Delhi University Executive Council has approved the compulsory retirement of a Political Science professor following an ICC inquiry into a sexual harassment case, reaffirming the university’s zero-tolerance policy.
A faculty member from the Delhi University’s Department of Political Science has been compulsorily retired after the university’s Executive Council accepted the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in a sexual harassment case.
The decision was taken during the Executive Council meeting held on July 30, following the submission of the ICC’s inquiry report. According to Delhi University officials, the complaint, which is over a year old, alleged that a student had been subjected to sexual harassment. The report was examined by the EC before disciplinary action was approved.
A university official confirmed that the ICC had recommended compulsory retirement as the appropriate penalty. The official added that the inquiry had been completed in accordance with the University’s procedures and that the recommendation was accepted by the Executive Council.
Reiterating the institution’s stance on campus safety, the official said,
The university has a zero-tolerance policy towards sexual harassment and will continue to implement measures aimed at ensuring a safe and secure environment for students and staff.
The university has not disclosed the identity of either the faculty member or the complainant. This is in keeping with the confidentiality provisions governing sexual harassment proceedings.
This case is one among the few instances in which a Delhi University faculty member has faced compulsory retirement following an ICC inquiry. In an earlier case, Bharati College faculty member Amit Kumar was compulsorily retired after the ICC found allegations of sexual misconduct against him to be credible.
As of publication, Delhi University had not issued a separate public press release regarding the Executive Council’s decision.
Delhi University raises one-year PG seats up to 126 across departments like History and Economics, easing FYUP student demand, though faculty cite infrastructure and classroom shortages.
On Friday, the University of Delhi announced an increase in seats for its newly launched one-year postgraduate (PG) programmes, according to Hindustan Times.
Seats in M.A. English, History, Philosophy, Political Science, M.Sc. Mathematics and M.Com have been increased from 45 to 126 each, an increase of 81 seats. M.A. Economics seats have been increased from 40 to 126. Psychology seats rose from 34 to 63, Chemistry from 45 to 63, and M.Sc Statistics from 29 to 54, the report said.
Hindustan Times had earlier reported that DU constituted a committee on July 17 to examine increasing seats in the one-year PG programmes, after receiving requests from several departments.
A student who has applied to the M.A. History one-year programme, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the increase from 45 to 126 seats came as a relief, and suggested the number could have been closer to 200 given the number of colleges under DU, according to Hindustan Times.
A DU professor, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the decision was taken under pressure and flagged a shortage of labs in science courses and classroom space in the arts faculty as a result of the higher intake. The professor said seat numbers could have been estimated based on the actual proportion of FYUP students opting for the one-year PG programme, since not all students choose that pathway, Hindustan Times reported.
Until the 2025-26 academic session, DU offered only two-year postgraduate programmes. The one-year PG programme was introduced from the 2026-27 academic session, with the admission process for the first batch beginning earlier this month.
Separately, DU has opened a correction window for one-year PG admissions, allowing candidates who have completed both Phase I and Phase II of registration to edit personal and academic details in their applications until 11:59 pm on August 1, 2026, according to Education Times. Only such candidates are eligible to use the window.
Alongside the correction facility, the university also released a revised seat matrix providing updated category-wise seat availability across courses. Among the most sought-after programmes, M.A. English, M.A. Political Science, M.Com, M.Sc Computer Science and M.Sc Mathematics each have 49 seats under the unreserved category, in addition to seats reserved for OBC (NCL), SC, ST, EWS and PwBD candidates as per DU’s reservation policy, Education Times reported.
Miranda House is set to expand its residential capacity with a 120-bed hostel reserved for students from economically weaker sections and persons with disabilities, to be funded through CSR support.
Miranda House is planning a 120-bed hostel exclusively for students from economically weaker sections and persons with disabilities, a move that would take the college’s total residential capacity from around 370 seats to nearly 490.
The proposed hostel will come up at the rear of the existing hostel complex within the college campus. It will be funded through Corporate Social Responsibility support, and construction is expected to take around two years once the college receives the necessary approvals from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and other competent authorities. An artist’s impression of the project is expected to be ready within the next two weeks, after which design and planning work will move forward.
Principal Bijayalaxmi Nanda said the new hostel is aimed at improving access to higher education for students who often face financial and accessibility challenges. She said it would provide significant relief to girls coming to Delhi from other states for their studies. The hostel will have study rooms, internet connectivity, a dining hall, common areas, and secure residential facilities.
Reserving the new hostel specifically for EWS and PwD students reflects a recognition that these two groups face the sharpest difficulty in securing affordable on-campus housing. For a lot of students, the cost of private accommodation in North Campus frequently runs higher than their total annual college fees.
Many academic reforms, including pay protection and semester exchange programmes were approved at the latest executive council meeting under the leadership of the VC.
Since the implementation of NEP, Delhi University has been constantly working for the betterment and development of the academic structures, regulations and administrative policies to promote holistic welfare and development. Under the leadership of Vice Chancellor Prof. Yogesh Singh, the university has set out various policies for the fulfilment of the institution’s broader vision.
Amid the ongoing agitation over the conditions of the contractual working staff, Vice Chancellor Prof. Yogesh Singh on Thursday said there wasno proposal under consideration to remove non-teaching employees working on a contractual basis at the university. He made the clarification during discussions on this issue at the meeting of the Delhi University Executive Council (EC), putting to rest the concerns over the future of such staff.
In another significant decision, the EC approved the recommendations of a committee on pay protection for teachers who held temporary positions through due procedures before securing permanent appointments in universities or colleges. The provision willcover faculty members who were appointed through prescribed recruitment procedures, including open recruitment through advertisements and duly constituted selection committees. It will apply to eligible appointments made on or after April 1, 2022.
A new framework for the security and protection of the contractual staff working in coordination with the university officials has also been introduced, under which the employees will be eligible for insurance coverage of Rs 20 lakh through a master policy.
Under the leadership of the vice-chancellor and the rigorous considerations and reforms made within the NEP, Prof. Singh said that DU aims to be among the world’s top 200 universities within the next five years. Hehighlighted the university’s performance in the QS World University Rankings 2027, where DU secured the 322nd position globally, compared with the 521-530 band in 2022. Prof Singh said the university’s rise by 199 positions in four years was a significant achievement and credited its teachers, students, officers and employees for the progress.
For better academic and globalised educational exposure, the EC council has also approved a proposal to introduce a ‘Semester Away Programme’ in collaboration with foreign higher education institutions under the Undergraduate Curriculum Framework (UGCF) 2022.
Additionally, the School of Open Learning (SOL) has also received approval to introduce one-year postgraduate programmes in five subjects, with the programmes also cleared by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The programmes will have a total of 1,500 seats — 200 in M.A. Hindi, 150 in M.A. History, 500 in M.A. Political Science, 75 in M.A. Sanskrit and 575 in M.Com. The introduction of these postgraduate programmes at the School of Open Learning marks a significant step forward in enhancing educational opportunities for students.
With these decisions, the university aims to strengthen its academic and administrative framework while extending greater support to its teaching and contractual staff.
St Stephen’s College reissues a dormant 1881-era shorts restriction under new principal Susan Elias, sparking student protests, condemnation from NSUI and KYS, and no enforcement action so far.
Delhi University’s St Stephen’s College has restricted students from wearing shorts in classrooms, tutorials, laboratories, the chapel, the assembly hall, the library and the dining hall, under a notice dated July 26 and signed by Principal Susan Elias. Titled “Campus Regulations & Guidelines,” the circular directs “all Junior Members” to comply and separately reiterates a smoke-free campus policy and a requirement to carry ID cards, including for dining hall entry.
The new academic session began two days later, on July 28. Several first-year students arrived at the morning assembly, and elsewhere on campus, wearing shorts in defiance of the notice, according to The Tribune, which reported that the notice had prompted a formal complaint from student organisations.
NSUI national president Vinod Jakhar said the Constitution protects a citizen’s right to decide their own clothing, calling the circular an intrusion on personal liberty. The Krantikari Yuva Sangathan separately termed the directive “moral policing” and demanded its withdrawal.
Several students and at least one faculty member told reporters the shorts restriction was not new—it had long been observed informally, particularly around the dining hall and the principal’s office, but had never before been issued as a formal, written rule.
A student at the college, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the prohibition predates the current administration, tracing to the college’s founding in 1881, and was listed in the residence handbook issued to hostellers on joining—but was not enforced, except intermittently at the dining hall. Elias, who took charge in June, did not introduce a new rule, the student said, but reissued an existing one. The student said the college has previously suspended or debarred hundreds of students over attendance shortfalls and that no disciplinary action has followed the July 28 protest, despite the principal reportedly being present on campus that day.
DU Beat reported that the notice, issued July 26, took effect with the start of the new academic session on July 28 and also restates existing rules on cleanliness and compulsory identity cards.
“Gen Alpha” students at Sarvodaya Inter College, Fatehpur, staged a sit-in protest against the college administration, demanding basic facilities like clean drinking water, fans, furniture, and sports infrastructure.
Ankur Sonkar, a senior student at the Sarvodaya Inter College in the Fatehpur district, inspired and energized by the student protests at Jantar Mantar, staged a protest on the 28th of July, 2026. It seems that the energy and enthusiasm for a better education system have spread across the country like wildfire. Youth across India want their voices heard and a system that nurtures them for a better future.
The incident began when several female students had complained to one of their teachers about the broken fans in their classrooms. Instead of listening to the students’ concerns, the teacher dismissed them, replying with, “Tu baith ja chup chap” (sit without making a fuss). Feeling unheard, the students collectively approached the principal to reiterate their issues. However, the principal was said to be apathetic.
The issue soon gained momentum when a senior student, Ankur Sonkar, staged a sit-in protest, demanding better facilities and infrastructure. Problems related to electricity, drinking water, sanitation, and inadequate classroom facilities were brought to light.
The sit-in protest began at around 7:30 AM, with more than 1,500 students from the institution participating. The students carried placards with various slogans, and photos of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, protesting peacefully. The movement came to be popularly known online as the “Gen Alpha Protest,” drawing inspiration from the “Gen Z Protest” that had recently taken place at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.
When school authorities and local police were informed about the protest, they tried to persuade the students back into the classrooms. The students, however, believe that those rooms are in no shape for classes to be conducted in. They remained adamant and demanded that the senior district officials visit their school.
Following the demands of the students, the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS) Rakesh Kumar, Nayab Tehsildar Nitin Kumar and other administrative officials reached the campus and held a meeting with an eight-member student delegation. The students presented eight demands, out of which the officials agreed with seven of them, leading to the protest being called off in the late afternoon.
The administration assured the students that their basic demands, such as a proper RO for drinking water, clean toilets, better classroom facilities, maintenance of the sports grounds, and better quality and quantity of mid-day meals, would be ensured and rightfully fulfilled.
An RTI has revealed that the Delhi government’s Tourism Department spent ₹1.83 crore on DU Bhajan Clubbing events organised across eight Delhi University colleges.
Earlier this year, Delhi University campuses hosted Bhajan Clubbing events across eight colleges. RTI documents obtained by Newslaundry have now revealed that the Delhi government’s tourism department spent ₹1.83 crore from tourism funds on the DU Bhajan Clubbing programme.
The RTI further revealed that the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC) awarded a contract worth ₹1,83,05,200, excluding GST, to Total Multimedia Pvt Ltd to organise the events. The programme was funded through the tourism promotion initiative, ‘Delhi as a Destination’.
An Instagram reel posted by Total Multimedia Pvt Ltd shows Chief Minister Rekha Gupta and Tourism Minister Kapil Mishra inaugurating the event. Speaking at the launch, Gupta said the government chose Delhi University after Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke about Bhajan Clubbing in Mann Ki Baat, adding, “There could not be a better place than Delhi University.” The government has described the DU Bhajan Clubbing initiative as part of its “cultural renaissance”, saying it combines devotion with modern music and “youthful energy”.
These DU Bhajan Clubbing events were organised between February 10 and 19 across eight Delhi University colleges and the University Stadium. The series began at Ramjas College on February 10 with a performance by the Leela Band, followed by the Raghav Raja Band at Deen Dayal Upadhyay College the next day.
The programme coincided with a politically turbulent period at Delhi University. Five of its eight performances were held alongside the university’s inaugural Delhi University Literature Festival (DULF), which featured television anchors Anjana Om Kashyap, Rubika Liyaquat, Anand Narasimhan and ANI Editor-in-Chief Smita Prakash, along with BJP leader Ram Madhav, Rajya Sabha MP Sudhanshu Trivedi, filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri and other speakers.
At the same time, the All India Students’ Association (AISA) organised a parallel ‘People’s Literature Festival – Samta Utsav’, calling the official festival “a mouthpiece for regressive propaganda and communal rhetoric”. The parallel festival turned violent after historian Irfan Habib was attacked with a bucket of water and bricks were allegedly thrown from inside the Arts Faculty. Clashes also broke out during AISA’s ‘Adhikar Rally’.
Following the incidents, Delhi University imposed a month-long ban on protests on February 17. The university, however, continued to promote the DU Bhajan Clubbing initiative as part of its cultural renaissance.
According to a report by Newslaundry, Sanjeev Chugh, Public Information Officer at the Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation (DTTDC), said the tourism department funded the programme to engage Delhi University students and introduce them to Indian culture. According to Chugh, the initiative was meant exclusively for Delhi University’s students and was not open to the general public. “Considering the safety and security of male and female students, this is generally only for students,” he said.
The Indian Army has launched a 75-day internship in strategic communications for BJMC students, offering a stipend of up to ₹75,000 and 15 academic credits, with a deadline of 2nd August 2026.
The Indian Army’s Additional Directorate General of Strategic Communication has opened applications for a 75-day internship programme in digital media and strategic communications, exclusively for students enrolled in a Bachelor of Journalism and Mass Communication degree. The programme is listed on the AICTE Internship Portal, with the application deadline set for 2nd August 2026.
The internship follows a hybrid structure. The first 15 working days are conducted online, after which selected candidates are required to report in-person to Delhi for the remaining 60 working days. Interns will work across media analysis, behavioural research, digital content creation, and social media campaign planning; all within the framework of public affairs and defence communication. The programme carries 15 academic credits, and is scheduled to commence on 17th August 2026.
Selected interns will receive a monthly stipend of ₹30,000, amounting to a total of ₹75,000 upon successful completion. The stipend is disbursed only at the end of the internship term. Candidates who fail to maintain a minimum attendance of 75% will forfeit all financial benefits.
The programme comes with strict operational conditions. Laptops and smartphones are not permitted inside office premises and must be deposited at the security gate on arrival. Only basic, non-smart mobile phones are allowed within the complex; the organisation provides dedicated workstations for all work-related tasks. Office hours run from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Saturday, and formal attire is mandatory throughout.
Candidates are required to submit a Degree Verification Certificate, a Police Verification Certificate, a government-issued photo ID, and recent passport-size photographs prior to joining. Accommodation in Delhi for the duration of the programme must be arranged independently. The Indian Army has clarified that the internship does not offer placement assistance or post-internship employment.
Image Caption: Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi
If India has spent over three decades recommending reforms against criminalisation in politics, why does the problem continue to persist? The issue is not merely the candidates—it is about a political system that often rewards them.
Democracies are built on a simple premise: those who make the law should themselves be accountable to it. Yet, in India, one of the world’s largest democracies, upholding that principle is becoming increasingly difficult. The question is no longer whether criminalisation exists in politics. It does. The more pressing question is why, despite repeated warnings from courts, commissions and constitutional bodies over the last three decades, it continues to flourish.
According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) analysis of sitting Rajya Sabha members, 31% of MPs have declared criminal cases, while 16% face serious criminal charges, including murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, and corruption. These are not isolated or unprecedented numbers. They reflect a pattern that has steadily become a defining feature of India’s electoral landscape rather than an occasional anomaly.
The instinctive response to such statistics is to demand stricter disqualification laws. While understandable, this reaction overlooks a more uncomfortable reality. Criminalisation of politics is not merely the consequence of legal loopholes. It is the outcome of political incentives that have normalised the nomination, election and continued presence of candidates with criminal backgrounds.
The law itself presents a constitutional dilemma. Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, legislators are disqualified upon conviction for specified offences, particularly when sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more. However, the law does not prohibit individuals from contesting elections simply because criminal charges have been filed against them. At the heart of this distinction lies one of the oldest principles of criminal justice: every person is innocent until proven guilty.
This principle exists for a reason. If candidates could be barred from elections simply because criminal charges were filed against them, governments could misuse investigative agencies to target political opponents. The issue, therefore, is not black and white. Any reform must balance accountability with the principle of due process.
In Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002), the Court recognised that voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal, financial, and educational backgrounds of electoral candidates. It held that transparency was indispensable to informed democratic participation.
A decade later, Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) marked another significant intervention by striking down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which had allowed convicted legislators to continue in office while their appeals remained pending. The judgment reinforced the principle that elected representatives cannot claim privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens.
Yet, perhaps the most significant judicial acknowledgment of the limits of reform came in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018). Petitioners had urged the Court to disqualify candidates against whom serious criminal charges had already been framed. The Court declined, observing that such a decision lay within Parliament’s legislative domain rather than judicial authority. Instead, it strengthened disclosure requirements by directing political parties to publicise the criminal backgrounds of their candidates and explain the reasons behind their selection.
The problem was identified decades ago. In 1993, the N.N Vohra Committee warned about the growing links between politicians, criminals and business interests. It found that organised criminal groups were building close ties with political leaders and sections of the bureaucracy, allowing them to influence governance. More than 30 years later, those concerns remain as relevant as ever.
For political parties, the deciding factor is often not integrity but “winnability”. Candidates with money, influence and established local networks are viewed as electoral assets—even when they face serious criminal charges. Winning, more often than not, outweighs character.
If political parties continue to nominate such candidates, is the real problem the law, or the political incentives that reward them?
Another issue comes in the form of India’s judicial backlog. Criminal trials involving elected representatives often continue for years, and in some instances decades, before reaching conclusion. During this period, candidates remain legally eligible to contest elections because they have not been convicted. Justice delayed does more than deny justice—it reshapes elections. Cases linger for years, sometimes decades, allowing candidates to contest multiple elections before a verdict is ever delivered. What is meant to protect the innocent ends up shielding the unresolved.
Electoral choices are rarely made in a vacuum. Caste loyalties, local patronage networks and weak state institutions often shape voting behaviour as much as questions of legality. In constituencies where people have little faith in public institutions, candidates who project themselves as strong local leaders often continue to win support despite facing criminal charges.
For instance, leaders such as Anant Singh in Bihar and Mukhtar Ansari in Uttar Pradesh built significant political influence while facing numerous criminal cases. Many supporters viewed them as leaders who could resolve local disputes, protect community interests or deliver services more effectively than state institutions.
The debate has gained fresh momentum as a parliamentary committee examines the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025. The Bill proposes that the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and ministers who remain in custody for 30 consecutive days on serious criminal charges should automatically lose office.
The committee is expected to finalise its report before the Monsoon Session. Supporters argue that those holding executive office should meet higher ethical standards. Critics, however, warn that allowing arrests alone to trigger disqualification could enable governments to misuse investigative agencies against political opponents.
In the light of the then political scenario, a more balanced solution was suggested by the Law Commission’s 244th Report, which recommended disqualifying candidates only after charges are framed for offences punishable with at least five years’ imprisonment, provided this happens at least a year before the election. Combined with fast-track courts for cases involving elected representatives, such reforms could reduce both politically motivated cases and long delays in criminal trials.
India does not lack laws, committee reports or judicial directions. What it lacks is the political will to act on them. Until integrity becomes as valuable at the ballot box as influence and money, criminalisation will remain not an exception to Indian democracy, but one of its most enduring contradictions.
Five stages shape a student’s journey through India’s competitive examination system. But when the system fails them, what remains of the future they spent years sacrificing everything to reach?
Denial
There exists an undeniable comfort in telling yourself that your life is not actually on hold. The same repetitive routine is not holding you back; it is preparing you for the ultimate test. You wake up right as the alarm starts to go off; you brush your teeth, staring into the abyss of your own eyes in the mirror; you eat your food, mentally preparing yourself for yet another ordinary day to come, which somehow finds a way to seize your heart. You convince yourself you are doing this by choice; you will get far ahead in life if you make this one last sacrifice. There is a future waiting for you.
Yet the reassurance bleeds you dry.
You’re not postponing living in the present; you are waiting for the right time. Most Indian students fall prey to this predatory education system where one competitive exam after the other forces your hand and breaks your will. No amount of coaching, classes, or revision prepares you for what is yet to come, but you still somehow believe that your sacrifice has a purpose. One day you’ll wake up, and all you need will be yours, as long as you stay put.
Your plans will wait for you, friends will wait for you, opportunities will wait for you, the world will wait for you as long as you clear the next attempt. Unfortunately, life doesn’t wait, and that future you keep wishing for is always just far enough to justify sacrificing the present.
This is the first sign: you believe the life you are postponing is still waiting for you exactly where you left it.
The classroom eventually empties, sacrifice often does not.
Anger
Then someday the system fails you. A dagger is plunged right into your gut, and as you lie bleeding, you realise.
A paper is leaked, an examination is cancelled, a result is delayed. You are yet again forced to wait just a little longer and accommodate someone else’s failure as if time must be an administrative inconvenience and not something that has already been taken from you.
People seem to forget that every single one of those numbers was a student who spent months or years preparing. A student who woke up early, paid for coaching, declined opportunities, rescheduled plans, all for one exam. They promised their families that this time would be different, and it was, in the most gut-wrenching way possible.
A paper leak is not just an administrative failure; it is a disruption of a student’s timeline. The anger does not simply lie in taking the paper again but in the time that feels wasted. They did everything right, and yet the future they had readily waited for was snatched away right in front of their eyes.
But anger does not always make you leave. Sometimes, it makes you hold on tighter.
Preparation leaves few visible traces beyond worn books and borrowed time.
Bargaining
As it slips through your fingers while you weakly try to grasp it, you know you don’t want to give up. No, you can’t give up, not after everything. You can’t leave, but you can compromise; you can negotiate. You can bargain with your own life.
One push harder, one more attempt, one more strategy, one more schedule. After this, you would never have to sit down to cram for hours again. The people in your life will stop being distractions; their company will become a celebration. Opportunities will envelop you as a family’s arms on result declaration; you will touch the horizon, and this time you won’t fall back down again.
The problem with “one more year” is that it seems redundant by the fourth time you say it. Preparation stops being a period of life and becomes the organising principle of life itself. There is a logic to it: after investing so much, stopping feels more frightening than continuing would. The years of effort you’ve poured into it would only be justified if you clear the next attempt.
The future keeps moving, and you keep following it; chasing the next, the next, and the next.
But eventually, the promise of the next attempt begins to lose its shine. You look around and realise that the years you were promised would come later have already passed.
Depression
This is perhaps where the waiting begins to reveal its cost. As it kicks in, you sink.
You notice how the people in your life moved on to bigger things; they graduate, find jobs, get married, all the while you were making decisions dependent on an examination calendar.
Your future leaves you behind.
It’s not that you aren’t working hard. What makes it so difficult is that you are relentlessly doing exactly what you should’ve been doing. Everything that is required of you, you deliver, and yet nothing in your life seems to have moved forward. Your everlasting dream of success fails you; that strange emotional experience of prolonged preparation breaks you not only physically but mentally. It eats away at your hope, at your faith till the time you cannot imagine breaking out of this cycle controlled by an exam.
You cannot imagine a free day without guilt; you feel wasted, abused. Every conversation revolves around your examination. Your life is not yours anymore. It has been taken from you, and now you’re devastated. Utterly helpless.
Days often begin and end at the same desk.
Acceptance
Suddenly it sets in: acceptance doesn’t have to mean accepting failure; it is something more.
Imagine telling every student that they have to give up their careers and that an exam does not matter when it so clearly does. To many students, it matters enormously.
Reality occurs much later for these students; degrees don’t guarantee employment, and employment may not guarantee security. For them, competitive examinations continue to represent one of the few reliable routes to stability. For a system to fail these students is a complete breakdown of trust. How can you tell students to move on after making them depend on these examinations in the first place? How does mismanagement on the system’s part become the fault of a helpless student? The acceptance must be of something else.
The future is not guaranteed simply because you have sacrificed your present for it.
That’s it. Hard work is not a contract with the universe; preparation does not ensure the examination is conducted fairly, and eventual success cannot return to you the years that have passed.
But what happens when you do continue? What happens when you do exactly what the system asks of you?
The Aftermath
Ayushman Singh did what the system asked of him. He continued. But that doesn’t mean nothing was taken from him.
He had bought a guitar in Class IX. By the time he began preparing for NEET, it had become, in his words, “just a piece of furniture” in his house. After the examination, he finally had the chance to sign up for guitar classes. Two days after learning that he would have to sit for the examination again, the guitar, which would finally be strung with life again, sank back into the darkness, camouflaged.
He had to postpone the life he had already started imagining.
Now, one would assume that his greatest loss after this experience would be time. Perhaps confidence. But, what he lost was the trust in his own nation. “Broken systems don’t just leak papers; they destroy trust,” he said.
And perhaps that is the problem with resilience. We see a student continue and assume that nothing was taken from them. We see them return to the classroom, the coaching centre, the examination hall, and assume that they have moved on.
They have not necessarily moved on. They may just have had nowhere else to go.
