Author

DU Beat

Browsing

500,000 books scrapped from the Internet Archive. Why? Is it because they lost the lawsuit against the powerful few? Or is it because they were declared guilty of copyright infringement, surpassing the fair use doctrine? The reason lies much deeper, yet in plain sight.

In a significant legal decision, the Internet Archive has lost the lawsuit filed by major publishers, including Hachette, Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Wiley. The lawsuit challenged the Archive’s National Emergency Library initiative, which had suspended waitlists and allowed unlimited digital lending of scanned books during the COVID-19 pandemic—a departure from its original policy of one digital copy per physical.

The court ruled that this practice infringed upon the publishers’ copyrights, emphasizing that the Archive’s actions exceeded the bounds of fair use. As a result, the Internet Archive is required to remove approximately 500,000 books from its digital collection, limiting public access to these works.

But is copyright the real issue here?

Not quite. At the heart of the matter lies profit and the public right to access information without being financially burdened under the exorbitant costs of the knowledge resources that one, especially a student, is all too familiar with. The Internet Archive’s loss marks the latest blow in a long line of struggles over public access to knowledge.

Expressing his disappointment, Chris Freeland, Internet Archive’s director of library services, said:

We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books.

While the publishers seem to care about royalties and fair compensation for their writers, many point out the elitism in the argument itself, including Dave Hansen, executive director of the Authors Alliance, a nonprofit that frequently advocates for wider digital access to books who says:

This ruling may benefit the bottom line of the largest publishers and most prominent authors, but for most it will end up harming more than it will help.

The ruling’s impact goes beyond the financial arguments of publishers. The Internet Archive is a lifeline for those who can’t afford the exorbitant costs of books, particularly students and researchers without access to well-funded libraries. Following the ruling, the Archive stated:

This injunction will result in a significant loss of access to valuable knowledge for the public. People who are not part of elite institutions or who do not live near a well-funded public library will lose access to books they cannot read otherwise. It is a sad day for the Internet Archive, our patrons, and for all libraries.

Zooming out from this particular case, a broader pattern emerges: powerful institutions, whether governments or corporations, are increasingly limiting public access to information. The Internet Archive’s loss is not an isolated incident; it joins a growing list of similar cases where access to knowledge is restricted in the name of fair compensation and other such rights.

Take the prolonged chase of Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, who faces espionage charges for leaking classified documents that exposed government corruption. Or consider the arrest of Pavel Durov, CEO of Telegram, after refusing to provide encryption keys to the Russian government. These examples, while seemingly unrelated, share a common thread: they are all about controlling access to information and knowledge, denying the public the right to transparency, privacy, and free access.

Assange’s efforts to make government secrets public have been presented as a crime. Similarly, Durov’s refusal to sacrifice user privacy led to his prosecution. While the Internet Archive’s campaign focuses on books, it is part of a larger narrative in which these institutions strive to limit access in order to protect their interests, leaving the public with less avenues to explore, learn, and question.

The coming of surveillance tools such as Pegasus spyware originates from a need to control, to see what people are reading, writing, and discussing. Governments and corporations alike are moving closer to an Orwellian “Big Brother” scenario in which information is closely controlled and public access to knowledge is conditional rather than guaranteed.

The question is, can society push back against this tide? Is it possible to save public access to information in an increasingly privatized world?

Maybe that’s too far of a reading from a legal case study, or, one is compelled to question, is it? The battle over information control is not just about books or individual legal cases. It’s about who gets to decide what the public can know, learn, and share. Given the trend of ‘hoarding’,  whether money or knowledge, can the societal pushback save the internet archive from its impending doom? That’s for you to decide. With your actions and words.

 

Featured Image Credits: BBC- Serenity Strull/ Getty Images

 

Read Also: DU Sanctions Rs.110 Crore for Expansion of Central Library

 

Afza Khan

[email protected]

 

The uproar surrounding the upcoming Coldplay concert sheds light on a bigger problem in the music industry. This article delves into the implications of such events on ticketing practices, fan experiences, and the evolving landscape of live entertainment in a digital age.

With the announcement of Coldplay performing in Mumbai in 2025, a frenzy gripped the Indian audience. Advertisements popped up on social media, influencers made reels hyping it up, and news channels made it their headlines. It came to be known as THE event of 2025 and became THE topic of conversation of current times.

Coldplay, being a band that Gen Z and Millennials grew up listening to, thus holds a special place in the lives of many. Their songs strike the strings of nostalgia in the hearts of people. The music video of their song “Hymn For The Weekend” being shot in India has further cemented their connection with the country.

People eagerly counted down the days for when the tickets would be sold. They had set up their devices, waiting for the clock to chime twelve when the tickets would go live. The excitement had been palpable as fans anticipated this crucial moment, fully invested in securing their chance to see the beloved band live. However, that enthusiasm was short-lived and soon gave way to disappointment and frustration.

The BookMyShow site crashed even before the tickets went live. People were stuck in long queues lasting hours; queues that did not seem to be moving in any particular order. People who managed to make it through the queue and select the seats had their site crash during payment. Tickets sold out within minutes. Almost immediately they were found being sold for increased prices at reselling sites. 

In a recent conversation with DU Beat, a diverse group of individuals stepped forward to share their personal experiences, 

“I had reached my turn and even though tickets were shown to be available, there was no option to choose from. Whether it was a glitch or scalping, it was really disheartening since I had been planning and saving up for the concert.”Said Diya.

“I logged in from two devices at the same time but both had the queues moving at different paces. My brother logged in from his device much later than me but was placed ahead in the queue. A friend of mine logged in and instead of being placed in the queue, was immediately taken to the payment window.” Said Navya.

“We were given four minutes to book the tickets. I had chosen the tickets, entered all the details and clicked to confirm payment when it showed that no more tickets were available.” Said Siddharth.

“I started the queue at around 73000 and around 61000 the entire stadium was sold out. This is mathematically impossible, even if each person had bought the maximum allowed four tickets.” Said Aadya.

The Economic Offences Wing of Mumbai Police has issued summons to BookMyShow’s CEO Ashish Hemrajani and its technical head. This comes after advocate Amit Vyas filed a case of fraud against BookMyShow.

BookMyShow has released a statement addressing the sale of unauthorised tickets, 

“BookMyShow has no association with any ticket selling/reselling platforms such as Viagogo and Gigsberg or third-party individuals to resell Coldplay’s Music Of The Spheres World Tour 2025 in India. Scalping is strictly condemned and punishable by law in India. We have filed a complaint with the police authorities and will provide complete support to them in the investigation of this matter. We urge you to not fall victim to these scams. Any tickets bought from unauthorised sources will be at the risk of the consumer, and can turn out to be fake tickets. Beware of such scammers.”

These reselling sites have often been in legal disputes over not supplying tickets, supplying counterfeit tickets, and selling the same ticket to multiple people. They have also received legal notices and heavy criticism over selling charity tickets for profit.

The discourse surrounding Coldplay’s concert provides a concerning commentary. In a hyper-capitalist world, concerts no longer remain a cherished experience between fans and their idol, or a joyful gathering for people to enjoy. Instead, they turn into cash cows, highly commercialised and commodified events driven by profit maximisation. Concerts have shifted from music to market, becoming the centre of a growing money-making landscape, many of the practices ranging from unethical to illegal. What was once a celebration of music has now transformed into a spectacle of consumerism.

It would be incorrect to say that concerts never had a commercial aspect to them, after all, it is a service, and the artists and organisers deserve to be paid fairly for providing it. What has changed, however, is the shift from compensation to exploitation. Ticket prices aren’t just high enough to cover costs, they are inflated for maximum profit. The focus is no longer on providing an experience for the fans, the very people responsible for putting the artist on the stage, but on creating more and more ways to extract money from them. With even basic amenities like drinking water and access to bathrooms being monetized, something that can lead to health problems for the attendees, concerts are increasingly viewing fans as mere wallets to tap into.

Even when tickets start at an affordable price, like at the Coldplay concert, they are immediately bought by resellers and scalpers and sold at exorbitantly inflated prices. The tickets ranging from ₹2,500 to ₹35,000 are being resold for more than 10 lakhs, representing a more than 2000% increase from the original price.

The chaos surrounding the Coldplay concert indicates a larger, troubling trend in the music industry, casting doubt upon the spirit of live music in the future. Can concerts remain shared celebrations of art and music, or will they be transformed into purely commodified events and exploitative enterprises?

Read also: Global Citizen Festival: Highlights

Samriddhi

[email protected]

 

Wrestler and activist Vinesh Phogat transitions to politics by joining Congress for the upcoming Haryana elections. Her activism and family dynamics add complexity to her candidacy for the Julana constituency.

The pipeline from sports to politics is a well-trodden path in India, with several celebrated athletes transitioning from stadiums to political offices. Vinesh Phogat, a celebrated wrestler, is the latest to make this leap. In a bold move, Phogat joined the Indian National Congress on 6th September, emerging as one of the party’s prominent faces for the upcoming Haryana elections. Since then, Phogat has submitted her candidacy for the Julana Assembly constituency. While adding a fresh dynamic to the Congress campaign in Haryana, her entry into politics has also sparked debates and controversies, drawing attention to her wrestling accolades and the circumstances surrounding her political journey.

Athletes entering the political arena are not unique to India. Globally, several high-profile sports personalities have successfully made the switch to politics, often leveraging their popularity and influence to garner public support. A prime example is Imran Khan, the legendary Pakistani cricketer who transitioned from being a World Cup-winning captain to serving as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. Khan’s political journey, marked by his determination and public charisma, is a testament to how athletes can reshape their image and career beyond the sports field. Similarly, Vinesh’s accession into politics signifies a shift in her career trajectory, aiming to translate her on-field grit into political clout and her fandom into a voter bank.

Closer to home, the comparison to her cousin, Babita Phogat, is inevitable. Babita, also a wrestler of repute, joined the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 2019 and even contested in the Haryana state elections. Although Babita did not win her seat, her move was seen as a strategic decision by the BJP to leverage her appeal among Haryana’s youth and sports communities. This parallel entry into politics, albeit on opposing sides, has created a controversy within the Phogat family, with the cousins now split between rival parties. The tension between the two has raised eyebrows, particularly in Haryana’s political circles, where the familial discord could impact public perception and voter behaviour. In a recent statement, Babita accused senior Congress leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda of “creating a rift” within the Phogat family by bringing Vinesh into the party, suggesting that his move was a calculated effort to weaken the BJP’s support in the state by playing on internal family dynamics. The accusation has only deepened the perception of a widening chasm between the Phogat sisters, who were once united in their journey to promote women’s wrestling in rural India.

Adding fuel to the fire is the ongoing scandal surrounding the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) and its former president, Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh. Earlier this year, Vinesh Phogat emerged as one of the leading voices in a dramatic protest against Singh, accusing him of sexual harassment and mismanagement within the sport. The explosive allegations sparked a nationwide uproar, igniting demands for Singh’s resignation and significant reforms within the WFI. In a surprising twist, Singh has openly mocked Vinesh’s political ambitions, dismissing her candidacy as nothing more than a “Congress-scripted drama.”He accused her of using her political platform to undermine the BJP’s influence in Haryana, suggesting that her activism was a conspiracy orchestrated by the Congress rather than a sincere commitment to public service. This contentious backdrop raises eyebrows, as the public speculates whether Vinesh’s political ambitions are merely a tactical maneuver by the Congress party to exploit her sportsperson/celebrity status in a bid to challenge the BJP and its allies. The tension has deepened, with Singh’s scathing remarks not only polarizing public opinion but also framing Vinesh’s candidacy as a potential pawn in the BJP vs INC conflict.

Furthermore, Vinesh Phogat’s recent disqualification in the 2024 Paris Olympics finals cannot be ignored. As one of India’s top wrestling talents, she faced a technical disqualification that abruptly ended her Olympic aspirations, igniting widespread sympathy and support among fans and the general public. Vinesh was anticipated to be a strong medal contender, and her disqualification was perceived as a significant blow not only to her personally but also to the reputation of Indian wrestling as a whole. As disheartening as the setback was, it could inadvertently bolster her political campaign. The Congress party may be counting on her ability to convert this wave of sympathy into votes, leveraging the emotional resonance of her story to rally support in the Julana constituency. With her public persona now intertwined with this narrative, Vinesh’s campaign is uniquely positioned to tap into the electorate’s sentiments, which could prove pivotal in the upcoming elections.

In her campaign, Vinesh has embraced the “rustic bahu” image, aiming to connect with the people of Julana. This persona seems to resonate particularly well with local women, who have been welcoming and supportive of her candidacy. However, one can’t help but question the authenticity of this image, with some speculating that it may be a calculated effort to cultivate a voter bank rather than a true reflection of her character. The dichotomy of being both a celebrated athlete and a down-to-earth figure is a delicate balance, and as the election approaches, it remains to be seen how voters will perceive her true self.

With polling in Haryana set to commence on 5th October, all eyes will be on Vinesh Phogat as she embarks on her first election as a candidate. Will her performance in the elections mirror her spectacular performance on the mat? The outcome of this election could redefine not only her political career but also her legacy as an athlete cum social activist in India. As voters consider their options, the question remains: can the ‘rustic bahu’ make a lasting impact in the political arena, or will she remain a star confined to the world of wrestling?

Read Also: Beyond the Fields of the Olympics: A Transcend into the Ball-Park of Humanity

Featured Image Credits: The Times of India

Ashita Kedia

[email protected]

The displacement of ad-hoc professors has impacted not only the  institutions they built but also the bonds formed with their students. Despite being de-institutionalized and separated, these bonds struggle for survival as students refuse to forget. This personalized narrative captures the author’s reflection on the breakdown of the student-teacher relationship post displacement.

When I decided to write this article, I could not gather the strength to collect my thoughts for the longest time. The faculty displacements had impacted me and almost everyone in my department in a way that was both similar to and, at the same time, different from the experience of the entire university. It was a traumatic catastrophe to bear, as it was not merely a politically orchestrated low-  blow but also a personal tragedy to us. For many of us outstation students who came from dysfunctional families, were bullied in schools, and were struggling to make friends in college, these young ad-hoc professors, unlike the authoritative school teachers, became our space of solace. They became a safe space in a hostile, daunting, and toxic masculine environment, much like my own college- Ramjas and, to a large extent, the entire university. 

The first professor I ever interacted with, in college, from the history department, was displaced from her position within a month of my joining the college. While I was lucky enough to be taught by our department’s professors for over a year, my juniors lost them within a month of their joining, experiencing the cycle of shock, anger, solidarity, and eventually disillusionment.  Though the university reduced them to mere numbers and commodities to be replaced, these professors were far more than just numbers and teachers to us. They actively practiced what they believed in and rejected the conservative hierarchy between students and professors. They became like friends to us in college.  Not only did their lectures ignite our passion for literature, but they also went the extra mile to support those who were less engaged in the subject.  Now that they have been displaced, not only students struggle to maintain their interest in the subject, but many of us, who aspired to pursue a career in academia, find our dreams shattered. 

As a literature student, it’s difficult to overlook the issue of praxis, particularly since many new professors have allegedly secured their positions through political connections. Additionally, some associate and permanent professors have disappointed their students across various colleges. They not only failed to support ad-hoc professors but also, as claimed, took advantage of them, contributing to their displacement and the decline of their departments, despite having the ability to intervene. This has created a situation where we feel institutionally separated from the displaced, making it difficult to trust or rely on the newly appointed and associate professors. As a result, the displacements have not only caused socio-economic precarity for the displaced academics but have also profoundly affected the mental health and future career of the students who witnessed the destruction of their departments.

When the notification for permanent appointments was released, I cannot remember a single day without experiencing an emotional breakdown. Despite our hopes and prayers, we knew our professors would not be retained because they stood firm in their moral and pedagogical principles, both in and out of the classroom. They stood firm on the principles the university seemed unwilling to accept.

Despite the initial hopelessness of our permanent professors, we students continued to survive, refusing to forget the displacements. This determination manifested in small ways in which we sustained their memories including meeting with them post-displacement as a form of resistance against the separation. I began dedicating my research papers to my displaced professors to address the glaringly huge  yet unaddressed threat they faced. I also wrote poems and performed them at various colleges , not only to express my anger but to spark a conversation about this pressing issue. Graffitis and writing messages on the walls of the department and classrooms was another way we sustained the memory post the displacements. While this ensured that a post-memory of the displacements is sustained, solidarity has failed to compensate for the bond we had with these professors.

Although I still interact with them and meet regularly, the displacement has altered the relationship I shared with them, leaving a mutual sense of loss that always remains after meeting them. I often wish our meetings could last longer. Now, if I want to meet them, I have to ‘plan’ a meeting—why has it come to that? Isn’t it unfair to make us long for their presence?Isn’t it unjust for us that we can no longer see them smiling in the corridors, teaching in classrooms, or joking around? Isn’t it unfair that, just as their right to witness our growth has been denied, our right to learn alongside them has also disappeared? I often reflect on a question one of my professors asked after his displacement: “How can they remove us now after so many years of teaching? If we were underqualified, why were we hired in the first place?” I had no answer for him, and neither did the university.

The sheer trauma of being removed from their jobs,  decades after their dedicated service,  was so profound for some, that they severed all ties with Ramjas—cutting off contact with colleagues and students alike, despite their deep affection for many of them. Even today, there is  an unbridgeable distance between us. In a way, none of us has been able to completely move on. More importantly, there remains a huge elephant in the room  – their employment.  We are still learning how to address it or, more importantly, if at all to address it. We are still coping in our own little ways. 4 December, 2023— I still have a coke bottle, a blackened handkerchief, and a fifty rupee note, given to me by the professors on that day . I have read several texts such as Girish Karnad’s The Fire and The Rain, Art Spiegelman’s Maus, Toni Morrison’s Beloved, Amruta Patil’s Kari, because ‘they’ taught it. Many of these texts, like them, are institutionally displaced, yet I read them days just before the exams. Though I have stopped taking notes during lectures in my diary, I keep thinking about what ‘they’ would have said about these texts. Despite their displacement, we struggle to remember them, even in the classroom which was once full of their epiphanies.

A newly appointed professor in the college once asked me, “Why were you all so close to your professors? I understand that forming institutional attachment is natural, but it is very hurtful and harmful.” While I agree with them on institutional attachment being hurtful, all attachments hurt, but that doesn’t stop us from loving individuals, right?  For many of us, it is partly because of our professors that helped us survive college, rather than our attachment being a cause of harm. Today, it is because of ‘them’ and their pedagogical principles that I can criticize  my university’s hypocrisy in offering a paper like ‘’Literature and Human Rights’ after experiencing the tragic loss of Prof. Samarveer Singh. 

Despite the hurdles by these displacements, it is certain that nothing can ever break the bond that we share with our professors. These displacements have exposed the seemingly bright yet dreary reality of academia. Today, we continue to take pride in our professors,  who may have lost the round in terms of their employment, but have triumphed in the battle of principle. They refused to be a Faustian academic—someone who would compromise their integrity for a job, only to preach morality later.

Read Also: To Meet them Again

Featured Image Credits: Vedant Nagrani

Vedant Nagrani 

[email protected] 

 

Sonam Wangchuk, along with 150 other Ladakhis, was detained by Delhi Police at the Singhu Border while leading the “Chalo Dilli” constitutional and climate march.

On 30 September, Sonam Wangchuk was detained by Delhi Police for allegedly violating prohibitory orders. Wangchuk, along with 150 other padyatris, was detained under Section 163 of the BNS. The march, organized by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and led by Sonam Wangchuk, began in Leh on 1 September. It was set to conclude at Delhi’s Rajghat on Gandhi Jayanti, 2 October, with a public gathering planned at Jantar Mantar on 3 October. The march aimed to peacefully advocate for key demands, including statehood for Ladakh, constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule to protect the interests of Ladakh’s tribal population, the establishment of a Public Service Commission, job reservations for Ladakhi youth, and the creation of separate parliamentary constituencies for Leh and Kargil.

“We thought we were being escorted, but instead we were being detained,” said Wangchuk in a video posted on Instagram.

Delhi CM Atishi claimed that she was disallowed from meeting the detained leader at Bawana police station. She emphasized an end to LG rule in both Ladakh and Delhi. Atishi, in a post on X said, 

“This dictatorship is not right. Sonam Wangchuk ji and the people of Ladakh are also fighting against LG rule, fighting to get full statehood status for Ladakh. The people of Delhi stand with the people of Ladakh.” 

Reactions from other party leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, also surfaced, with Gandhi condemning the detainment as unacceptable. Ladakh MP Haji Hanifa Jan expressed disappointment, stating it was unfortunate that the people of Ladakh were denied the right to carry out a peaceful march in the capital and were stopped at the border.  “We urge the government to provide us a place where we can submit a memorandum to PM Modi or hold talks with the leadership to resolve this issue”, he said.

Section 163 of the BNS, which restricts gatherings of four or more people, has been imposed in Delhi until October 5th. Among those reportedly detained are elderly citizens and army veterans, who are now being held in various police stations across the city. Previously, in March, Wangchuk also held a 21-day hunger strike, dubbed a “climate fast,” to raise the same four key demands.

Read also: Over 30 teachers detained in Delhi during anti-NEP protest

Featured Image Credits: Sonam Wangchuk’s X profile

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]

Gandhi is introduced as a messiah of morals to a child. Stories of the three monkeys turning the other cheek and the celebratory personhood of ‘the father of the nation’ have cast him away from ideologies appreciated critically to a domain of morality concerning only the judgement of an immediate right or wrong; this domain is scary for it appeals widely but negates a deeper philosophical intervention or understanding of the figure, what he stood as, and why he appeals still.

The modern Indian liberal attitude of tolerance and non-violence draws heavily on the principles of the Mahatma—a politically potent image inflated with the task of disseminating a high moral cause. Gandhi advocated for a legitimacy of authority to be found in the conscience of man, extending to include a moral regeneration of the people. This emphasis on ‘regeneration’ comes from the idea of the moral decadence of Indian people that resulted in colonial enslavement, thus allowing British rule. His path to freedom is that of an enlightened anarchy.

This rejection of constitutionalism and parliamentary democracy for Gandhi doesn’t come from a Marxist critique of democracy, which nonetheless repulsed him for being anchored in violence and the denial of God. The British parliament to Gandhi is a ‘sterile woman’ for not having ‘done a single good thing’ and a ‘prostitute’ because ‘it is under the control of a minister who changes from time to time.’ Why then is this non-democratic father of the biggest democracy still revered and set as a principle?

This essay is not an attempt to demystify Gandhi or dissect his ideological perspectives, considering the mixed bag his thoughts were and the considerable changes they underwent. Neither does this discredit his contribution to the freedom struggle. It rather tries to frame Gandhi’s relevance in a post-colonial world.

In a country that prides itself on elevating demigods with cult followings seasonally who influence entire elections, run scandals, encroach on lands, are crime apologists, and turn tides over with their bhakts, the occurrence of the image of an academic Mahatma shouldn’t then feel very alien. This nation of ours produces ‘godmen’ that talk of the culture taught by the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Gita and always desperately want to “go back to” and restore the lost. Their appeal to reason involves the acting on a soul force which carves out an existence replicating some past, further nudging us towards living a more perfect life in embodying this now realised historical truth. As ahistorical and pathetic as it sounds, it works when nationalism taints it and it appeals to a nation fraught with poverty, patriarchy, corruption, casteism, and obviously, the aftertaste of centuries of imperialist-colonialism.

The appeal for religion that comes strictly from the Hindu tradition and charms the upper caste consciousness, parading as spiritualism and distinguishing between good and bad Hinduism is a peak Mahatma move from Gandhi. For Gandhi, the acme of Hinduism is to be found in the Ramrajya. The rule of Ramrajya was a central element of his political philosophy and social vision for India; it stood as the manifestation of a philosophical anarchy that his ideas professed. The memory of that Ramrajya reverberates strongly today as one would see in the right-wing fundamentalist ruling state wanting to capitalise on vote banks using a similar analogy. Now, one doesn’t need to venture into the fraudulent concept of the Ramrajya and what it entails for minorities living in India. Such imagination of an ahistorical lofty state is in essence anti-equality, and attempts to extract the good from the fundamentally bad are attempts of deception. While there are Gandhian politicians/academicians who excessively differentiate Gandhi’s conception of an ideal state from the current trends, it only means that this idealism is confusing and largely interpretative while also being highly remunerative to talk about for the appeal it holds still after 77 years of independence.

This ascetic image of Gandhi is carried by the tokenistic ‘Mahatma.’ The deification of Gandhi, where he is seen as a saint who fasts, meditates, prays, abstains, and lives in an ashram while also providing a stage for people to opine regarding the role of women in public life, capitalism in a developing country, caste relations, the importance of import substitution, the significance of village life of family relationships and tradition, in general, work best in the Indian context. Our modernity isn’t too modern or radically progressive and always finds a place back to the religious to validate any step forward; all that is now scientific predates to a past where it has been discovered but apparently lost.

Gandhian philosophy is of spiritual passive resistance, which is a method of securing rights by personal suffering; it is the reverse of resistance by arms. It requires the use of soul-force over body-force. While the ambit of spirituality can be all encompassing (since it has no specific criteria of inclusion) and helpful, it detaches an individual from the product of a society and historical events. Injury to the self in resistance to the state still forms a criterion of recognizing a protest as valid and non-retaliatory. The figure of Gandhi emerges in resistance to the police while one defends and keeps defending their nature to be non-violent and peaceful. Violent attacks on the state, on the other hand, are deemed consequential and thus not acceptable, deserving a public trial of punishment. 

While it is certainly true that the celebrityhood of Gandhi has been withering, his ideas and philosophies still haunt us. So long as we remain a nation obsessed with religion forming our politics and us conceiving moral Mahatmas in every sphere, the ghosts of Gandhi will long endure.

 

Read Also : Spinning Selfhood : The Story of Gandhi Bhawan, Delhi University

 

Image credits: Pinterest

 

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]

Why are all movies remakes? Risk aversion in the media landscape

In the past few years or so, we have seen a dramatic increase in the production of remakes and sequels of beloved movies. While nostalgia-baiting has worked previously, it has evidently hit a point of diminishing returns as studios struggle to find the pulse of audiences’ cinema needs. 

 

Imagine you watch a movie in your childhood – the multi-coloured, whirlwind of a story grips and leaves you equal parts satisfied and wanting for more. Some years later, when you’ve grown, developed new tastes, and favour new favourites, you hear that the studios have decided to remake that once-beloved film of yours. You’re excited as you gear up to revisit that time of your childhood. You get the tickets, you watch the movie, and studio houses add another figure to their empirical study. Soon, another remake is announced, but this one is met with slightly lesser enthusiasm. Then another, then another, and another, till all you can see is a movie off a TV show, a TV show off a movie, a movie which is a remake of a remake, or a sequel to a franchise dead and buried. 

 

The word is “nostalgia-bait” and it has effectively ruined cinema. 

 

To the uninitiated, it may seem like there are just no new ideas anymore. After all, why would studios fund projects that are stale and done away with? The answer is, as it always has been, money. Production houses rely on previously successful Intellectual Properties (IP) to keep bringing people back into the theatres. As technology has progressed, movies are more accessible to us, for cheaper. A simple streaming service subscription will give me access to that movie a little after its release. Why should I bother to go to the cinema hall if I can watch it from my couch? This insecurity of sales, makes producers want to take lesser risks. They would rather fund another multi-million dollar superhero project that tells the same story it has always told before than fund a movie that goes against the tide. This risk aversion has gotten especially worse since the onset of the 2010s when we saw a decline in the sale of at-home DVDs. Usually, producers could rely on a second, bigger, wave of movie sales if it didn’t do so well in theatres. With the decline in the sale of physical copies, a chasm has opened, which studios fill with the fluff of a remake. 

 

Who wouldn’t want to watch their favourite Disney princess reimagined with a popular actress playing the titular role? The announcement of Beauty and the Beast, with Emma Watson playing Belle was welcomed wholeheartedly by her fans. Though critics wouldn’t call that movie ground-breaking by any means, it certainly kept Disney alive in the internet conversation for a good few weeks. This release is important because it marks an era where all Disney would announce was a remake of an animated children’s film. Mulan, Aladdin, The Little Mermaid, and Cruella; though masterful in their display of CGI, get tiring once you see the pattern repeating. 

 

The issue is not just Disney though, any IP that once had a cult following is now being led to the guillotines. Nosferatu, The Chronicles of Narnia, and How to Train Your Dragon are just among the few who are going through a revamp. 

 

Sometimes a remake can truly turn the tide. Take the Dune series for one – upon the announcement of the new movie’s release, many naysayers criticised its arrival and stood steadfast with the David Lynch version of 1984. Now, Dune reigns as one of the highest-grossing movies of the 2020s. Reimaginations and different interpretations are all well and good but when it actively stops real stories from being told, is when the problem arises. The people of today are facing different issues than say, the 1990s. Simply changing the set of actors will not erase the fact that modern audiences need their problems and true selves represented on screen. This means letting writers take creative risks, exploring and portraying a whole range of human emotions and experiences that were closed off to us before. Certain production houses like A24 have taken this step, and it has paid off phenomenally for them. With a guaranteed Oscar nomination (or win) under their belt every year, the media house has proven that good and original stories can be told without a multi-million dollar budget. Trusting your audiences to recognise talent and effort can go a long way to build faith among both parties across the screen. This is the model A24 followed with their films, and now they have a reliable demographic that looks forward to their work; their creative risks have paid off big time. 

 

Hopefully, in the coming years, as producers see pieces like this, or read any social media comment section ever, they might realise that audiences would rather invest and feel excited about something new, than watch the same regurgitation just for the sake of it. 

 

Read Also: The Fault in Our Movies 

 

Featured Image Credits: 

The Stanford Daily 

 

Anvesha Tripathi

[email protected]

Beyond the Glitz of Charity and Equality, lies the corporate culture-ification of social service, where Insta Digits hold greater value than Impact, misinformation prevails, and the crimes of establishment remain unchallenged.

In my Freshman Year at DU, canonically as a rebel-tired-of-societal-obligations, enthralled by the hunger to usher a change in the patriarchal and chauvinistic ideals that run the world, I found my haven in Girl Up. Within the four walls of Inclusivity, Intersectionality, Impact, and UN Affiliation, I discovered my abode until I witnessed each one of them crumble to the ground of status quo appeasement.

In order to uphold absolute respect for and safeguard the identities of the sources, their respective Girl Ups will be kept anonymous throughout the report.

The Official Website of the Organization states that GirlUp is a girl-centered leadership development initiative, focusing on equity for women in spaces where they are unheard and unrepresented. Idealistically, an organisation such as that would have resulted in tremors of change within the societal structure and standards. However, on account of the absence of the same, GirlUps fail to endorse that despite holding a beautiful core belief. Within this report, an attempt has been made to analyze the issues about them by surveying DU students, who either are or have been part of the initiative.

While the UN initiative, at its core, focuses on transforming the lives of the underprivileged and advancing Gender Justice, their local chapters are provided with a target of 5 projects within a year, the completion of which would provide them with certifications from the UN, and so, their foreground turns into Social Media awareness. Social Media, albeit an impactful tool, is restrictive, and when combined with underdeveloped ideas, could often lead to the contrary results. Similar was the case when, a GirlUp from a reputed North Campus college, posted about how Imane Khelif had failed the gender eligibility test, while in fact, the test results were never revealed. And while DU societies are known for their secularism and separation from religion, the aforementioned GirlUp posted stories celebrating the inauguration of the Ram Mandir of Ayodhya, depicting an unwarranted appeasement of the prominent status quo.

The activism, “conveniently, focused at favouring the status quo, also depicts an appropriation of cultural icons”, was quoted by one of the sources, further stating how the GirlUp of their college, curated a post for Dalit History Month, focusing more upon Mahatma Gandhi, while little was discussed of the renowned icon, B.R. Ambedkar. Another person recalls how, in the aegis of a project titled Manorama, centred upon the lives of marginalized women, their GirlUp created videos of awareness, however, the representation was affixed on people from privileged backgrounds, antithetical to the core of that project.

The Five Project policy restricts their participation to mere play of Social Media, and so all their resources are directed towards social media management and garnering the required views and numbers, to an extent that the Social Welfare aspect of the projects takes a backseat, fading into oblivion. 

“The Certificates are promoted as ornaments of the CV, and become a primordial tool to encourage people to join, often in ways similar to affiliate marketing tactics”

claimed a source who held a core member position at two GirlUps. 

Thus, Tokenism in the guise of Activism gets promoted, and so even when members join in with an ignited sense of bringing a change, the vicious cycle of likes and follows traps them into its ploy.

A combined effect of the same is short-term projects, the long-term impacts are overlooked, in attempts to be one step closer to the UN certification, a ‘brownie point’ on the CV. The projects thus turn into half-baked attempts given the time crunch and limited resources that need to be employed to cover 5 such projects year long. 

“..for a project, we collaborated with the Robin Hood Army and a GU chapter, (and unlike RHA) the GU kept stating the need for certificates, in the absence of which their members would not show up.”

recalled another student about their experience with  Girl Up, indicating how “passion gets eroded, and Social Media numbers take over.”

“During the Pujo, when all the organizations I was affiliated with, allowed a short leave, the Girl Up I held a Position of Responsibility at, refused.’

divulged a member of a reputed GU of South Campus, elaborating upon how the workload situation spirals deeper,

 ‘…and when I was severely ill for a month, instead of being accommodating, I was compelled to take up projects, and attend hours long meeting over petty issues that could be solved over chat.”,

Adds one student reflecting upon how an organization that emphasizes upon the prioritization of mental health, conveniently forgets the same; often creating obstructions in the professional, and otherwise, life of the members.

The parable of the mismanagement runs profound, a staggering specimen was presented when in a GU, a core member  was removed from their position over disorderly conduct; however, along with them, the person who brought the incident to light was also suspended on the grounds of agitating out of spite, 

“..the anonymity I was assured was disrupted, it was turned into an IntraSoc gameplay, and while discussions with both the parties involved were held, I was removed without even a 30 days deadline.”,

exhibiting how the organization failed at both a professional and personal ground.

GirlUps at its core, starts as a medium to generate change in the world, however, in the midst, it undertakes a trajectory of first-world charity; oblivious to the intersectionality and struggle, a route towards becoming a multilevel market tactic of UN certification, a place that largely deviates from its core principle. Per Contra, quite like how the United Nations tries to project a certain optimism for humanity, on a rampant retrospect, GirlUp is capable of bringing about the change that it aspires to see, given it actually works for it.

Read Also: What is the cost of my dissent 

Featured Image Credit: Google

We spoke to Sneha Aggarwal, a recent graduate from Ramjas College, who is currently a student at Law Faculty, DU. Aggarwal is the candidate of the left-wing alliance between AISA and SFI. She is an SFI member. 

 

Interview took place on September 18, 2024

 

Question: What motivated you to run for the position, knowing the degree of  money-muscle politics?

 

Sneha Aggarwal: Everyone has to face this, those who have any ideological bearings. Money and muscle power have always been a part of student politics but as DU deteriorates and students don’t have any alternatives other than ABVP and NSUI – it shows the need for someone to step up. Being a part of SFI has shown me that you need to be present. 

 

Question: How do you plan on keeping students informed about the union, and taking feedback?

 

Sneha Aggarwal: SFI has always managed to do so with its mass presence and membership with units across 20 colleges. We also don’t use ideology as a filter for members. Our social media presence, and GBMs or general boarding meetings across colleges is how we communicate. 

 

Question: What is the biggest challenge students are facing?

 

Sneha Aggarwal: There are several: fee hike, [lack of] hostel facilities, women’s safety – Union is not representing students’ issues. DU is a central university and a public school, it must continue to  financially alleviate those who cannot afford to do so themselves, DU cannot just be for day-scholar students and the financially privileged 

 

Question: How will you measure the success of your manifesto’s initiatives, if elected? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: If elected, we have a formal platform to put pressure on and communicate with the administration as seen from JNU where we got hostels made and metro paths created

 

Question: Why did you decide to create an alliance [with AISA] this time?

 

Sneha Aggarwal: We saw a similar model of left unity being followed in JNU as well, given the need to contest the right-wing influence. The same process is underway in DU – the ABVP has risen because members of the Sangh have entered the administration due to the government’s favour, even the faculty has been affected –  SFI and AISA have lean to the left, we have a shared ideology, shared goals, and more importantly – a need to counter muscle and money. 

 

Question: NSUI also has a parent national party, the Congress which recently formed the INDIA alliance. Why was the national model of alliance-making not enacted at the  university-level? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: NSUI is already in the union so it has already had an opportunity to represent, which has been inadequate. The use of caste politics or muscle power isn’t just limited to the ABVP, NSUI too is becoming similar. We cannot ally with someone simply on the basis of their national party. 

 

Question: How do you strive to ensure that the students’ demands for hostels are fulfilled without conflict?

 

Sneha Aggarwal: Being in the Union gives formal channels of communication as well as the ability to put pressure [granted student legitimacy]. We intend on pointing out that there is space for expensive student centres and Nescafe kiosks but not for hostels. There is a need to better utilise space and resources. Like the promise of university special buses is only mentioned during elections, citing that there was an unused COVID fund, misuse of money should not happen, there should be a common student union fund. 

 

Question: How does SFI plan to make campus more inclusive for all marginalised groups? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: There are already many SC/ST cells, WDC, queer cells in DU but the issue is functioning. In my alma mater itself, the SC/ST cells were headed by professors who’d make distinctions according to class. Only Miranda’s [College] queer cell is officially recognised. The Union must get these cells recognised and function effectively. Even with the functioning of CASH committees and ICC, they’re responsible for more than just complaints and cases but also effective sensitisation of the student body towards the issue. 

 

Question: Why is your stance anti-FYUP and what alternatives do you propose? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: There are many issues with the implementation of NEP and the four-year programme – they’re imposing the American which only caters to a few who can afford higher education abroad so why four years? Eventually, they’re trying to make it almost compulsory[B.A. programme requirement to qualify for an Honours degree] yet there are multiple entry and exit –  this is simply education commercialised. UGC scrapped education loans and moved towards privatisation as seen with Hindu’s College, where hostels have been leased out to private contractors. We suggest a survey across the country and especially DU, to see which students are dropping out the most and then implement, in order to encourage these communities to finish their degrees. There is also the  SFI policy of NEP 2.0. 

 

Question: Parties like ASA and Fraternity all support identity politics yet they do it as a means of representation and criticise left for fielding mostly upper class candidates, how do we make a choice? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: Many of our left leaders themselves are from marginalised groups – this time there’s many women on the panel from varying backgrounds. But on the matter of identity, there are many such who do contest. Left believes in overall emancipation, not just that of a singular identity. 

 

Question: Was there an attempt to ally with these parties like in JNU? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: We don’t believe in this, this is not our politics. In JNU,  there was a need for the SFI-BAPSA alliance given the right-wing turn. 

 

Question: Is the alliance anti-ABVP or ideologically driven? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: We are driven by our goals — for the students’ needs to be fulfilled, that is our common ground. Our functioning remains different. 

 

Question: The Left is criticised for themselves being hypocritical with their stances, particularly when it comes to internal misogyny? How will you fight these forces? 

 

Sneha Aggarwal: Simply being a communist doesn’t erase patriarchy, given the way society functions and shapes us. This is reality, simply to “de-class” oneself isn’t enough  but must also sensitise oneself. If we make it to the Union, we can only try to self-correct through [constructive] measures but not by boycotting or “cancelling”. The aim is to support growth. 

 

Read Also: Interview with Dr. Abha Dev Habib

 

Image credits: DUB Archive

 

Interviewed by Bhavana and Vedant 

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

We spoke to Shivam Maurya, a first-year B.Com (Hons.) student at Hindu College, contesting for the post of president from DISHA Students’ Organization, ahead of the DUSU elections scheduled for September 27, 2024. 

 

Question: What in your individual capacity motivated you to contest for election?

Shivam: We come from very far-off to the nation’s biggest university, it is however not how people say it is. We are not being provided with hostels. Looking at fees, you think it’s low but when you have to pay it. My own fee is  Rs. 26,870; it’s too much for a middle-class student.

Question: What do you see as the biggest challenge that students face today?

Shivam: The biggest challenge is anti-student policies. Policies like NEP, FYUP teach students skill-based knowledge so they can do some fixed work for fixed industries. These are designed in a way that disallows lower-class people from coming forward. Seen this way, the most-backward can never make it to the front.

Question: You talk of “merging the student-youth movement with the struggle of the working masses” in your manifesto. How do you interpret this? 

Shivam: Like we have students and working-class individuals, this statement is not for the elite.

Question: Also, what is a ‘common minimum programme’?

Shivam: Common minimum programme reflects common interests and problems of students like fee hikes, hostel accommodation, and (un)employment.

Question: Your manifesto repeatedly refers to the ‘common student’. What is this common student in your understanding? Is every student in DU a common student?

Shivam: At a basic level, every student is a common student. Several students, however, take admission [in DU] to spread propaganda for selfish purposes. Those are in no way common.

Question: The image of Bhagat Singh is your ideological representative, ABVP uses that too. How is it different?

Shivam: For us, Bhagat Singh’s ideology is that of equal education, opportunity, and [equal] treatment of everyone. But as you say ABVP uses Bhagat Singh’s iconography as well but – in a false manner and they throw their pamphlets over roads and use Bhagat Singh to save themselves[for their own political benefit].

Question: How does not being aligned to any party help you during elections? One can see this as a weak ideological position but, how is it a strength? 

Shivam: We have to understand the difference between a political party and a student organisation. If you are aligned to a political party then you represent the party rather than students, like ABVP and NSUI do. Whereas, DISHA represents only students and you think of it as a weakness but it is not a weakness.

Question: SFI and AISA have come into an alliance for left-unity, DISHA can also be ideologically interpreted as a left party. Did you approach them for an alliance?

Shivam: We do not feel it should be ideologically-run as every student who aligns themselves with our common minimum programme is welcome to join DISHA. If we only take someone from a fixed ideology then students of different ideologies are excluded. 

Question: But the way you claim that ABVP-NSUI have a politics of money and muscle, but even their politics come from ideas that are accepted by the masses who elect them to power. Your manifesto claims DISHA has no ideology. Isn’t it a weakness that you don’t have an ideology? 

Shivam: No, it does not mean that we’ll let anyone join the organisation. If someone promotes casteism or hooliganism, we won’t keep them in the organisation as they are violating our common minimum programme. 

Question: Several members of DISHA have often been seen indulging in online debates using heavy terms that might not be accessible to marginalized students who are not familiar with Marxist discourse. This is contrary to your manifesto that states you don’t have an ideology. How far do you think these debates can be stretched in order for them to not reduce to in-fighting?

Shivam: What members of DISHA do, is their own matter. The organisation is isolated from this. 

Question: So, your members’ actions are separate from the organisation?

Shivam: We are concerned as to what they do at the level of the organisation. We can’t interfere in their personal lives.

Question: How does your organisation plan to include students from gender, religious, and caste minorities, LGBTQIIA+ students, and students from economically weaker sections? 

Shivam: We see them all equally. We oppose their oppression but we do not oppress them. They all can come with us and fight and we are with them too.

Question: Systems of power oppress them. For instance, the recent Delhi HC directive about ensuring 50 per cent representation of women in DUSU counters gender oppression. Is DISHA doing anything to ensure this representation and inclusivity?

Shivam: It’s nothing like that. It’s not necessary that only women can understand women’s issues or only Dalits can understand Dalit students’ issues. From time to time, our organisation protests or engages in struggles whenever necessary. As students see us and recognise our struggles, they’ll try to join us.

Question: The DUSU candidates of DISHA are not as publicly visible as other candidates are. This makes mobilization of students difficult as candidates are the face of any organisation. Why so? 

Shivam: We are trying our best but we are unable to gather such a large outreach. 

 

Image Credits: Devesh for DU Beat

 

Read Also: Interview with Dr. Abha Dev Habib

 

Interviewed by Bhavana and Vedant 

[email protected]

[email protected]