Author

DU Beat

Browsing

India’s 2026 Election verdict signals generational change, ideological fatigue, and the rise of new political alternatives.

Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Assam and Kerala in 2026 were no ordinary poll-bound states. These assembly elections jolted pollsters, unsettled analysts, and challenged some of the most entrenched assumptions of Indian politics. While several states broadly conformed to expectations, the outcomes in the West Bengal and Tamil Nadu election marked something closer to a tectonic shift. The meteoric rise of TVK in Tamil Nadu resembled a political “first-day, first-show” blockbuster, while what was projected as a close contest between TMC and BJP in West Bengal culminated instead in a decisively one-sided verdict. 

As Prannoy Roy once observed, elections in India are fought as much in the mind as on the ground. Any post-poll analysis, therefore, must grapple with multiple and often competing interpretations. Even so, certain patterns offer valuable insight into a rapidly evolving political landscape stretching from the North-East to the South. These, however, must be approached with caution: there is no singular “Indian voter,” and no single explanatory framework can fully capture the complexity of these outcomes. 

One of the clearest signals from this election is the quiet but decisive consolidation of the youth vote. In West Bengal, this was not visible in rallies or rhetoric, but in mood. As a voter from Asansol and student of Delhi University noted, “the shift from Durga Pujo to polling day was stark”—deserted TMC offices, guarded conversations, and a single refrain cutting across communities: “Poriborton toh chai chai.” 

The silence was strategic. Beneath it lay accumulated grievances—stalled government recruitment, corruption, concerns over women’s safety, and the political aftershocks of cases like RG Kar. When it finally spoke, the student vote did so not in fragments, but as a bloc.

Tamil Nadu reflected a very different, yet equally generational churn. The rise of TVK is less a conventional political story and more a cultural mobilisation. For a Gen-Z electorate raised on cinema and immediacy, TVK offered disruption without ideological baggage. It broke the fatigue of the DMK–AIADMK binary not through policy depth, but through identification and momentum. In the Kerala election, the shift was sharper in ideological terms—sections of young voters appear to have turned away from the Left, driven by a growing discomfort with centralised authority. As one student put it rather bluntly, “the authoritarian CM had to lose; his Left was not right.”

Alongside this generational shift is a quieter rejection of political inheritance. Across states, familiar surnames no longer guaranteed electoral comfort. The message is not the end of dynasties, but the erosion of their immunity. Voters are no longer willing to underwrite legacy without performance. The disruption in Tamil Nadu’s entrenched bipolarity only reinforces this trend—new entrants are no longer fringe experiments; they are viable vessels of aspiration.

For the Congress, the picture is deceptively flat. On paper, there is little immediate gain—Kerala’s victory comes in a space where the BJP is not a primary contender. But politics rarely moves in straight lines. The party’s position today resembles the early, incremental phases once seen in states like West Bengal—small footholds preceding larger relevance. With limited downside, Congress has room to manoeuvre: deepen its Kerala base, negotiate more assertively within a potential TVK alignment in Tamil Nadu, and cautiously expand in Bengal where the search for alternatives is clearly underway. The opportunity is narrow, but real.

What ties these strands together is not a uniform swing, but a pattern of voter impatience—with stagnation, with entitlement, and with unpredictability. Indian elections, as Yogendra Yadav reminds us, have a way of defying both political calculation and analytical certainty: “Indian voters are wiser than the politicians who seek to manipulate them—and often wiser than the analysts who try to predict them.”

 

Read Also: The oppressed as oppressor: notes on caste

Image Credits: Frontline

 

Madhav Choudhary 

[email protected]

Where does the future of press lie? Does it even lie, or is it just another petrified reality waiting to become a manufactured myth?

A free press is said to be the fourth pillar of a democratic nation, or at least that was the norm. It is regarded widely as a highly potent part of a larger system of checks and balances that keep the nation tied together through politics, economics, justice and beyond. And it is the association of “free” with press that preserves it as a critical component especially at a turning moment in time like today where news is filtered for profitability and truth itself is accustomed to be molded like clay. 

As a student journalist working for about a year now, in the limited time that I’ve found myself associated with this field, I’ve learned beyond the good-to-knows, that is, the way to stir up a headline or chase a story—the past months have pushed me to a larger realisation of what it truly means to listen, who gets to be heard, and what are the costs of speaking up.

India is a country of too many people from too many regions and too many diversities—here, too is to be regarded as liberating, as is the term “overpopulating” in overflowing our landscape with stories far more than the news channels or filmmakers can ever fully capture. ‘Untold stories’ in India thus becomes more than a buzzword but experiences lived and unheard, but yet a reality that finds itself limited again to the mainstream. In the ‘unhearing’ of such stories, what renders invisible is the people for whom it is not a story: those who are too marginal, too inconvenient, or worse, too disruptive to even be considered for Page 4, let alone front headlines. 

Before I had the vocabulary for it, I had already felt patriarchy shape my world. Before I understood class, I had already encountered the sharp divide between those who have and those who do not. Yet, as an urban upper-caste individual, there also remains parts of my inherited identity that are silent; I just had the privilege to never notice or question them because they were stories I did not hear because I did not have to ever live through them. Journalism, at its best, breaks that silence. 

I would like to believe that I have come of age at a time when the institution of journalism itself feels increasingly fragile by the passing day. This decline of the freedom of the press is not relatively new, but perhaps more visible to the eye of the common layman who continue to persist beyond the scholars, writers, journalists, and critics that have lived and died warning us about censorship, the corrosion of independent media, and the damage this does to the very ecology of democracy that journalism is meant to sustain. These warnings are not breaking news (pun intended), but the familiarity of such a warning may be part of the problem. 

In conversations, I have found myself realising the unsettling reality that the risks of pursuing journalism often seem to outweigh the rewards: the best-paying positions frequently exist within systems that are deeply entangled with power and the ABCs of journalism are negotiated on the daily, unfortunately resulting in the death of the fourth pillar and a failure of what it truly stands to support. Yet in between the fading light, student journalism presents itself as something radically different: as something not yet entangled in the futile war between politics and spectacle.

I remember an ideation meeting we had for the DU Beat Print edition; I mentioned, almost apologetically, the opening of a new café on campus as the news tip of the week. It didn’t feel like “real news” to me, given what “real” had been ingrained into me, and it wasn’t until my editor responded with something that I realised that journalism, especially student journalism, is not only about documenting crises but also to function as an archival. It preserves the textures of everyday life, the clothes people wore, the food they ate, the spaces they gathered in, and the conversations they had. Journalism becomes a record of that very existence that tells future readers what happened, alongside how it felt to live through it.

In the brief and privileged opportunities that I’ve had to step into larger mainstream newsrooms, I’ve come to notice the behind the scenes of press production that positions itself as neutral, but is rarely unbiased. Behind every headline and breaking news, is a thorough process of filtration and of calculation: the economy of news, who funds it, who controls it, and most importantly who benefits from it. It is perhaps as ‘1984’ as it gets. 

As we encounter days of what is meant to be a celebration such as International Press Freedom day, I instead find myself lingering in thoughts of the words edited out and the stories that are censored before the screens can ever house them. It is perhaps uncomfortable to think of how easily we scrutinise dissent and how quickly a protest is delegitimised, especially in student-led spaces where frequently power speaks louder than truth. But it is within such thoughts, and the questioning of such realities that possibility emerges: student journalism, independent media houses, and smaller platforms continue to carve out within the controlled mainstream such spaces of resistance even without the reach of resources. What they rely on though is by far the most important tool of journalism: the willingness to ask difficult questions and seek it answers.

Perhaps in reimagining the future of freedom, of truth, and of journalism in a landscape that silences, the Big 4 hides behind the smaller newsrooms, campus publications, independent newsletters, local reporting and spaces where journalism is still driven by curiosity instead of control. Question what you read and what is shown to you: interrogate and listen in between what is left unsaid. The strength of the fourth pillar does not only depend on those who build it but equally so on those who engage with it.

 

Read Also: Unclean Spaces and Neoliberal Urbanism: Graffiti as “Counterliteracy”

Image Credit:  Aaratrika Ghosh for DU Beat

 

Anjali Kumari Jha
[email protected]

Delhi University’s Executive Council set up a probe into St. Stephen’s College for violating faculty recruitment rules, while also approving SWAYAM credits, BA restructuring, a semester abroad programme, and a ₹174-crore infrastructure project.

Delhi University’s Executive Council (EC), chaired by Vice-Chancellor Prof. Yogesh Singh, held a significant meeting on Wednesday where a range of academic and other administrative matters the most notable being allegations of recruitment norm violations at St. Stephen’s College were discussed.

The Executive Council took serious cognisance of the alleged violation of shortlisting criteria by St. Stephen’s College during the direct recruitment of assistant professors across various disciplines.

Members in the meeting pointed out that the college had been following a criterion of shortlisting 70 candidates for each unreserved vacancy. However, the Academic Council and Executive Council of Delhi University had already approved a standard fixed norm of 40 candidates for the first vacancy and 20 candidates for each subsequent vacancy.

As a result, the Council decided to restrain the college from issuing appointment letters to the recommended candidates. The decision was formally communicated to the Principal of St. Stephen’s College by the Registrar of Delhi University through an official letter.

The committee constituted by the EC to investigate the issue will be chaired by Prof. Inder Mohan Kapahi, a Chancellor’s nominee in the Executive Council. Other members include EC members Aman Kumar, Dr. Monica Arora, and Dr. L.S. Chaudhary. The Joint Registrar (Colleges) has been appointed as the Member Secretary of the committee.

This is not the first time St. Stephen’s, one of DU’s most prestigious colleges has been under the spotlight over governance and administration mismatch with the university.

In another key decision, the Executive Council approved a proposal to allow students to earn up to 5 percent of their total academic credits through online courses offered on SWAYAM (Study Webs of Active Learning for Young Aspiring Minds) and other approved MOOC (Massive Open Online Courses) platforms. Under the scheme, students in four-year undergraduate programmes can earn up to 8 credits, while those in two-year postgraduate courses can earn up to 4 credits. 

It is also important to note that UGC regulations from 2016 had originally permitted students to earn up to 20 percent of their credits through SWAYAM. The framework was adopted by the university in 2019, but a suggestion in 2025 to re-examine the matter led to the formation of a committee, whose recommendations have now been implemented. 

However, everyone did not agree. Some Executive Council members submitted a dissent note, arguing that these regulations, in the name of “choice” and “flexibility,” take away the important role of teachers and universities. 

The EC also backed BA Programme restructuring for the 2026–27 session, allowing colleges to re-examine low-demand subjects without introducing or discontinuing programmes. Colleges can also group certain subjects under a single programme combination but cannot change their total approved intake capacity.

Delhi University also constituted a committee to examine the proposal for launching “Semester Away Programme” (SAP) in collaboration with foreign higher education institutions. This committee, chaired by DU Dean Prof. Balram Pani, will submit its report after consulting relevant stakeholders. Under the SAP, students may complete one semester of their degree at a foreign university. 

The Executive Council also approved the construction of a new building for the Institute of Nano Medical Sciences at Maurice Nagar at a cost of Rs 174.20 crore. The detailed project report will be prepared by the Central Public Works Department. 

The council also cleared the establishment of a Centre for Advanced Studies in Buddhist Studies, with the first phase already approved under the Pradhan Mantri Jan Vikas Karyakram scheme.

The EC meeting reflects an active and hectic period for Delhi University as it tries to balance academic reforms, infrastructure expansion, and governance challenges with the St. Stephen’s issue likely to remain a contentious matter in the weeks ahead.

 

Read also: Students Respond as ANI EIC Smita Prakash Alleges Disrespect as Chief Guest at Miranda House – DU Beat – Delhi University’s Independent Student Newspaper 

 

Arshia Sharma

[email protected] 

Image Source – Telegraph India