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

DU Beat

Browsing
DUB Speak

Selling in disguise: How brands sell what they ‘can’t’ sell

By

Growing up, we all sat through one of those liquor ads while waiting to watch our mother’s favourite TV dramas. The infamous “Men Will Be Men,” produced by Seagrams, became a cult classic while bordering on the illegal.

Advertising on television sets remains the most effective way to reach Indian households, with over 200 million people having access to it. The brand often turns to clever marketing tactics in order to stand out in an ever more competitive space. Some pay hefty money to popular stars, some subtly place their branding in popular imageries or product placement, and some deceit. Surrogate advertising often comes under heat for deceiving audiences through implicit promotion. Advertising is when a brand attempts to indirectly promote products that would otherwise be impossible by the letter of the law. Indian TV sets have been marred with this plague for decades now, be it through promoting substitute products or subtle product placement in films. Popular brands like Kingfisher and Seagrams resort to promoting their brand of mineral water on CDs to get around the legalities. In India, there’s a strict prohibition on advertising gambling, tobacco, and alcoholic beverages on television sets due to concerns about it undermining public health and risking exposure of harmful substances to a younger audience.

It is severely disappointing to see actors or sportsmen with a massive reach often helping these brands promote substances that are doing no good to the youth of the nation. Brands like Vimal, infamous for poaching stars like Salman Khan, Ajay Devgan, and most recently Shah Rukh Khan in their ads, have them promote their “cardamom pods” with the intention of redirecting them to their parents brand’s pan masala. Similarly, sporting events in India are plagued with online betting ads, banned in the recently released guidelines by the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA).

The Indian Premier League remains a goldmine for many of these brands, considering the traffic it invites every year. The 2023 edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) saw two of its biggest sponsors be an online betting service and a brand selling pan masala. These brands often end up hiding under the banner of a news broadcaster, an Elaichi brand, or music labels, amongst others, that we can ride home about all day long. Often what they do is create a substitute product with the same branding, as the laws permit that, and upon checking their socials, they end up looking no more than pawns to promote the parent company’s bread and butter.

Perhaps the biggest issue with surrogate advertising isn’t even the legalities but rather the ethics surrounding it. By promoting products that aren’t permissible by law due to health concerns or otherwise, they are exposing children who know no better to such products. This goes against the principles of corporate social responsibility (CSR), which states that corporations or brands shall engage in practices ethically in consideration of their impact on society. In nations like India, where cricketers and movie stars are worshipped like deities by teenagers who know no better, the age group is all the more vulnerable.

Targeting a younger demographic through securing the naming rights of popular tournaments that they might resonate with or paying hefty sums to movie stars is doing nothing but endangering and exposing kids to banned substances. The prohibited nature of certain substances keeps the “harmful” perception of their consumption alive in the public consciousness, but constant advertising, whether intended or not, only pushes the vulnerable demography more towards such products, in a way normalising it.

Whether you agree with surrogate advertising or not, some may argue that a younger demographic would hardly figure out what’s being implied in such advertisements, but you are still putting them at risk. In a digital era where information has never been more accessible and promotion of these harmful products placed everywhere, be it TV, OTT platforms, or big LED screens out and about, the risk of one exposing themselves to something that the government, in considering with public welfare and health concerns, had previously put a restriction on is alarming. Brands should move away from such deceitful and unethical tactics and adopt transparency moving forward rather than making themselves all about treating the consumers like cash cows.

Read also:New ASCI guidelines for fair advertising

Featured Images credits: Kingfisher & Seagrams

Yash Raj
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Arts & Culture

From Dissent to Decor: How Street Art Gentrifies Graffiti

By
Graffiti on a Wall

From Paleolithic cave drawings to scribbles of names on Delhi’s monuments, humans have always left their mark on public spaces. Through this article, we explore the evolution of graffiti, its roots in rebellion and dissent, and the stark contrast with commissioned street art.

Roughly between 40,000 and 14,000 years ago, the Paleolithic man made the first cave drawing. Eons later, as we stroll by narrow alleyways in Delhi, we see colorful graffiti lining up old walls, peeling away slowly. Between these thousands of years, humans never once stopped leaving pieces of art in public squares, subway stations, public baths, school desks, etc. Ancient Romans and Greeks scribbled their names and slogans of resistance on buildings in 31 BC, so did Napoleon’s soldiers in 1803, and so do Modern Indians in 2024 on monuments such as Qutub Minar.

Graffiti is thus a cultural, historical fact. Graffiti, as we now understand it, saw its genesis in the 1970s, when people began spray painting their names, or simple pieces of art, on trains. It also has its roots in the gang culture of New York. ‘Taggers’ went about discreetly spraying the names of their ‘crew’ on buildings and alley walls to mark their territory. The term graffiti was first used by The New York Times to describe this phenomenon. Graffiti was particularly popular in the urban areas of the United States as well as Europe, commonly targeting subways, trains, billboards, and walls.

Graffiti also forms a huge part of student culture, where students often use it as an anonymous outlet to express their dissent with the system they are thrust into. In August of 2024, a student of Disha Students’ Organization was suspended for writing ‘Scrap NTA’ on a wall in Delhi University’s North Campus. Some thought of this as valid disciplinary action, while others saw it as a stifling of students’ voices.

Graffiti has thus historically been a tool of dissent, especially in conflict zones where open public protests can be dangerous. It has also been legally considered as vandalism and destruction of property. The two basic ideological views on graffiti are that it is a form of self-expression and an outlet for social and political unrest while others view it as a violation of property rights and defacement of public property.

This, however, raises the question of public/street art versus graffiti. What differentiates the two and what is it about street art that makes it acceptable and what is it about graffiti that makes it illegal?

The most glaring difference between the two is that street art is usually created with permission, generally from the local ruling dispensation. While both art forms are created for public spaces, the act of creating graffiti is symbolically and politically very different from murals or other forms of street art. It is associated with rebellion and involves high-risk and covert methods of painting. It thus does not simply remain a physical act of creating a painting, but there is the added risk of incarceration or punishment, and it comes to represent something more. 

Local and even central governments often commission artists to create murals to ‘beautify’ the city. But one can argue whether such murals constitute real art like graffiti does. If art is commissioned by authority, can it ever truly reflect the feelings, problems, and thoughts of the masses? Or does it simply advance certain dominant ideological narratives? 

Why is it that art approved by the bureaucratic, partisan apparatus is considered to add to the beauty of the city, while graffiti is thought to take away from it? It can be hypothesized that class dynamics have a role to play in the same. Graffiti does not require formal training or expensive resources. All you need is a few cans of spray paint. On the other hand, street art may require more skill, and training, and commissioned murals may be accessible to more privileged artists who have better access to such training and resources. 

Thus, street art, which is supposed to be in the public domain, becomes gentrified, and the voices of the marginalized become overshadowed once again. For instance, in the famous Lodhi Art District, many murals speak of issues such as climate change, gender, etc., but since it is authorized, commissioned art, it speaks of these issues within a certain ideological box that it cannot breach, owing to its patron. While the colorful paintings at Lodhi Art District get posted all over social media and even promoted by the government as a tourist attraction, the graffiti in tunnels and alleys get painted over and hidden.

That is not to say that street art is a ‘lower’ form of public art. These murals are often very intricate and painstakingly curated by hardworking and talented artists. The point here is that street art is often conflated with graffiti when it is a gentrified, politically toned-down version of it. The art of graffiti deserves to be separately recognized for what is particularly represented—dissent and the ‘unsavory’ side of the city. It is not an irritant or an eyesore but an integral part of the story of the city. It is a bright, colorful reminder of the frustrations, hopes, and expressions of a section of the population that gets conveniently tucked away and hidden. 

 

Featured Image Credits : Herzindagi.com

 

Read also: Of Separation, Solidarity and Sustenance

 

Disha Bharti

[email protected]  

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

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

By

Prof. G.N. Saibaba did not ‘pass away’ on 12th October 2024. He was gradually and brutally murdered by the state, the Indian academia, and our collective silence. The Indian university has become a graveyard, with students and academics being executed for voicing their opinions. Is staying silent the best that we are capable of?

 

The first time I came across G.N. Saibaba was in a social media post from 2022 that dealt with his ongoing case and featured the poem ‘I Refuse to Die’ from the collection of his prison poetry and letters, Why Do You Fear My Ways So Much? The poem and his case prompted me to buy the book and read more about him. G.N. Saibaba was the first poet I read after getting admitted to the literature program at the University of Delhi in 2022, and I carried the text with me to my first lecture in college only in the hope that someone would recognise it. The text became my first introduction to the oppression that the DU administration and the state are capable of meting out to a 90% disabled professor, even before I physically reached my college. It was only a matter of a few months before I would witness academic precarity firsthand in my department when my professors would be displaced, and later, Prof. Samarveer Singh of Hindu College would be forced to take his life. 

 

G.N. Saibaba’s death is simultaneously, both a rare case of UAPA in which each institution of the state and even the university administration worked in tandem with each other but led to Saibaba’s eventual bail and also another case of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) imposed on the academic-activist on no solid grounds, except for his alleged “links with the banned Maoist party.” 

 

Though the BJP-led government has made significant amendments to the UAPA and excessively imposed it on students, academics, and activists to curb any criticism of the state in the last decade, it is important to note that the draconian law was imposed on Saibaba by the Congress-led UPA government in 2012. The misuse of the colonial era law by the UPA government, a part of which today stands as an alternative and the opposition to the NDA alliance, allowed the exploitation of the law and for it to be made arbitrary by the latter, to the extent that the law was amended to shift the burden of proof from the accuser, usually the state, to the accused, making bails in such cases extremely rare.

 

Though Saibaba was granted bail, he was not even allowed to visit his mother’s funeral and was physically tortured by the prison authorities during his abduction-cum-arrest from DU campus and in jail that led to the paralysis of his left arm, denied basic healthcare facilities, and even contracted the coronavirus twice while he was in jail. Despite all of these grave concerns, Saibaba was continuously denied bail, even though several high profile individuals were given bail during the pandemic. When he was finally acquitted in October 2022 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra government filed a petition and challenged the HC’s order at the Supreme Court, and on the very next day, Saturday 15th October 2022, a special bench of the SC comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice M.R. Shah stayed the HC’s acquittal order, citing how the “brain is the most dangerous and integral part of committing terrorism-related offences”. 

 

The profiling of progressive academics, activists, and intellectuals as ‘terrorists’ has been made into a common practice by the state and the university administrations have also been actively complicit in this. It is alleged that a colleague of Saibaba at the Ram Lal Anand College was responsible for helping the state frame him in the case. Prof. Saibaba was also unfairly terminated from his job as an assistant professor at Ram Lal Anand College, DU even before he was proved guilty in the case. 

 

This atmosphere of fear and surveillance in the saffronised university space has not only been responsible for the death of several intellectuals but has also been actively used by the state to break networks of solidarity—in the case of Prof. Hany Babu who was a part of the defence committee for Saibaba and has also been incarcerated under UAPA. Even the lawyer Surendra Gadling who fought the case for Saibaba’s release was charged with UAPA and the judges who had acquitted Saibaba have faced consequences for the same. 

 

In conversation with DU Beat at a memorial organised for Saibaba, Professor Jenny Rowena, wife of Hany Babu, said,

We always talk about issues when somebody dies, then it becomes a viral thing. We saw Rohith Vemula when he was alive. How much attention do we give to these people? Even now, people who are in jail because they campaigned for Saibaba, like Hany Babu, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, who was their lawyer, are still in jail. These people also have a lot of health problems, so are we waiting for the same to happen to them? We all should really protest against UAPA. All condolence meetings that we have should also be against UAPA. There should be a mass movement against it, because they [the state] are using it ruthlessly now to crush any kind of opposition and dissent.”

 

The law has been reduced to a tool of state repression and is being increasingly used to arrest students, young activists, academics and other intellectuals who criticise the state under the garb of ‘national security’ and by labelling them as terrorists. Not only is it absurd that young students and 90% disabled professors are labelled as ‘terrorists’ and potential ‘threat to the nation’ but it is against the constitutional values that promote critical and free thinking. In fact the very structured and systematic manner in which each institution of the state and each public institution including the universities and the media is working in complicity with the state to corner dissenters is in itself a symptom of a regime of terror that the UAPA supposedly seeks to counter. 

 

It is also important to take into cognizance the notions of ‘terrorism’ that UAPA seems to be against. Is fighting for the rights of Adivasis and against their killings terrorism? Is peacefully opposing state operations such as Operation Green Hunt and Operation Samadhan an act of terrorism?

 

Is mere ‘links with Maoist organisations’, as Saibaba was accused of, or ‘possession of Marxist literature’ terrorism? If yes, do students of the humanities and social sciences, particularly literature and history, who study Marxism as a compulsory part of their course, pose a threat to the nation and are terrorists? Does mere engagement with or belief in a particular ideology that may or may not be critical of the state’s beliefs, constitute as terrorism? Today, even asking these questions can lead to the imposition of a UAPA case. In fact, academics who have worked on such topics for their PhDs are often harassed by prestigious academics and labelled as anti-national in job interviews. 

 

The law is being increasingly used to destroy public universities by imprisoning students such as Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, among hundreds of other students for peacefully protesting against divisive laws, an undeniable law of each citizen. The incarceration of these students under UAPA have also been orchestrated so as to ‘set an example’ for dissenting students and to silence them, developing a disquiet culture of suppression and destroying the culture of resistance that India’s public universities have been known for. 

 

The constant ‘red-flagging’ of individuals who identify with the Left or are in opposition to the state policy and may or may not identify with the Left, in conjunction with the profiling of individuals as “urban naxals” by state authorities, including the Prime Minister, not only qualifies as discrimination on the basis of ideas and leads to connotations of anti-state and anti-national individuals, but also leads to anti-intellectualism that has been identified as one of the most important factors behind the development of a fascist state.

 

Though the judges at the Supreme Court have been citing how “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, it does not seem to apply to UAPA cases, more than half of which are not being investigated, as per the National Crime Records Bureau. In Saibaba’s murder and the human right violations as a part of it, the state did not merely attempt, though unsuccessfully, to kill his ideas but also take away his life, as it did with Father Stan Swamy, Pandu Narote, and SAR Geelani. By unfairly terminating his contract with the university, it was ensured that Saibaba does not get to teach his students ever again and one of his most heartfelt desires to teach students after being released from prison, was left unfulfilled. As Saibaba remarked in one of his letters to his students and colleagues from the prison:

I hope none of you should feel sympathetic to my condition. I don’t believe in sympathy; I only believe in solidarity. I intended to tell you my story only because I believe that it is also your story. Also because I believe my freedom is your freedom.”

 

Even in solitary confinement, his desire for freedom was not restricted to himself. The campaign against him was not only unfair to him but also his family and also his students, who were not allowed to be taught by a brilliant scholar, teacher, and translator whose translations of Kabir have been the most significant and timely in English so far. 

 

Though we have been reduced to observing birthdays, death anniversaries, and anniversaries of arrests of activists and students as they remain incarcerated without trials and more than a handful of unsuccessful hearings, the outrage at the murder of Prof. G.N. Saibaba is both a culmination of our complicity in his murder and simultaneously a rupture in the amnesia surrounding state repression under UAPA. That should pave the way for a movement against UAPA and the larger culture of saffronisation-infused anti-intellectualism. For the message should be clear: the state should not and cannot kill ideas, let alone individuals. As Saibaba himself claimed and rightly so, he and his ideas and struggles refuse to be forgotten and to die..

 

Read Also: DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba

 

Featured Image Credits: Shahid Tantray’s Instagram 

 

Vedant Nagrani

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
Events

Lighting up the festivities at Suruchi’24

By

NSS Hindu College hosted its annual Diwali Mela, Suruchi on 24 October, 2024, which was an event filled with engaging activities, music and vibrant stalls. 

 

With Diwali festivities right around the corner, National Service Scheme, Hindu College held its much awaited Diwali Mela, ‘Suruchi’ on 24 October 2024. With a footfall of over 10,000, this annual flagship event of NSS, Hindu College is renowned for its significance and reach within the Delhi University circuit. Vibrant music and decor, a bevy of fun games and, handmade goods and food stalls lined the fest. Enactus groups of various colleges, NGOs and local artisans set up stalls of bags, paintings, jewellery and stationery to raise funds. Embarking on its ethos of social service and welfare, NSS Hindu College aimed to raise funds for marginalised groups that are beneficiaries of its various community engagement programmes. 

 

Khushi, a student who put up stall selling her paintings shared, 

Suruchi was my first experience at selling paintings and artwork I have created. I had made paintings on small canvases and sold them at around 80 rupees so students could afford them easily. With people praising my work and creativity, I feel motivated to set up stalls in upcoming fests in colleges.”

 

Attendees thronged the various face painting, hand painted pottery and jewellery making stalls to get personalised goods. Ragini, an attendee at Suruchi said, 

Having heard so much about Suruchi from my seniors, I am so happy to be here today. I participated in the pottery making activity and made a small cup to take home.”

 

After grooving to the music played by the DJ, students made their way to stalls selling drinks and food items from different states, especially hilly areas like Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh (Devbhoomi). Embracing their rich cultural heritage, some students were seen wearing traditional nath and costumes of their home states. Suruchi was a true celebration of the myriad cultures and identities of India, making this year’s Diwali Mela a memorable and cherished occasion for everyone. 

 

Read also : Celebrating World Mental Health Day at Persona’24

 

Featured Image Credits: DU Beat

 

Chetna Rani

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
Features

Diddy, Beyoncé, and a whole lot of Conspiracy Theories

By

The music industry giant Sean “Diddy” Combs faces serious allegations of sex trafficking and abuse. Lawsuits reveal disturbing accounts of exploitation, while societal desensitisation and memes undermine the gravity of these issues and the plight of victims.

 

Trigger Warning: Mention of sexual assault and rape

The hip-hop music industry, which started off as a cultural rebellion born under the influence of Black Panthers, has become politically hollow and morally degenerate. Unchecked power and incalculable influence permeate the music record labels, shaping the sounds we hear and the faces we idolise today. The most prominent faces in the music industry, even our favourite celebrities, too imprudent and decadent in their greed for power and money, are often complicit in the toxic power structures that perpetuate the endless cycle of exploitation and corruption.

Sean “Diddy” Combs, a rapper and music magnate credited with helping launch the careers of some of the biggest stars through his record label ‘Bad Boy Records’ and creating a monopolist empire of his own in the music industry, was arrested in September on sex trafficking and racketeering charges with federal prosecutors alleging that Combs and his associates threatened, abused, and coerced women, minors, and others around him “to fulfil his sexual desires.” It also included forcing victims into engaging in recorded sexual activity, which he referred to as “Freak Offs.” On October 1, The Los Angeles Times reported, more than 100 people have planned to file lawsuits against Combs, alleging that he sexually abused and exploited them.

 

However, by 14th October, six more lawsuits were filed, mostly by victims who were sexually assaulted by Combs when they were minors. Combs, throughout his career, has been linked to a number of conspiracy theories and accused of numerous charges. In 2003, his clothing brand, Sean John, was accused of violating Honduran labour laws as the factories were based in Honduras. The National Labour Committee said that the employees were forced to work overtime and were paid sweatshop wages. In 2017, he was sued for sexual harassment by his chef, and the suit was settled out of court. However, since Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, singer and Diddy’s ex-girlfriend, filed a lawsuit against him in November 2023, a multitude of allegations have come out against him.

After years of silence and darkness, I am finally ready to tell my story and to speak up. On behalf of myself and for the benefit of other women who face violence and abuse in their relationships,” states Casandra.

 

Casandra met Combs in 2005 when she was 19 years old and was signed under his label. The lawsuit also states that Diddy used his position of power to “set the groundwork” for a “manipulative and coercive romantic and sexual relationship.” She also accused the musician of sexual abuse and rape and claimed that many of these incidents were witnessed by his “tremendously loyal network,” who “were not willing to do anything meaningful” to stop the violence.

 

They settled the case for an undisclosed amount a day after it was filed in New York. However, the chain of sexual assault lawsuits that followed after dates back to 1991. An anonymous lawsuit was filed by a woman who alleged that Diddy, along with another man, coerced her into engaging in sexual activities. In a separate case, Joi Dickerson-Neal accused the artist of drugging and sexually assaulting her when she was a college student in 1991. She further claimed that he filmed the incident and later shared the footage with others without her consent. In a third lawsuit, Liza Gardner alleged that Diddy and another individual sexually assaulted both her and a friend over three decades ago, when she was 16 years old. All of these lawsuits came forward shortly before the expiration of the New York Adult Survivors Act. The act gave the victims the ability to file civil lawsuits, even after the statutes of limitations have expired.

 

The prosecutors in the indictment claim that Combs and his associates allegedly transported sex workers across state lines—which constitutes sex trafficking and transportation—to engage in prostitution and allegedly drugged women to keep them “obedient and compliant.” USA attorney Damien Williams said Sean Combs led and participated in a racketeering conspiracy that used the business empire he controlled to carry out criminal activity including sex trafficking, forced labour, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and the obstruction of justice. He further implied that there are three main charges that Diddy is currently facing: racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. During a search of Combs’ residences in March, investigators reportedly recovered over 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant, along with other items referred to as “Freak Off supplies,” according to the indictment. Additionally, firearms and ammunition were discovered, including “three AR-15 rifles with defaced serial numbers.”

 

The internet has restored “Thanking Beyoncé” as a meme following her alleged close relationship with Combs. In a spiral of various conspiracy theories that are being spinned, a theory linking Beyoncé and Jay-Z to the deaths of several prominent artists is gaining traction online. It is being alleged that the couple may be connected to the untimely deaths of figures such as Aaliyah, Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes, and Michael Jackson, implying they were targeted for not aligning with the interests of a powerful trio, including Combs. Video clips presenting the intriguing frequency with which celebrities express gratitude towards Beyoncé and Jay-Z during award ceremonies, even without direct connections to the event, are also being highlighted. Adele’s acknowledgement of Beyoncé during her 2017 Grammy acceptance speech and Britney Spears’ tribute to the couple at the 2023 People’s Choice Awards have led fans to speculate about the couple’s influence within the entertainment industry.

 

Further, past videos of Combs with Justin Bieber, shot when the latter was still a minor, have resurfaced. In one of the videos, Sean Diddy mentioned spending 48 hours with Justin, which he referred to as a ’15-year-old’s dream’.

 

All of these charges against Combs are repulsive and excruciatingly horrific. The information regarding the 1,000 bottles of baby oil took social media by storm and entirely for different reasons. Too many memes related to the incident obscured the gravity of the situation. The collective moral apathy towards the victims exposes a deep-seated moral decay of our society. We are so beaten down by the endless cycle of exploitation and desensitised by the constant stream of media that we have resorted to humour as a coping mechanism. By turning a heinous crime into mere internet fodder, we allow the real predator to slip through the cracks, much like what happened with the Epstein Island case, all forgotten.

 

Read Also: Coldplay, Concerts, and Cash Cows

Image Credits: AFP via Getty Images

Reeba Khan

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

DUSU 2024: An Election in Waiting

By

Characteristic of DUSU elections, the DUSU elections for the session 2024–25 were also a display of money and muscle power, tearing up of nomination forms, and a rather irreverent attitude towards the Lyngdoh Committee guidelines for the elections. The emergence of identity-based parties, an SFI-AISA alliance, and the Delhi HC directive to postpone counting of votes augur major changes. Despite this, the voter turnout remained abysmally low at 35.2%, the lowest of the past 4 elections, and from what students claim, this reduction seems to be manufactured by the administration. 

 

Slated to start its counting post the 21st of this month after the court hearing scheduled on the same date, this year’s DUSU elections were different from all previous elections. From the alliance between the Left and the emergence of identity-based parties like Ambedkar Students’ Association (ASA) and Fraternity Movement in DUSU to the last moment introduction of special buses, the inauguration and removal of a miniature Ambedkar statue by the DUSU, and eleventh hour changes in presidential candidates of major parties, this election saw it all and was, by far, one of the most happening elections of all times. Despite these developments, it seems unlikely to have such a low voter turnout. Though the hostile nature of the campus during elections and the rather short time frame for voting discourage a lot of students, especially female students, and thus, voter turnout appeared unnaturally low. 

 

According to Hindustan Times, the voter turnout for this year was 35.2%. It is important to remember how the voter turnout is calculated in order to understand the trends for this election, as the figure measures the number of votes cast as a percentage of the eligible voters rather than the number of voters who come to their institutions to cast votes. It is the gap between the number of eligible voters who show up on the day of voting and the number of votes cast, reflecting the number of voters who were unable to cast their vote despite showing up on the day of elections. While this gap has emerged in the previous elections too, it seems to have widened rapidly in this election, making it seem ‘manufactured’ by the administration to decrease the number of votes cast, as per the claims of the students. This gap was exacerbated by issuing last-minute notices in several colleges that set out the eligibility criteria to vote in the elections and made students stand in long queues in administrative offices on the day of voting, to update their ID cards that took hours, leading to situations where the voters were unable to cast their vote past, despite their early arrival in college. Further, in several colleges, only a handful of polling booths were allotted for the entire institution despite the availability of more polling booths, making 1000s of eligible voters poll from a single booth. These booths were also changed at the last moment, creating confusion around the venue for voting.

 

A third-year student from Ramjas College notes:

I couldn’t vote because I was 2 minutes late. There was a big jam on the campus, and no auto was able to make it through, and as soon as I got to the college gate, they didn’t let us in. I waited there for a while to enter, and as soon as I did, there was so much confusion with the venue of the voting; some said the auditorium, and some said other classes. When I finally found the classroom, they didn’t let me join the line as I was 2 minutes late. The faculty was rude, and they were shouting at us without listening to a word we said. I wasn’t the only one who was left out, and there were a lot of other students as well.

 

Though several colleges had sent out last-minute notices about verification of fee slips and upgradation of ID cards for all voters, in stark contrast, it turns out that at several institutions, the faculty was not checking whether the ID cards of students had been upgraded. 

 

Another third-year student from Ramjas notes:

Though the college had notified students to verify their ID cards, several students, including me, were only asked about our courses and year of study and were allowed to vote even regardless of whether our ID cards were updated or not. The faculty members at the polling booths were not following the rules as a lot of students were in the queue to vote. While I was voting, the DUSU presidential candidate of a major political party entered our booth and was openly campaigning, and no faculty members present in the booth stopped him, despite this being a clear violation of the guidelines. They rather allowed him to speak.

 

Though bureaucratic mismanagement and chaos are natural in such a large election, a lot of the aforementioned incidents seem deliberate and conscious attempts to dissuade students from voting. Even while the students were verifying their ID cards, the candidates were openly campaigning and helping those in queue using their contacts in the college administration to get their ID cards verified faster to garner more votes. This ensures that only a selective and chosen crowd gets to vote in the elections, and a large crowd of students is not allowed to exercise their right to vote despite their attempts to do so.

 

A student from Miranda House notes the manufactured chaos in the order of voting in the elections:

Students remember the ballot numbers of each candidate, and that’s how polling booths are supposed to work. In Miranda House, in the initial phase when the elections started, the order of positions in the polling booth was informed to us as President, followed by Vice President, Secretary, and the Joint-Secretary but later on, as the elections went forward, they altered the position. The Joint-Secretary’s position was moved to the first, and the President’s position was moved to the last in the polling booth which caused a lot of confusion among students because that is not how you come memorising the numbers.

 

Though bureaucratic mismanagement led to a further decrease of voter turnout, the developments in this year’s elections will have a long-term impact. With the strict action taken by the Delhi High Court to ensure that counting doesn’t begin until public defacement is removed, it could potentially tamper with the results but might result in lesser defacement and a violation of rules next year. Further, the directive to ensure 50% reservation of women in DUSU would also have a positive impact. In terms of party politics, sudden changes in candidates of major parties post-nominations and the withdrawal of community support following the same might lead to a reflection about the role of caste politics in DUSU. The emergence of identity-based parties and the alliance among the Left would also ensure that the ABVP-NSUI binary is challenged in the upcoming years.

 

Read Also: Under the Shadow of DUSU Elections: A Stage for Sexual Harassment and Caste-based Politics

 

Picture Credits: Nehal for DU Beat

 

 

Vedant Nagrani

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba

By

On 15th October, 2024, a tribute was paid to Professor G.N. Saibaba at Arts Faculty Gate, University of Delhi, posthumously. A public meeting and a candlelight vigil were observed by students’ and teachers’ organizations, which were joined by civil society members, colleagues, and activists who worked alongside Saibaba. 

G. N. Saibaba, former Assistant Professor at Delhi University, passed away on October 12 at the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad due to postoperative complications after a surgery to remove gallbladder stones. Saibaba was arrested in 2014 under the “draconian” UAPA for charges of working alongside members of the banned CPI (Maoist) and its alleged frontal organization, the Revolutionary Democratic Front. In 2021, Delhi University terminated his employment following the UAPA case against him. However, he was not reinstated after his acquittal in March 2024. It was claimed by many that Saibaba, a 90% disabled academic and human rights activist, was “wrongfully incarcerated” for a decade and “tortured” by the state during court trials and also during the period of jail time where he was forced to live in solitary confinement, declined proper medical care, and even prohibited from meeting his mother after her passing away. Sai’s death was received as an institutional murder by fellow academics, students and others.

The solidarity and remembrance event at Arts Faculty included speakers who highlighted Sai’s resilience, his revolutionary spirit, and his long struggle against exploitation and oppression. The speakers included Professors Karen Gabriel, N Sachin, Abha Dev Habib, Vikas Gupta, Jitendra Meena, and Saroj Giri. Kamal Singh from PUCL, Jagdish from DGMF, and representatives of student groups also shared their memories and thoughts.

Addressing the people, Professor Karen Gabriel said,

The term Urban Naxal has been structured against those who have understood the logic of the system and move through it and destroy it…UAPA not only destroys individuals but also families and communities.

Professor N. Sachin urged the masses to rise in “remembrance and rage” for Saibaba “against a system of induced apathy.”

Professor Vikas Gupta held that,

It is in Saibaba that we see a commitment to social justice” and also that “it is not possible to fight against one kind of inequality; the struggle is against all violations of social justice.

In conversation with DU Beat, Professor Abha Dev Habib said,

Sai’s death is an institutional murder because his minimum needs such as medical care were not provided. The state could not prove anything against Saibaba even after 10 years. He was denied bail every time he approached the court, and even when the high court was to set him free, the state would go against it; he couldn’t get justice from the state. All those who are opinion-builders, those who can speak for a more equal society and democratic rights, are being put behind bars. Sai Baba has been taken away too early from us. The University also did not give him justice. Even before it was proved he was guilty or not guilty, the university terminated his employment. By terminating his employment, his right to livelihood was also taken away. The state, the society, and we as people have wronged him by not speaking up.

The cause of all other political prisoners facing, what the participants maintained to be, “wrongful incarceration” was put forward, and it was demanded that they be released. They foregrounded the cases of activists such as Hany Babu, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulshifa Fatima, and Rona Wilson who continue “languishing” in jails, undergoing extended trial periods, and face “terror litigation”.

Further, instances of “state-structured violence” and “physiological torture” of political prisoners jailed under UAPA was recounted, where people like tribal rights activists Stan Swamy and Pandu Narote, passed away in jail after their bails were denied on several counts.

Speaking to DU Beat, Professor Jenny Rowena, wife of Hany Babu, said,

We always talk about issues when somebody dies, then it becomes a viral thing. We saw Rohith Vemula when he was alive. How much attention do we give to these people? Even now, people who are in jail because they campaigned for Saibaba, like Hany Babu, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, who was their lawyer, are still in jail. These people also have a lot of health problems, so are we waiting for the same to happen to them? We all should really protest against UAPA. All condolence meetings that we have should also be against UAPA. There should be a mass movement against it, because they [the state] are using it ruthlessly now to crush any kind of opposition and dissent.

Further, slogans against the “genocidal” Operation Kagar and Surajkund Scheme were raised. The public meeting was followed by a candlelight vigil in which all friends, comrades, and students of the revolutionary Saibaba paid a tribute to him.

 

Read also: Of Separation, Solidarity, and Sustenance

 

Featured image credit: Shahid Tantray’s Instagram

 

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]   

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Delhi High Court Grants Admission to 18 students at Delhi University’s St Stephens College under the Christian Quota

By

Amidst the hustle and excitement of the new academic year, St. Stephen’s College faced serious allegations of exceeding the limit set on admissions through the minority Christian quota. Two months later, the Delhi High Court ruled that admission should be granted to 18 out of 19 students, concluding that one student’s admission exceeded the five per cent limit.

St. Stephen’s College alleged in the Delhi High Court that Delhi University failed to confirm the admissions of 19 candidates under the Christian quota. The college had allocated seats to students by considering 13 specialisations under the larger Bachelor of Arts Program course as a single course. The college claims to have sent its list of selected Christian candidates on August 24th, 2024. However, the students still needed to receive fee payment links on their portals, implying that their admissions remained unconfirmed. Furthermore, the college mentioned that it operates under Article 30 of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards the right of minority communities to establish and manage educational institutions. The college argued that the university’s interference with its admission process violates the institution’s constitutionally enshrined right.

Delhi University countered by stating that St. Stephen’s College was misappropriating the minority quota. The University stated that despite operating under Article 30 guidelines, the college cannot surpass the five per cent limit set for admissions through the Christian quota.

The court found that in Hargun Singh Ahluwalia vs. v. Delhi University & Ors., it was held that the 13 subject combinations within the BA Program Course were distinct programs, having different seat matrices. Hence, the seat matrix provided by Delhi University is to be followed by all colleges without any deviation. St. Stephen’s decision to formulate a new matrix by treating all 13 subject combinations as a singular program, was thus, not in line with previous judgements. Justice Jaswant Sharma, thus ruled that, 

“St. Stephen College, being an aided minority educational institute also, cannot claim to have absolute unbridled powers to exercise discretion against the policies framed by the University to which it is affiliated.”

The Court also found 14 students to be eligible as per the seat matrix. Four students were admitted by applying the five per cent excess allocation policy. One allocation was, however, found to be beyond the specified seat matrix, since the college had admitted six students in the BA Program (Economics + Political Science), while only five allocations were permitted within the seat matrix prescribed by the University. 

Therefore, the judgement emphasises that although St. Stephens is a minority institution with a certain degree of autonomy, it must adhere to the regulatory framework set by Delhi University.

Read Also: St. Stephen’s College Faces Allegations over Minority Quota Violations in Admission Process

Featured Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Sakshi Singh 

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

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

By

Baffling exit polls and puncturing the Congress complacency, the BJP has battled anti-incumbency to secure its third term in Haryana. An inordinate number of dissidents, glaring portents for division within the party’s central leadership, a failure to foreground fresh faces and an unsubstantiated socialist rhetoric, inter alia, have come together to form, what seems to have been an insurmountable impediment for the Congress. Maharashtra and Jharkhand no longer appear as welcoming.

The Congress has thus far failed to diagnose the rot in its strategy. Its narratives involute upon themselves, constantly miscarrying with the public, and its parroting of the same old defeated stratagems now heads ad nauseam. The Haryana defeat carries with itself considerable ignominy for the Congress which has been smug in its prophecies of victory before and the natural course of the ensuing result has been invariably failure. While Congress president Kharge denies that the Maharashtra assembly elections shall be affected by the defeat, the BJP and its allies remain confident that the ruling Mahayuti in Maharashtra has been only further strengthened. It is implausible that the long-enduring, anti-incumbency temperament shall so suddenly flip, which leaves room to investigate what the BJP has done right during the campaigns and on-ground. 

Primarily, a deluge of rebel candidates have fractured the Congress’ vote bank, drawing from it a generous amount it could have used against BJP. The INC lost 16 seats to rebels and independents, severely weakening it against the BJP’s far more structured and organisationally sound ticket management, particularly after UP in the Lok Sabha elections. 

The following table illustrates the Congress’ losses to dissidents:

Kalka Congress lost by a margin of 11k votes (Rebel got 32k votes)
Pundri Congress came 3rd; Congress rebel got 40k votes and lost by 2k.
Rai Lost by a margin of 4.5k votes (Rebel got 12k votes)
Gohana Lost by a margin of 10k votes (Rebel got 15k votes)
Safidon Lost by a margin of 4k votes (Rebel got 29k votes)
Dadri Lost by a margin of 2k votes (Rebel got 6k votes)
Tigaon Congress came 3rd; Congress rebel got 57k votes and lost by 37k votes.
Ambala Cantt. Congress came 3rd; Congress rebel got 53k votes and lost by 7k votes.
Assandh Lost by a margin of 2k votes (Rebel got 16k votes)
Uchana Kalan Lost by 39 votes (Rebel got 32k votes)
Bhadra Lost by a margin of 7.5k votes (Rebel got 27k votes)
Mahendragarh Lost by a margin of 2k votes (Rebel got 21k votes)
Sohna Lost by a margin of 11k votes (Rebel got 70k votes)
Ballabgarh Congress came 4th; Congress rebel came 2nd, receiving 44k votes and lost by 17k votes.
Dabwali Lost by a margin of 610 votes (Rebel got 2k votes)
Rania Lost by a margin of 4k votes (Rebel got 36k votes)
Bahadurgarh Congress rebel won the seat as an independent; Congress candidate came 3rd.

Further, the Congress made no attempts to restructure its leadership. The young faces—Selja in Haryana and Sachin Pilot in Rajasthan—were conceded to the older ones, of Hooda and Gehlot respectively. The pattern makes itself manifest with an octogenarian as the party president. The BJP, on the other hand, deployed 60 fresh faces to stand against the ancient heavyweights, albeit losing ones, of the Congress. The Congress renominated 17 of its stale candidacies that had lost in the past. The 2023 state election Telangana win for the Congress, supplanting the previously incumbent Bharatia Rashtra Samiti, came in only after they took a chance with a new face – Revanth Reddy’s. 

Congress also almost consciously defined itself as a ‘one-caste party’. The Congress’ overdependence on the Jat population proved to be a fatal oversight. The BJP conquered the Congress’ meek share by consolidating the 75 percent of the non-Jat population. Congress’ implicit preference for Hooda to Selja handed to the BJP critical accusatory ammunition, allowing them to charge the Congress with anti-Dalit sentiments and a neglect for the non-Jat population. Even the Jat votes, that the Congress hoped to completely own, had to be shared with INLD, further increasing BJP’s uncontested share of the non-Jat votes.

Despite the Congress’ efforts to appeal to the OBC demographic, comprising 40 per cent of Haryana’s population, BJP’s Saini clearly won the affection of the masses. Ajay Singh Yadav, chairman of the AICC OBC Congress, himself confessed to the Congress’ disregard for the OBC belt in Haryana. The CSDS-Lokniti survey reports the strength of the OBC population in favour of the BJP. The OBC support flourished after Saini replaced Khattar as chief minister. The BJP managed to assimilate into its supporter base a “rainbow coalition” of Brahmins, Punjabi Khatris, non-Jatavs, Yadavs and SCs. The “Lakhpati Drone Ladies” project engendered a massively positive reception of the BJP’s attempts to “elevate the SCs to general status”, in the words of an ITI student from Ambala. 

The Gandhi siblings campaigned with much pomp, but rather late. The BJP’s strategy had been to counter the anti-incumbency silently and aggressively. The Congress’ work assumed tangibility too late, and in that they have not defeated the image, one needing much redressal, of the relative passivity of the party and the unattractive languor in its reactions. RaGa’s flimsy socialist narrative did not help their case with the upwardly-mobile social classes as well as the urban votes.

Analysing Congress’ trends, juxtaposed with those of the BJP, it remains a matter of irrefutable truth that the ability of the BJP to counter is what keeps its power from waning. Given the BJP’s untarnished dominance, only in terms of its claims to power and occupation of office, it is peculiar that the Congress keeps succumbing to its flippant confidence in its, in all honesty, paltry chances to overthrow the Saffron Goliath. What blights this torpid David and wherefore does he hibernate? One cannot help but nod in terror as they ponder the truth of Modi’s tirades when he warns of the “chaos” that a Congress government shall bring.

 

Read Also: Phogat’s Haryana – A changing political landscape

 

Featured Image Credits: PTI

 

Aayudh Pramanik

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Mass Memorandum Submitted to Delhi Police Commissioner Over Uber Harassment Case in Vijay Nagar

By

A mass Memorandum was submitted to the Delhi police commissioner on Friday in response to the recent harassment case of a northeastern student during her Uber ride.

On 11 October 2024, a mass memorandum was submitted to Sanjay Arora, the Delhi Police Commissioner, by North Eastern students residing in the University Enclave. This came in response to an alleged incident whereby an Uber driver attempted to kidnap a student from Manipur as per the complainant’s statements. The incident took place late at night on 5 October 2024. The complainant called for an Uber from Vijay Nagar to the bus station at Kashmere Gate, hoping to board a bus to Chandigarh. Shortly after she got into the Uber, the driver asked her about her location and other personal details before trying to take her to a remote area.

“When he initially took a wrong turn, I did inform him about it and did grow suspicious, when he wouldn’t listen and instead would tell me to let him decide which way the ride should head in whilst threatening me with a blade.”

The complainant said, recalling the terrible experience. Soon after, she and her friends filed an FIR against the accused at Model Town Police Station. As the situation developed, it became clear that the driver of the car was not the same person shown on the Uber app, which raised additional safety concerns.

The police’s role in all of this was both shocking and severely disappointing. The complainant was made to wait for 7 hours before she could file a complaint, highlighting both the complacency and incompetency on the part of the officials. The accused was charged with lenient sections under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), leading to an early bail. The accused was even allowed an altercation with the complainant, allegedly to pressurise her into withdrawing her complaint. The complainant understandably felt unsafe, knowing the accused could walk free while knowing her whereabouts. She went on to express her concerns to the police officials but was met with a dismissive tone.

“I was made to wait for hours because the official in charge of filing the FIR was said to be in a meeting. My safety concerns were dismissed and blown out the window, citing that nothing of that sort would happen. All while the accused was allowed to have an altercation with me in order to put pressure on me to withdraw my complaint.

The complainant expressed her clear disdain for the irresponsible and inexcusable behaviour of the police officials at Model Town Police Station. 

The Mass Memorandum in light of this incident, and amidst a growing number of violence and harassment cases against the northeastern students in areas like Vijay Nagar, whose demography is shaped massively by the students coming from the northeast. There have been multiple key demands that have been put forward. The immediate suspension of all the police officers, with a new FIR under Section 74 of BNS, be filed. Section 74 of the BNS rules that acts of violence against women that are intended to outrage their modesty be met with a minimum sentence of 1 year, with the possibility of extending it to five years. The concern that has understandably taken precedence in the demands has been ensuring the safety of the complainant. The police have been asked to provide adequate security to protect her. Seeing the dismissive nature of the North Eastern helpline, a nodal officer has been asked to be appointed by Delhi police, who’d be responsible for matters concerning the North Eastern States. Finally, Uber, which has yet to take any kind of responsibility, has been asked to hold itself accountable for the incident.

These incidents are concerning and contribute to an environment in which women frequently feel both unsafe and unheard. The complainant attempted to contact the North Eastern helpline, only to have the issue referred to the Model Town police station, undermining the purpose of having a dedicated helpline. Vijay Nagar and many such areas in Delhi are student hubs, with students coming to study from different parts of India. Uber then becomes somewhat of a necessity for many to travel back and forth from one location to the other, making incidents like these damming on the part of Uber, who parade the narrative of wanting to ensure women’s safety but fail whilst taking no accountability whatsoever.

Read also: North-Eastern Student of Hindu College Faces Racially-Motivated Attack

Featured Images credits: Getty Images

Yash Raj

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By