting a distorted narration of a “Free India”, our country is actually not safe for women to work at their workplaces. In the modern-day world, the term,’ workplace’, is not confined to only flashy office buildings rather its interpretation has widened significantly and now covers a bigger ambit wherein under any circumstances, whether it is in-house official work (within the boundaries of the official office), or off-campus work, an employee who is employed to complete their designated task, at the required position deserves all the necessary amount of security they are entitled to. The POSH Act 2013 (Prevention of Sexual Harassment Against Women At Workplaces), brought forth the Vishaka guidelines, which proved to be a colossal breakthrough when we talk about workplace safety for women. But the underlying question here, even after 2013, is why there is an unprecedented increase in sexual offences against women at their workplaces, especially in metropolitan cities. 

The report uncovers a troubling reality where sexual favours have long been regarded as a gateway into the Malayalam film industry. It also sheds light on the alleged presence of a powerful clique, capable of wielding control over the entire industry, and the pervasive influence of the notorious ‘casting couch’ culture.These affect a range of women across the industry — actors, technicians, make-up artists, dancers and support staff. The report also deals with other inequities that disadvantage women in the industry, including the lack of essential facilities such as toilets, changing rooms, safe transportation, and accommodation at the shooting spots which are violative of the right to privacy; and discrimination in remuneration, and a lack of binding contractual agreements. This puts a major amount of spotlight on our existing statutory provisions and the extent of their applicability. After the introduction of the new criminal laws like BNS 2023 (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita), many jurists and policymakers appreciated that the new laws provide many liberal interpretations to multiple sections mentioned in the erstwhile IPC (Indian Penal Code), but at the same time, the many have also critiqued that the language of these provisions is still very short-sighted, in the sense that they still recognised major offences in binary gender terms. The Hema Committee reports shedding light on a larger narrative, revealing a dual reality: while offences against women in workplaces are on the rise, offences against men also occur but often remain hidden in the shadows, overshadowed by silence. This makes the inclusion of gender-neutral provisions more urgent at present. Project 39 A, a research think tank operating under the aegis of National Law University Delhi, provided an in-depth analysis of how the language used under BNS 2023 provisions was very much orthodox. We can infer the same, through the language of the statutory provisions, given in BNS (Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita):-

Section 63 Illustrates: A man is said to commit “rape” if he— 

(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or 

(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or 

(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of the body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or 

(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, or urethra of a woman or makes her do so with him or any other person,

Like many other sections dealing with the offence of sexual harassment in BNS, under section 63 Also, words like, ‘A man is said to commit “rape” if he…’ clearly showcases that the act has portrayed the capacity of committing such offence being confined to one gender only. Similarly, the POSH Act (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace), is a much-appreciated move to diminish and alleviate sexual harassment in workplaces. But at the same time, the entire act restricts harassment towards only one gender and that is females, whereas it is a very common occurrence in many corporate spaces that a lot of new male freshers employees face harassment from their senior male counterparts. This is something which needs to be worked on urgently. It is massively disappointing when premier research think tanks like Niti Aayog, don’t have a single standalone report or any official record of harassment cases against men or the queer population. On one end, these policymakers contest for the upliftment of these marginalised communities by providing them reservations in the government sectors and conducting seminars for private companies motivating them to strengthen their DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) policies but on the other end, when these policies are drafted they are restricted to only a few people, so how does it fulfil its expansive criteria of covering maximum number of people? If people are not safe at their workplaces, where else will they be then? 

This is one of the most infamous fables being narrated in the corporate spaces. We all live in a digital era and that is why the dissemination of information happens faster now, and that’s why more stories are now being narrated: –

“I’m a 22-year-old (male) employee, working at EY. I had just completed my first 6 months here and for the first time, I had felt this much awkward and uncomfortable, especially at my office. During our orientation week, I remember my team leader, who is a 45-year-old male employee, caressing me inappropriately on my upper thighs. At the moment, I couldn’t understand what was happening, later when I did I couldn’t do anything about it because I had two options, either I could lose my Jon because I’m just a fresher here or I could visit the ICC members (Internal Complaints Committee), but it is again futile.”

This is again, a story of a lot of people out there who either are unaware whether their company has an ICC (Internal Complaints Committee), or either they are not protected under its ambit. We need to have more constructive legislation in this domain if we want to bring in some change because abuse has no gender.    

Samvardhan Tiwari

Gmail: [email protected] 

Featured image credits: hrmasia

Read also: Where are you ICC? 

Members allegedly of ABVP disrupt protest in Ramjas College on 8th January against Prof. Dhani Ram’s sexual harassment allegations. The protestors demanded that the college administration suspend the professor officially and reconstitute the ICC. The miscreants severely injured a student from the North East and threatened violence against a professor of English who intervened. Cases of sexual harassment, marking the above, continue to rise, alongside politically charged violence within academic spaces.

Dhani Ram’s history of sexual harassment charges

In December 2024, a minor and a first year undergraduate student of Ramjas College filed a case against Dhani Ram, professor of the commerce department and joint dean of Dean of Students’ Welfare, DU at the Internal Complaints Committee of the college over charges of molestation and sexual harassment. This complaint was the fourth official complaint against the commerce professor filed at the ICC of the college with several other unofficial accusations of harassment that could not be filed officially, including a 2021 letter by M. Com Students of batch 2022 written to the then Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC) highlighting his ‘unethical and unprofessional teaching methodology’. The negligence displayed towards the previous complaints highlight the inaction of the college authorities and the ICC regarding his conduct and his abuse of power on multiple occasions. It was only after calls of protest by the student body, AISA and SFI that Prof. Dhani Ram was temporarily suspended from the college on 24th December 2024 pending the ICC enquiry, though an official notice of his suspension has not yet been released by the college. 

ABVP’s violence and disruption of the 8th January protests

Due to the inaction of the college authorities for a duration exceeding 10 days since the filing of the complaint, Stanzin, the Vice-President of the Ramjas College Student Union, issued a call for protest on 8th January 2025. The protest demanded that the victim’s consent be taken into consideration, the reconstitution of the ICC, timely enquiry into and suspension of the accused professor, and transparency during the enquiry, including the publication of an official suspension order on the college website. However, when the students along with the members of SFI and AISA gathered in the Eco Lawns at 12:30 to make posters for the protest against sexual harassment, several students of the college and outsiders, alleged to be members of ABVP by the Left parties and the students, disrupted the protest and tore the posters. They harassed and attacked the student protestors with flower pots and sticks, particularly targeting a third year student from the North East, leading the student to suffer severe bleeding and injuries. Further, when a professor from the English department intervened to put a stop to the violence and request the group to stick to the cause rather than fight among themselves, he too was threatened by the outsider students with violence and later falsely accused of perpetrating violence himself. Despite the disruption of the protest, the student body, along with the Left parties, demanded action against the violence from the administration and issued a call for a protest against sexual harassment and the violence meted out by who they claimed to be ABVP members, outside the college in the evening. 

ABVP’s protest, Prof. Dhani Ram’s supposed resignation and the Left vs Right debate

Meanwhile, the members of ABVP locked the Dean of Students’ Welfare office and conducted a sit-in protest in the office demanding Professor Dhani Ram’s resignation. A notice released by Mitravinda  Karanwal, the secretary of DUSU, and signed by Bhanu Pratap Singh, the Vice President of DUSU, claimed:

 By the orders of the students of Delhi University and ABVP led DUSU, Dhaniram shall not be allowed to enter his office and continue as the Joint Dean of Students’ Welfare, DU, till the enquiry against him is concluded and decision made.

Later, a screenshot of a mail supposedly written by Prof. Dhani Ram was circulated over social media by ABVP Delhi which claimed that Prof. Dhani Ram resigned due to its “persistent efforts”. However, no official confirmation about the accused professor’s resignation as the Joint Dean of DSW has been received. Further, Dhani Ram’s suspension from the post of Joint Dean does not indicate his suspension or termination as a professor in Ramjas College. His suspension and termination as a professor also do not guarantee the prevention of such cases in the future, leading to the necessity of addressing the larger problem of sexual harassment in universities with particular focus on the POCSO Act.

Stanzin, the Vice President of Ramjas College, resolved to continue the movement despite the alleged violence by ABVP:

We wish to ask why the ABVP is protecting sexual harassers and perpetrators. We further ask why the administration is complicit in the organised violence against common students. What occurred in Ramjas during the protest was wholly unconstitutional and barbaric. We condemn it to the fullest terms and demand justice for both the survivor as well as the students. Further, I want to emphasise that they will not silence us and we will continue to fight resiliently. While the ABVP is publicising that Dhani Ram has resigned from the post of Joint Dean of Students’ Welfare, no formal action has been taken against him. The administration is complicit in protecting him and we demand his immediate suspension and the  reconstitution of the ICC. Since our demands have not been fulfilled, our fight continues.

A former student of the college and member of AISA added:

The attack by the goons today—it is amply clear that the people who inflicted the violence today were from ABVP—is the clearest expression of the state of democracy on our campus, in which, students cannot even gather to protest against sexual harassment on their own campus. There is a litany of regulations which is supposed to prevent sexual harrassment on campus, because sexual harassment is so fundamentally antithetical to a healthy teaching-learning environment, but all of these regulations are merely on paper. It is the students’ right to demonstrate and gather in their own college, and whenever the administration is incapable of directly suppressing these movements, it has time and again made use of goons to intimidate student organising, an example of which we also saw last year in the protests in BHU. ABVP and people aligned with it, in attacking the students today have proved that they stand with the perpetrators, the harassers, and all their claims of gender justice is a farce. The students of Ramjas College have bravely resisted all attempts at suppression, have done so today, and will continue to do so.

Rising cases of Harassment by professors and acts of violence in Ramjas; problems within the ICC

The sexual harassment case against Prof. Dhani Ram is not an isolated case in the college or the university as several students have also reported other cases of sexual harassment by professors in Ramjas College in the past few years that have either not been reported due to the influential positions of the accused or not been thoroughly investigated by the ICC. Further, the students of the college have also reported a rise in acts of physical violence during conferences, society events and auditions, and the everyday functioning of the college by students of the college, outsiders, and members of ABVP. The recent attack on student protestors by the members allegedly of the ABVP is a continuation of the acts of violence meted out to students and faculty in 2017 and 2019, and it raises grave concerns about the safety and security of students within the campus space. The college authorities must address the growing cases of sexual harassment by professors, the rise in the cases of violence, and reform and reconstitute the ICC, a body that has been reduced to inaction, complicity, shaming the victims and protecting the culprits, in accordance with the students’ demands for transparency and respect for the survivor’s consent. 

A third year student of the college who had joined the protest remarks:

The recent act of violence during the protest by ABVP members is a shameful and concerning attempt to distract attention from the sexual harassment case. I found that several members of the staff association except for one did not even do the bare minimum. Important as it is for us to condemn violence, we must also ensure that we do not reduce this case to a left vs right battle and bring our focus back to the harassment case. This is sadly not the only case we have seen in the college as professors from the English and history departments regularly harass students sexually and verbally. We have even heard some of them slutshame their own colleagues behind their backs and we see them regularly harass female professors in the department meetings. These cases highlight a growing sense of institutional amnesia in the college and university where a large majority of students and professors no longer address such cases, thereby normalising them. It is important that the survivor in this particular case gets justice, Prof. Dhani Ram is suspended, and the larger problem of sexual harassment within university spaces is addressed, bringing into light other such cases as well.

Aadrit, a former student of the college who had also joined the protest added:

I went there as a common student, not as a part of any political party. I am a part of none anyway. I went there because it was important—not because a North East student was brutally beaten—that happened later and violence of all forms must be condemned—but because, first and foremost, it was a case of sexual harassment and my experience has been one where such cases routinely are brushed under the carpet; be it Hathras, RG Kar, or the previous offenses of Dhani Ram. Against the backdrop of the present situation, as the right and the left continue their war, I urge all students, faculty and others, to come together and stand in one unwavering spirit so that justice is done, ICCs are fixed, the system is corrected, and Dhani Ram and all those like him are held accountable. The focus must not shift. We must remember what we are up against: patriarchy. And we must all stand in solidarity in this arduous struggle for gender liberation which involves the fight against all forms of injustice.

Neha, the Secretary of SFI Ramjas, highlighted a systemic problem with the ICC of the college:

There have been multiple violations of ICC guidelines. The complaint has not got any reply from the admin even after 20 days when they should have released one within 7 days. Those who are a part of this enquiry committee consist of the same people who had protected Dhani Ram 2 years back in another sexual harassment case. While UGC guidelines say that people in enquiry committees should have work on gender, these teachers don’t have that merit either.

Further, a member of the college’s student union claimed in yesterday’s protest that a member of the college’s current ICC, which is investigating the Dhani Ram case, has had an alleged case registered against himself in the ICC, a body he is now a significant part of, on which account no action has been taken by the college authorities, highlighting the supposedly corrupt and complicit nature of the body.

Anonymous

Read Also: Dalit student allegedly harassed and assaulted by Shaheed Bhagat Singh College’s principal

Picture Credits: SFI Delhi Instagram Page

 

DU Arts Faculty Dean stepped down after student protests over exam delays. The incident involved allegations of negligence and chaos following the postponement of a political science general elective exam. 

The dean of Delhi University Faculty of Arts, Mr Amitava Chakravarti, resigned on Monday, January 6, following a heated student protest. He was allegedly heckled by a group of students led by the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) President, Ronak Khatri. The protest erupted after students of the Russian department were unable to receive the question papers for their political science general elective exam on time causing postponement and rescheduling of the exam. Frustrated by the situation, a group of students gathered at the dean’s office, demanding his resignation. The confrontation turned chaotic, with students accusing the dean of negligence. 

In a post shared on X, Ronak Khatri stated

HoD of the Language Department and the Dean of the Arts Faculty were drunk, and their gross negligence caused students to suffer today. Over 60 students were unable to take the General Education (GE) Political Science exam. We have also learned that he abuses both students and administrative staff. We have demanded his immediate removal and disciplinary action against him.” 

Khatri also accused the Dean of abusing students and alleged that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident. The video accompanying the post shared by the DUSU President on Instagram and X shows the dean being surrounded by a group of students.  The video also shows a member of the faculty who accused the dean of creating a hostile environment and claimed,

“Since he (the dean) has come, every student and teacher in the Russian section have been ruined.” 

As the situation grew more tense, the dean reportedly fainted due to low blood sugar and was promptly rushed to the hospital. In a conversation with DU Beat, Mr Chakaravarti revealed that he was taken to Pramanand Hospital, where he was treated in the emergency room. He also stated,

Even in the hospital a few student leaders kept on entering the emergency room and threatening me while I was just regaining my consciousness.” 

Since then, the dean has submitted his resignation to the director of South Campus. Furthermore, he has firmly denied the students’ and the DUSU president’s accusations of intoxication, calling them baseless and defamatory. According to Times Now, he has stated that he might consider filing a defamation case against individuals spreading false allegations. 

In the letter to the Director of South Campus, Chakravarti explains,

“However, on 6 th January, 2025, the examination could not be started on time due to some communication gap between the offices involved. That day itself I had an online meeting of a national level expert group regarding the promotion of Bangla as a Classical Language from 9:30 a.m. Hence, when I could check my mobile for missed call and could call back, I came to know of the delay and the student unrest about this, and rushed to the Department.

He further adds that it was in fact one of his colleagues who took advantage of the situation and instigated the students to go against him,

“The said colleague, knowing very well of the reasons of me being holding that position, or that of my name being included as Ph.D. supervisor with a retired teacher of Russian as the Co-supervisor, instigated the students by accusing me of wrongdoings, and underlining the fact that I am a teacher of Bengali. This led to the student leaders abusing me further, asking me to read from a Russian text, say various types of Russian words, and responding to Russian comments of the students, all in the presence of the said colleague.There were sloganeering in his name as well.

Speaking with DU Beat, NSUI member Namrata Jeph said, 

The students’ grievances about the exam delay were valid although this situation led the dean to decide to resign may have crossed the ethical boundaries. Ultimately, this incident could serve as a catalyst for improving administrative transparency and student- faculty communication within DU.”

According to the dean, the unfortunate incident has now “created a precedent wherein teachers could be physically and verbally harassed and made to submit resignations, that too with the active participation of a colleague from the Department.” 

Read Also: Dalit student allegedly harassed and assaulted by Shaheed Bhagat Singh College’s principal. 

Featured Image Credits: Devesh for DU Beat 

Ashita Kedia

On December 6, 2024, the Delhi High Court will hear the bail pleas of Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima, accused under the UAPA for the 2020 Delhi riots. The continuous rejection of their bail pleas and their prolonged incarceration without trials highlight the precarious state of democratic freedom under India’s current authoritative regime, which thrives off of curbing dissent. 

The Unlawful Activities and (Prevention) Act (UAPA), introduced on December 30th, 1967 was introduced as a tool to combat “anti-national” activities. In July 2019, the UAPA Amendment Bill was introduced, which passed due to a heavy NDA majority in the Rajya Sabha. In the words of Home Minister Amit Shah, “Those are terrorists who attempt to plant terrorist literature and terrorist theory in the minds of the young. Guns do not give rise to terrorism, the root of it is the propaganda that is done to spread it.” However, under the pretence of protecting India’s sovereignty and integrity, the UAPA has morphed into the state’s preferred weapon to stifle dissent. It has become a system that suppresses intellect and fights against any knowledge that challenges the government’s authoritarian agenda. GN Saibaba’s imprisonment under the UAPA, which eventually led to his demise, stands as an institutional murder — one of the many cases where the draconian law has been weaponised to quash ideas and voices, with activists like Stan Swamy meeting a similar fate.

The Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), passed by the Indian government in December 2019, grants citizenship to non-Muslim refugees (Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jains, Buddhists and Parsis), from the neighbouring countries of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, provided that they have proof of residing in India for five or more years. It was met with nationwide protests owing to its discriminatory anti-Muslim nature, which was paired with concerns over the proposed National Register of Citizens (NRC). This culminated in the 2020 Delhi riots on 23rd February 2020, killing 53, mostly Muslims. Shortly after, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Khalid Saifi, and Gulfisha Fatima were arrested due to their alleged connections to the riots and charged under the UAPA. The UAPA vests authorities with sweeping powers, including arrest and extended detention without trial. It shifts the burden of proof on the accused and strips away the presumption of innocence and also makes the procedure of obtaining bail increasingly difficult. 

The evidence presented by the Delhi Police consisted of public speeches, WhatsApp texts and extremely vague witness testimonies – it is as if a student’s passionate speech calling for joint action against injustice was deliberately twisted into a “terrorist conspiracy,” just because they dared to use knowledge and words as their weapons. The absurd reality is that the vision for a Viksit Bharat seems to be one where the state labels students using their knowledge as “terrorists”.  The state’s full-blown attack on those who possess knowledge and people’s access to knowledge in the first place is made even more evident in the media coverage centred around the issue.

One news report in a prominent Hindi daily claimed that to leave no stone unturned in inciting the riots, I secretly met Sharjeel Imam in Zakir Nagar, New Delhi on February 16,  2020 –  a week before the riots broke out. In reality, on the night of February 16, 2020 – and even the police would attest to this – I was 1136 km away from Delhi, in Amravati, Maharashtra. And Sharjeel Imam on that night – nobody can dispute this either – was in Tihar jail, as he had been arrested about 20 days earlier in a different case. It seemed that the esteemed journalist who conjured all this up did not care to check even the most basic facts.

Umar Khalid via the Wire

Umar Khalid, who was arrested in September 2020, is still awaiting a trial. His bail plea, similar to Sharjeel Imam’s, was rejected multiple times, with the court and the Delhi Police consistently highlighting his “significant role in orchestrating the conspiracy to incite violence”. Asif Tanha, a student activist from Jamia Millia Islamia was arrested on similar grounds and was granted bail on June 15, 2021 by a Division Bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambani, with both the judges pointing out the differences between protests and terrorist activities. In October 2022, Umar Khalid’s bail petition was however rejected by a Division Bench comprising Justices Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar. The varying results indicate a subjective application of justice, influenced not only by the details of the cases but also by the political and social environment surrounding the accused. Khalid’s popularity as both a researcher and a student activist paired with a stronger need to stifle dissent by the authorities may have been possible reasons for his rejected bail plea.  Furthermore, the Muslim identity of activists plays a pivotal role in shaping the political narrative, impacting not only legal proceedings but also public perceptions and societal attitudes. This identity becomes a mechanism that delegitimizes dissent and legitimizes severe legal measures in the eyes of the public. 

The outcome of the hearing on December 6th will set a crucial precedent in balancing state authority and individual liberties. Dissent is, after all, the act of realising that you have the power to speak. With the Viksit Bharat vision being hyper-fixated on shaping generations of unthinking students, it becomes important, now more than ever, to keep the right to question alive in spaces around us.

Featured Image Credits: BBC / Nehal for DU Beat

 

Read Also: The Donkey Dance of UAPA: Criminalising Dissent in a Hollowing Democracy

 

By Sakshi Singh for DU Beat

[email protected]

On Friday, protests took place in the arts faculty led by the Student Federation of India (SFI) and another one staged by the students in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College responding to an alleged case of assault on a Dalit student by the college principal.

On the 18th of September 2024, protests were staged outside the office of Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s principal, Prof. Arun Kumar Attree. These protests, led by a Dalit student, were in response to an alleged incident of blatant casteism and assault on him by the principal. The Dalit student, Sumit, claims that Attree assaulted and hurled casteist slurs at him amidst an attempt for a forced confession for an incident that allegedly took place in September.

On 24 October 2024, several obscene videos were sent to students and teachers alike in the Hindi Department’s WhatsApp group. They were sent through the phone of one of Sumit’s classmates. On suspicion of hacking and frustration of negligence to these issues, the matter was brought to the principal through a letter sent in by Sumit and his classmates.

Recalling the incident at an AISA-led student-teacher convention on Tuesday, he alleges that such incidents were not news and had taken place numerous times before but were swept under the rug.

They took my phone and went through everything they could despite assuring us of our privacy prior. They even went through my chats with my sister and a whole lot of other things that I probably am not aware of.

Following the letter, an investigative committee was formed to look into the matter. They allegedly seized the phones of the suspect and, in Sumit’s case, went through his private photos and even through chats with his family. This was an obvious and absurd breach of one’s right to privacy as laid down in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

We’d get you arrested, taint your character certificate, and make sure your career goes nowhere from here on if you do not confess to having dispersed the videos. If you get away with all that, we still wouldn’t let you in without charging a hefty sum.

These were allegedly the things said to Sumit once he was called to the principal’s office, where, despite the committee admitting to having found nothing against him, Attree pressured and threatened Sumit to confess. He, alongside other professors, tried locking him in to physically assault him further. There were casteist slurs thrown at him and told how he “looked” like someone who would do such a heinous act. Sumit, as he alleges, was made to sit through all of this for 5 hours.

You could tell he is the culprit just by looking at his face.

This was allegedly remarked on by Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, a professor in the Hindi department at Shaheed Bhagat Singh College. Sumit, after the incident, was treated like a convict in college classrooms, and as he put it, it’s almost always people from the SC/ST communities who are singled out and discriminated against.

Disappointed and upset, Sumit and his friends went to file an FIR at Malviya Nagar police station on charges of breach of privacy. This is where the trial of disappointing events, allegedly takes pace. The police, after having heard his complaint, dismissed it initially.

You are no Ambani that your privacy would matter.

The Delhi Police, on several occasions, have dismissed such complaints or handled them poorly. Why should one’s economic or social standing be a determiner of a right to a dignified life? Dr. Rakesh Kumar, a professor at the college and also present at the student-teacher convention, alleges that FIRs aren’t registered against the principal owing to his familial ties to the higher-ranking officials in the Police Force.

Attree has denied any wrongdoing with a statement to Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) saying, “The student has been manipulated by a teacher, who is currently undergoing an inquiry related to false certifications. The student himself faced an inquiry after there were allegations that he had previously hacked people’s phones and sent obscene messages”.

Curiously, it is not the first time Attree has found himself in hot waters, as he infamously detained 1500 students last year on grounds of mandatory attendance criteria. Under his tenure, he has introduced what many view as “anti-democratic” measures into the campus space. He has barred students from hanging out in groups of 4 or more and has installed CCTV cameras everywhere, including the staff rooms, which is seen as an authoritative move in an attempt to curb any sort of opposition he may feel.

Nandita Narain, former President of the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), condemned the incident and expressed her support by saying,

Such incidents of blatant authoritarianism are increasingly more common, as seen by recent incidents in Laxmibai College and Shaheed Bhagat Singh College. I hope strict action is taken against Attree for this crime against humanity. I also hope for greater representation of the SC/ST community in positions of power at the university level shortly as a means to combat this issue.

Read also: Students demanding concessional metro passes led by SFI-Delhi detained by Delhi Police

Featured Images credits: @sbscduofficial on X

Yash Raj

[email protected]

 

A budding writer in the field of popular fiction and a former DU-ite, Namrata is a Literature major from Hansraj whose books have won many hearts. She speaks about her recent release – White Horses, Dark Shadows to DU Beat. 

 

I thought it’d a good start to pick Namrata’s brain by asking her how she realised that writing was something she had a flair for, in both English and Hindi, 

 

“I was always an introvert who saw literature as an outlet. I frequently submitted poems and pieces in newspapers, and was part of editorial teams. For me, story-telling was a safe place, an alternate world which led me to pursue English Literature for  higher education.” 

 

When inquiring about her new release, White Horses Dark Shadows, she told me a bit about what inspired her and her portrayal of love in the film, 

 

“I was inspired by Rockstar songs – they symbolise everything timeless, a fairytale romance. This led me to use verse and poetry to shed light on characters, and their inner thoughts. Media can be extreme in its depiction of love and liberated women. Works like Tagore’s Chokher Bali or Jane Eyre’s writings always struck a chord with me – they portrayed women who didn’t portray women who needed saviours. At the same time, we need to be realistic with depictions of women, being independent doesn’t mean not wanting to be loved. ” 

 

Namrata’s recent book also takes a new look at the complexity and nuances of modern-day love, 

 

“In real life we reconcile. Love is not ideal, even Prince charming should be seen as flawless. The idea of Prince Charming is idealistic – we must see him with all aspects and not turn a blind eye, as a form of escapism. Love is being able to accept reality and make peace with it.” 

 

As I inquired more about the storyline especially regarding the depiction of certain relationships, she added, 

 

“The book showcases a journey of character as she grows. I use her time as a student to show contrast as she grows up, using college as a form of growth – how she changes, particularly to show how naive she is and her limited perspective of the world. It was a conscious decision to pick this period, I did relate to her experience. Author must have some authority even over fiction – to be related to is essential for the reader” 

 

“The depiction of the age gap relationship, it wasn’t strategic. It was just used to show how difficult it is to face reality, no matter what age. Love isn’t the version in our head, it collides with reality, we need to be able to reconcile. This is not a story of young love or immaturity as Milind, the older love interest, also acts immature.” 

 

The book ends with Heer, the protagonist, realising she has always been complete and didn’t need more love. She was fulfilled; she just needed a companion – marriage or partner isn’t a matter of completion. Self love is not external, but internal, was how Namrata described the conclusion of the novel to me. 

 

The recent conflict over the Madarsa Act, struck down on secular grounds, highlights rising
discrimination against Islamic Institutions in India. The SC ruling, though a relief, doesn’t discount the
growing hostility.

All governments affect education, but a totalitarian government disguised as a democracy does
that in the most detrimental way. It is easy to marginalize minority groups when the government
frames every unfavorable policy as a step towards equality, benefiting a majority that already
holds significant power. India has been no stranger to such circumstances. Over the past few
years, the Indian education curriculum has gone through several alterations. From the
infamously contentious New Education Policy 2020 to the controversial removal of chapters
Based on the Mughal empire from the Class 12th NCERT syllabus of history, the Indian education system has been victim to the very active saffron agenda. Another evidence for the
claim comes forward as we look into the recent case involving the Madarsa Act.

The Uttar Pradesh Board of Madarsa Education Act, 2004 (Madrasa Act) was introduced to
regulate madrasas, or traditional Islamic educational institutions, under the state’s supervision in
order to ensure the standardization of madarsa education and align it with the state’s
mainstream educational policies. It provided a legal framework where religious education was
being imparted alongside the curriculum designed by the NCERT. The act came into the
Allahabad High Court’s attention when a lawyer argued that the Act violated Constitutional
articles 14, 15, and 21 and claimed that Madarsas failed to deliver quality education compulsory.
up to class 8th. The Allahabad HC went ahead with the case, and the resultant verdict argued for
the striking down of the Act completely. The Allahabad HC argued that the Act violated the
principle of secularism, it violated the Right to Education (RTE) and was in conflict with the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956.

The Allahabad HC’s decision to invalidate the Madarsa Act on the grounds of secular principle
and Right to Education is troublesome when viewed against the selective enforcement of such
principles. Madarsas were placed under intense scrutiny under the argument that secularism
requires all educational institutions to conform to a uniform standard. However, similar
measures are rarely directed towards other religious educational institutions, such as Hindu
Gurukuls, or Christian Convent schools. These institutions also emphasize religious teachings,
and promote particular values, yet operate with little government supervision or pressure to
succumb to state-mandated curriculum. This discrimination highlights a problematic double
standard, where secularism and educational rights are invoked solely in order to regulate
Islamic educational institutions. This selective application of ‘secular’ oversight makes one
question about the true intent behind such rulings, as it suggests that traditional Islamic
Educational practices are somehow less aligned with national educational interests or public
good compared to those of other faiths. By focusing specifically on madarsas, it can be inferred
that the ruling implies that Islamic educational practices uniquely require reform, while similar
religiously affiliated schools are free to operate without government interference. This exposes the
selective pressures placed upon Muslim communities in India.

This differential treatment of religious institutions not only negates the secular ethos that the
The court aims to uphold but also brings into light a growing trend of Islamophobia within the Indian
socio-political landscape. By disproportionately subjecting madrasas to perusal, the judiciary
has subjected the broader population to believing that Islamic practices and institutions are
inherently suspect and perhaps even in conflict with Indian values. This selective regulation
feeds into the existing narrative that Muslim communities and their institutions are somehow at
odds with the nation’s aspirations, further marginalizing them in public spheres. The current
government’s nationalist and right-wing policies have already contributed to rising Islamophobic
sentiment, and the Allahabad HC’s seemingly one-sided ruling reinforces this hostile climate by
validating the suspicions and prejudices against the Muslim community. In a time where
Secularism is used selectively to pressure one religious group; true equality under law seems to
be a utopian goal.

The Supreme Court’s final decision to overturn the Allahabad HC’s ruling has been welcomed.
by the Muslim community, however, this doesn’t discount the lengthening traces of Islamophobia.
in the nation. One might argue that the judicial rulings, including those on the Madarsa
Act and operate independently of the legislative government in power, emphasizing the principle of
judicial autonomy. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that the government has significant
influence over the broader social and cultural climate in which these legal decisions are
interpreted and received. The current rightist government of India increasingly casts minority
communities, especially Muslims, in a negative light. By promoting narratives that depict Islamic
practices as extremist and backward, the Allahabad HC has, directly or indirectly, nurtured a
social environment that is more tolerant of Islamophobic attitudes. This shift in public sentiment
can create an atmosphere where biased perspectives subtly creep into various institutions,
including the judiciary, making it challenging for minority communities to maintain their rights.
and identities without facing suspicion or prejudice.

Read Also: From Killing Ideas to Killing Intellectuals: The Institutional Murder of G.N. Saibaba

Featured Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Ashita Kedia
[email protected]