The march took a political and violent turn when the party reached Kirori Mal College (KMC) where the Akhil Bhartiya Vidhyarthi Parishad (ABVP), campaigning for upcoming Delhi University Students’ Association (DUSU) elections, clashed with them.
The All India Students’ Association (AISA), on 23rd August 2019, held a protest at the University of Delhi’s (DU) North Campus. They were pressing for a higher frequency of busses, concessional metro passes for students, and more affordable public transport.
The protest was interrupted when AISA reached KMC where the ABVP, then campaigning for upcoming the DUSU elections, clashed with them.
The rivalry was very evident as slogans were chanted from both the parties against each other. “Vande Matram”, “Sachin ke goons” and “Cheen ke dalalo ko ek dhakka aur do” (Give the Chinese brokers one more push) were loudly spoken by the members of ABVP against AISA that led to this confrontation.
The brawl became violent and security personnel had to intervene to keep both the parties separate to prevent injuries.
This also put a halt to AISA touring the entire college and they were forced out of the main gate of KMC.
Madhurima, DU Secretary, AISA, describing the confrontation, said, “Our issues are very simple, it is affordable public transport to curb air pollution still they have a problem with that. When we entered KMC, the ABVP was already present in huge numbers. Moreover, they were not even DU students, but outsiders. They then began with their slogan-chanting and slagging, and attacking our activists.”
She added, “The police were also pro-ABVP and even closed the gates of Hansraj to prevent us from entering. We should all realise that it is a big nexus of ABVP, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Government, oil corporations, car companies, and corporates that profit greatly by people not using public transport.”
Kawalpreet Kaur, Delhi President, AISA in conversation with DU Beat said, “DU students have been demanding metro concession passes for a long time now, and how Delhi is facing severe air pollution makes way for public transport to be invested in. There are many cities that are providing free public transport. And with metro fares rising continuously, we see people being discouraged to use them. Earlier, we protested for applicability of student bus pass in AC buses. Sadly, even though the pass is applicable, there is an acute shortage of Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) buses.”
She also added, “AISA is a common student-based association. What affects the students, affects us. So, we know how terrible it is when you miss your classes due to the less frequent plying of busses. This works against accessibility to education.”
Shreya, a member of the AISA, said, “The main aim for this march today is to propagate two issues: to make public transport very affordable for students and to make Delhi less polluted in retrospect, and for the DUSU elections to focus more on student-centric and environmental issues, rather than caste, religion, and nationalism.”
Two years back when the metro fare was increased, it directly affected the student community. Since then, AISA has been protesting against the same. Last year, they protested in front of Delhi’s Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal’s house, and Prime Minister’s Office for applicability of student bus-pass in red AC buses, and metro concessional pass for students.
They have chosen to protest just before the upcoming DUSU elections, 2019, so the candidates include student-centric environmental and welfare issues in their manifestos which are often ignored.
High deployment of security personnel was seen accompanying the march as it began to prevent riots and control the raging crowd. AISA took their march into corridors of Ramjas College chanting their demands and gather more students.
Witnessing the heat between the two parties, AISA was not allowed to enter the Hansraj College premises.
Kawalpreet Kaur, stating the true aim of these protests said, “We are protesting to pressurise all governments, student associations, and candidates contesting in DUSU election to bring issues like this in light than fighting over statues. The people who have the power to resolve these issues are silent.”
Four candidates, out of the selected 10 will be contesting for the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) election next month.
One of the two major political parties of the DUSU, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Thursday, released the names of 10 of its members who are to contest for the upcoming elections which will be held on 12th September. Four out of the lot will be contesting for the positions of office bearers
The 10 probable candidates are Tushar Dedha, Yogit Rathi, Sahil Malik, Akshit Dahiya, Sachin, Varun Rekswal, Pradeep Tanwar, Shivangi Kharaab, Jaideep Maan, and Mansi Chauhan. “From Friday onwards, the 10 candidates will visit colleges and talk about the achievements of ABVP-led DUSU,” Siddharth Yadav, Delhi State Secretary, ABVP, said, as reported by Devdiscourse.
As of now, most of the details have not been disclosed to the public, and the campaigning will perhaps set the course for the party and its members. The candidates have already begun campaigning and were seen visiting various colleges of the North Campus, like Shri Ram College of Commerce, Kirori Mal College, etc., today.
Speaking to DU Beat, Monika, National Media Convener, ABVP, said, “…[A]ctually, majority of the questions will be answered with time – like who is contesting for what position, our strategy, our manifesto, etc., it is only the pre-election campaign which has been started.”
The party had been in headlines last year, because the elected President, Ankiv Baisoya, was found to possess a fake undergraduate degree. The scene had lead to a lot of confusion, and questioning of the credentials of DUSU, with National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) even pressing for re-elections. When asked about the same, Monika reassured that a similar situation would not reoccur. “We have checked the backgrounds of all interested candidates, and this time all are students from the University of Delhi (DU) only.”
Following demands to rename the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Office after VD Savarkar, the DUSU has now installed a pillar with the busts of Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh in the campus, creating a new row.
In an incident that is causing a new controversy in the University of Delhi (DU), the DUSU– led by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the students’ wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)– on Tuesday, installed the busts of VD Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh on a pillar outside the Arts Faculty Gate No. 4 in the North Campus. This development comes a week after the student party raised a demand to christen the DUSU Office as ‘Veer Savarkar Bhawan’.
This episode has created a new row in the University circuit. The conflict has arisen because firstly, the DUSU allegedly not followed the proper procedure behind the installation of the busts, and secondly, the opponents of this move are raising a more fundamental criticism that placing Savarkar along with Subhas Bose and Bhagat Singh is unjustified.
“Anti-national step”
In what seemed like giving the ABVP a taste of RSS and BJP’s own medicine, the Indian National Congress (INC) backed National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) called the move made by the DUSU an “anti-national step” and an example of “sheer pseudo-nationalism”.
Saimon Farooqui, the National Secretary of the NSUI, said, “ABVP has always considered VD Savarkar as their hero. [In spite] of him begging for mercy in front of the English Government, the ABVP wants to promote his agenda. We should never forget that he opposed Quit India Movement and refused from unfurling Tiranga, hence demanding for Hindu Rashtra. Comparing Savarkar to Shaheed Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose is an insult to our Martyrs and their freedom struggle. Naming the august office of representatives of the students of one [of] the best universities after an anti-national person will bring disgrace to the university. It is an example of sheer pseudo-nationalism of ABVP. I, on behalf of NSUI strongly oppose this anti-national step.”
Similarly, on the issue of naming the DUSU Office after Savarkar, Sumit Kataria, the Delhi State Vice President of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), the party affiliated to the Communist Party of India (CPI), said, “They [DUSU] are not making any new institution and are just renaming an already existing one. All these are just political gimmicks by ABVP to cover up the fact that they have not done anything for the welfare of the student community over the past one year since the DUSU elections are around the corner. Also, this is just a part of their agenda of rewriting Indian history. Savarkar was a traitor to the Indian freedom struggle as he wrote many mercy petitions to the British and had pledged his allegiance to the British rule. Also, his views are completely against the idea of a secular democratic India. Naming DUSU office after such a person should be opposed at any cost and it will be.”
Akshay Chauhan, a student of History at Hindu College stated “I must say Bhagat Singh has died today. To be venerated with a Hindu nationalist who was in cahoots with the colonialists, Bhagat Singh died a shameful death.”
“Youth icons”
Not all were condemning the move of the DUSU. Professor Rasal Singh, a Member of the RSS-affiliated teachers’ organisation, National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF), said, “All three [Savarkar, Bose, Bhagat Singh] are great youth icons. It is high time for the youth to get inspired by them and inculcate those values for which they lived and died.” Prof Singh had contested for the post of the DUSU Vice President on an ABVP panel in 2000.
However, given that many contested and criticised Savarkar’s very ideals and actions, was it justified to consider him a hero? “Yes definitely,” replied Professor Singh, “This is distorted history [written] by communist and colonial historians. That’s why we demand rewriting of history with nationalist perspective.” He asked in return, “Members of DUSU, which is [the] largest students’ union in the country and ABVP, which is [the] largest organization of students in the world feel that Savarkar is a national hero. [Then] what’s the issue? [Do] not they represent youths of this country?”
DU Beat had previously quoted Siddharth Yadav, the ABVP Delhi State Secretary, as saying, “Our University has forgotten the heroes of our freedom struggle. If studied thoroughly, he [Savarkar] is the true inspiration for youngsters.”
Question of procedure
According to a report in The Indian Express, “The pillar came up overnight and, by DUSU’s own admission, without permission from university authorities.” The report stated that a guard, supposedly on duty outside the Arts Faculty Gate No. 4, had said, “a mini-truck was brought in a green tent-like structure around 2 am [on Tuesday], which was set up outside the gate and surrounded by ABVP activists. Around 9.30 am, the structure was removed to reveal the pillar.”
Shakti Singh, the DUSU President in the aforementioned report, stated “We have written to university officials several times asking for permission to set up such a monument — last November, this March, April and again in August — but we got no response. So we decided to go ahead and do it ourselves,”
The condemnation (and approbation) towards the installation of Savarkar’s bust alongside those of Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh was largely partisan. However, concerns regarding the adherence to the proper procedure were raised by even those who fundamentally supported the idea of installing the busts. Despite hailing the move itself, Professor Singh said, “However, I feel laid-down procedure should have been followed for this installation.”
Mr. Yadav, regarding the question of procedure, said, “ABVP is of the clear view that the busts should be installed in Delhi University campus only with the permission of the Delhi University Administration and other concerned authorities.” Despite reiterating the claim of the DUSU that their demands had been “completely ignored” by the administration, he added that “ABVP has clarified to the [DUSU] that the busts should be kept in the DUSU office till the permission is granted and the busts should be installed only after the due permission of the administration.”
The land on which the bust has been installed falls under the jurisdiction of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC), as reported by the Indian Express.
Protest against the bust
The Indian Express had quoted Akshay Lakra, the NSUI Delhi Unit President, as saying, “If the statues are not removed within 24 hours, we will launch a strong protest.”
Then, early morning on Thursday, NSUI activists were seen approaching the Arts Faculty Gate where the pillar was installed. TheTimes of India reported that the incident took place between 2-2:30 AM. Mr Lakra, who was leading the members of the student party, first garlanded the busts of Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose and then tore off the garland from Savarkar’s. He then went on to place a garland of shoes around Savarkar’s bust but was stopped by the security personnel present there. With the garland of shoes off the bust, Mr Lakra then defaced it with what looked like black ink. The bust was, however, found clean in the morning today.
Akshay Lakra, NSUI Delhi President, was seen defacing the Savarkar bust around 2 AM. Image and Video Credits – Amarjeet Kumar Singh, AISA
It should be noted that these recent developments have come up when the DUSU elections are just around the corner. The University announced on 20th August that while the last date for filing nominations is 4th September, the polling will take place on the 12th of September.
Feature Image Credits – Kawalpreet Kaur – Delhi President, All India Students’ Association – via Facebook
Discussing the absolute belief with which we, at times, think we are right, providing no space for any sort of discussion.
As college students, who are always being bombarded with new ideas and often one-sided news on social media and other platforms, we are, at times, too quick to form certain opinions, which we then start treating as absolute truths of the universe. More often than not, we also get influenced by the talks and views of our professors and friends. Some people, on the other hand, enter college with already fixed notions which they then are ready to defend in the face of opposition and at times even reason.
Irrespective of how our believes and opinions are developed, for they are a result of our social and personal environment, most of us very strongly believe that we are situated in the moral and ethical corner at all times. Often, this hampers our understanding of why those who are in opposition to our views are so. Many of us who consider ourselves open-minded make statements like “everyone has a right to their own opinions”, but how often do we believe that or not belittler someone, when they hold, beliefs opposite to ours?
As students of the University for Delhi (DU), many of us consider ourselves as politically and socially conscious beings. We attend political rallies and go for protests and some students even join political organizations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) or the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI). However, most of us live in complete denial of even wanting to understand the other side of the argument, leading to a lack of empathy on all sides. Many times we also associate a particular policy with a party. A person who believes in right-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a right-wing political organization are correct and a person who believes in left-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a left-wing political organization are correct, leaving no room for doubt. Incidents of physical and social media bullying or social ostracizing of people because of their political or social believes is a global issue, from which our University corridors are infected as well.
In conclusion, with partial or complete information, opinionated or neutral media platforms and associates, many of us rush into making concrete judgments, completely oblivious to the fact that the other side must have their reason for their views, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with them. Dismissing the other side of an argument does not make us victorious on an imaginary debating platform. Perhaps then, at times we can agree to disagree, for discussion is not to win, but to understand and perhaps at times even empathize with those we do not agree with, in a patient and peaceful environment.
For instance, you may be inclined to follow my line of personal thought and agree with the beliefs behind this article, or disagree with it very strongly; you have a right to do so. I cannot admit to knowing it all but so can’t any of us.
Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) has called for renaming the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Office after the progenitor of Hindutva – VD Savarkar.
“Our University has forgotten the heroes of our freedom struggle. The place where Bhagat Singh was kept doesn’t even have a statue of him in the entire complex. I don’t even think half of the students even know of the Bhagat Singh jail below Vice Regal Lodge. Same is with Veer Savarkar. If studied thoroughly, he is the true inspiration for youngsters,” says Siddharth Yadav, the ABVP Delhi State Secretary, explaining why the DUSU Office should be renamed after Savarkar.
As reported by Outlook, Shakti Singh, President of the ABVP-led DUSU, had demanded that the DUSU Office be named ‘Veer Savarkar Bhawan’. The demand was made during the staging of the play ‘Hey Mrityunjay’, which is ‘based on time spent by Savarkar in the Andaman jail’ on 12th August.
An atheist, Vinayak Damodar ‘Veer’ Savarkar is credited as being the father of the Hindutva thought. Even though he did not coin the term ‘Hindutva’ – or “Hinduness” as he explained it – he theorised it as a cultural and political ideology. An advocate of acquiring independence from the British through revolutionary means, he was imprisoned due to his anti-British activities. A failed attempt to escape from prison landed him at the Cellular Jail or Kala Pani in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. During this time, Savarkar wrote ‘Hindutva’, laying out an ideology that is at centre stage of contemporary Indian politics.
Perhaps even the admirers of Savarkar would agree that he is not an uncontroversial figure. Not every party holds him in the same high regard as the Hindutva parties do. Asaduddin Owaisi in a speech had questioned the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) by alleging that Savarkar had claimed that the tricolour could never be India’s national flag. Rahul Gandhi had in Parliament contrasted the Congress and the BJP’s ideologies by evoking the contrast between MK Gandhi and Savarkar; a row had followed. Savarkar was also tried, though acquitted for involvement in Gandhi’s murder.
The legitimacy of numerous claims can be discussed separately. Similarly, debating Savarkar’s political philosophy here would be futile; quoting a phrase or two from a whole body of work does not do justice to the writer or their thought – both the critique and the approbation remain shallow in that case. Yet, the point remains that Savarkar is a polarising figure.
So is it justified for the ABVP to demand that a student union office be named after a figure so controversial, especially when many parties would probably not consent? Mr. Yadav comments, “It is a demand and we have all the right to do so. Surely if discussions are done the so-called controversy would also be cleared. That was also one of the purpose[s] of the play where this demand was raised, to bring out the truth.”
Perhaps Savarkar deserves more attention, as do many other Indian revolutionaries in the historiography of the colonial period. Hindutva is a fascinating read, despite its holes and problems. Given today’s reality, it would only be wise to better understand the fountainhead of this ideology.
Yet, why should a university student union office be named after a political figure? Why can’t the name of the office remain apolitical, in spite of all the student politics around it? Moreover, why only Savarkar? What will the ABVP’s reaction be if the Left parties demand that the Office be named after, say, M.N. Roy?
The first-semester syllabi of four subjects have been accepted by the panel of the University of Delhi (DU).
The University of Delhi has approved the syllabus of English, History, Political Science, and Sociology for first-semester. The syllabi of other subjects have been sent back for revision, and for a final overlook, to their respective Departments, who have been provided with the time of a month to do the same..
The long-drawn-out controversy over University of Delhi’s syllabus of certain subjects has come to a step closer to its conclusion with this action. However, many academic and ethical debates over this dispute are still taking place.
This controversy began with right-wing organisations objecting to the inclusion of certain course materials, like the role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the depiction of Hindu deities in Queer literature in the English syllabus.The situation soon escalated with the ABVP protesting against the course material of certain subjects, which according to them were anti-national and non-Indian in aesthetics. Dr. Rasal Singh of the Academic Council said, “The syllabi have to be cleansed and Indianised, it should be free from Colonial and Communist clutches.”
Counter-protests for academic freedom by organizations like the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Pinjra Tod soon followed, leading to a University-wide altercation.
The lanes near Jantar Mantar and Parliament Street flooded with protestors as the Centre issued the news of the abrogation of Article 35A, and Article 370 which granted a special status to Jammu and Kashmir.
This morning, Home Minister Amit Shah announced in the Rajya Sabha, that Article 35A, and Article 370 which grants the state of Jammu & Kashmir special status are to be abrogated. As the hours went on, the bill was passed.
The move leaves Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory with its own legislature. Ladakh would also be a union territory, but without its own assembly.
Since 4th August, Kashmir has been under lockdown with a complete shutdown of internet, broadband, and cellular services. Many Kashmiris across the world have said their indefinite goodbyes to their loved ones, unaware of when the ban would be lifted. Fear, anxiety, and paranoia have gripped the valley as news of deployment of thousands of paramilitary forces spreads out. Tourists and pilgrims have been asked to leave the state immediately, in the face of intelligence reports alleging a terror threat.
On 5th August, as the news of abrogation spread like wildfire throughout the University, student organisations took it upon themselves to celebrate, and resist.
As the ABVP celebrated the move near Arts Faculty with sweets and dhol, Left-leaning parties like the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), All India Students’ Federation (AISF) and All India Students’ Association (AISA) gathered around Jantar Mantar to protest against the move. The impromptu protest which was organised within two hours saw hundreds of gatherers with placards, demanding that the Articles be reinstated. A Kashmiri student who requested to stay anonymous said, “I’m speechless, I don’t know what else to say.”
The protest also saw prominent leaders of the CPI (M), like Sitaram Yechury and Brinda Karat. As cries of ‘Inquilab Zindabad’ echoed through the Parliament Street, the protesters burnt an effigy in an attempt to defame the Modi government.
“I was thinking that this might happen since it was a part of the BJP’s manifesto, but deep down, I didn’t want it to happen. It’s only about the territory now, not the people,” said Hayder, a student.
Due to the communication blackout, students have been unable to reach out to their loved ones. Almost every Kashmiri student remembers the exact time they last reached out to their family.
Residents of Kashmir are yet to find out about the abrogation.
Speaking to DU Beat, Dipankar Bhattacharya, the General Secretary of CPI (ML) called the move as a ‘constitutional coup’ and ‘a complete travesty of truth and justice’. “I think this is a warning to every Indian of the shape of things to come, and these things are coming conspitarioly, but are coming rather fast. This is an adventurous way of governing. This is a recipe for disaster. It’s a time-bomb ticking away for the rest of India. Just because it was a part of the BJP manifesto and that they won the popular mandate doesn’t mean that the whole of India supports this move,” added Bhattacharya.
Ehthemam, a student of Jamia Milia Islamia called the move ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘illegal’. “The army and state repression has been high in Kashmir, with the cellular and internet shutdowns, it only increases the paranoia over human rights violations in the valley. They want control of Kashmir’s resources which is why they choose to abrogate Articles 35A and Article 370. The abrogation is impractical and will only worsen the conflict.”
Kawalpreet Kaur, the president of AISA, Delhi State added “This is illegal and should be challenged in court. This protest showed us that people aren’t happy with what happened today.”
Kaur declared that the resistance would carry on in the form of another protest march on the 7th of August, from Mandi House to Parliament Street.
“The curfew will be lifted some day, people will come to know, how long will you repress us for? What happened today was unconstitutional,” said a Kashmiri woman addressing the gathering.
Home Minister Amit Shah has assured the opposition in the Rajya Sabha: full statehood at ‘appropriate time’ after ‘normalcy’ returns. But for a state which has been militarized for decades, what is defined as ‘normal’? Amidst internet shutdowns and pellet guns, where does the Kashmiri identity go?
ABVP welcomes the move to revoke Jammu and Kashmir’s special status with dhols, garlands, sweets, and slogans in the Faculty of Arts of the University of Delhi (DU) today.
The party members of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of BJP affiliated to RSS, gathered in the Faculty of Arts of University of Delhi today to celebrate the abolition of Article 370, and Article 35A of the Indian Constitution that granted special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir along with Ladakh.
This article provides special autonomy to the state in the Constitution of India. This article, along with Article 35A, defined that the Jammu and Kashmir residents live under a separate set of laws, including those related to citizenship, ownership of property and fundamental rights as compared to residents of other Indian states.
In a historical move, this article was scrapped by the BJP-led Government today in the parliament.
The celebrations, which commenced from 3:30 pm, saw ABVP workers marching into the faculty gates accompanied by drummers. ABVP members commemorated the event by putting garlands, and showering flowers on the statue of Swami Vivekananda in the faculty premises.
Lead by the ABVP North Delhi head Mr. Bharat Sharma, chants of Bharat Mata Ki Jai and Vande Mataramcould be heard all over the premises. “Yeh humare liye hi nahi, ek ek desh wasi ke liye, ek ek kashmir wasi ke liye ek moment of pride hai (This is a moment of pride, not just for us, but for each and every Indian, for each and every Kashmiri.)”, said Mr. Sharma.
Mr. Sidharth Yadav, Delhi State Secretary, ABVP, proclaimed, “For the first time today, this generation has seen an independent India”.
The celebrations went on to see hundreds in the Arts Faculty, with ABVP flags, dancing and distributing sweets. Mr. Ashutosh Singh, State Media Incharge for the ABVP said, “Governmentko abhi sabse zyada Kashmiri locals ka bharosa jeetne ki zaroorat hai kyunki humlog unke saath me hain, (What the Government needs to do right now, is to win the trust of local Kashmiris because we are all with them,)”
Shri Srinivas, the National Joint Organising Secretary of ABVP, also addressed the gathering after distribution of sweets amongst the students, and party workers, “We have been struggling due to the actions of Mr. Nehru. Now any citizen can work in Jammu and Kashmir and live there. It’s a revolutionary day.” In conversation with DU Beat, he added, “ek sarthak behes desh bhar me honi chahiye, above party politics, ki vaastav me 370 ne Jammu and Kashmir ki janata ka fayda kiya ya nuksan kiya… aur desh ka har parliament member jab desh ki parliament me khade hota hai aur desh ki ekta aur akhandta ki shapath leta hai, to mujhe lagta hai ki woh shapath ko pura karne ka time aa gaya hai(There should be a meaningful debate on the pros and cons of article 370, above party politics… since every parliament member of the country takes a pledge for the unity of the country in the parliament, it’s time they fulfill their pledge,)”
Amidst the dance and dhols, the DUSU President Mr. Shakti Singh had the following to say to DU Beat, when asked about his concerns regarding the students from Jammu and Kashmir studying in DU, “It’s all propaganda and false information being provided to the students, there is nothing for the students to be afraid of, they are safe and will be so.”
The celebrations that lasted for hours had workers dancing and embracing each other in this festivity celebrating the abolition.
Feature Image Credits: Abhinandan Kaul for DU Beat.
The University of Delhi (DU) recently saw a row emerge over the proposed syllabus changes in some undergraduate courses. To understand this better, we spoke to some of the key players involved.
The story developed rapidly in the last couple of weeks in what has now become an ideological battle as various organisations clashed over proposed changes in a variety of the University’s undergraduate programmes – English, History, Political Science, Sociology. Both sides levied a number of accusations on the other – in essence, ranging from trying to manipulate academic spaces to spreading propaganda against certain ideologies. However, some claim that the issue is not a Left vs Right matter at all.
A few characters seem important to this story: Professor Rasal Singh, the Academic Council (AC) member who opposed these proposals; the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), which protested against these changes; a host of Left organisations like the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Collective, and others, who staged counter-protests against the ABVP’s demonstration; Professor Saikat Ghosh, another AC member who defended the recommendations of the departments. Our conversation with Professor Sanam Khanna, who was involved in the syllabus drafting exercise, is also of great interest.
But first, here’s the background. After objections from within the AC and the protests by the ABVP over the alleged negative portrayal of the RSS and its affiliates, and what was called “inclusion of false facts relating to Hinduism and nationalist organisations,” organisations like the SFI, AISA, Collective and others staged a ‘joint protest’ in return. As reported by The Indian Express, the University’s English department has decided to drop the “objectionable” portions as it did not want to “hurt anyone’s sentiments”. With “minor modifications,” changes in the Political Science and Sociology courses were reportedly passed, while the Head of Department of History said that the department may “consider changes”.
{One}
In a long text sent to us by Professor Rasal Singh, he detailed the reasons for his opposition to the proposed syllabus changes. Some of the more widely reported reasons were his objections over the alleged depiction of the RSS and its affiliates as “looters” and “murderers” in the story Maniben Alias Bibijaan – a background to the infamous 2002 Gujarat riots – and also the usage of Hindu deities, such as Vishnu, Shiv, Kartikeya and Ganesh, in readings about queerness, based on what he called secondary sources “written by Leftists on the basis of foundational texts of Indian culture like the Bhagavata Purana, Skanda Purana, and Shiva Purana.”
While his right-wing leanings might be apparent above, he also cited some concerns – which were not as widely reported – that perhaps blur the typical ‘rightist’ and ‘leftist’ lines, as we generally understand them. Among these were the alleged removal of the histories of Amir Khusrau, Sher Shah Suri and Dr B.R. Ambedkar, along with those of the Rajputs; the absence of social movements like Bacha Khan’s Khudai Khidmatgar movement; the removal of topics on environmental discussions and nature worship in Sociology courses. In addition, he also alleged that the English Department had made close to “100 per cent” changes in the syllabus, instead of 30 per cent, as supposedly mandated under the rules of the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS) curriculum. Yet, he also stated that the syllabus showed “tremendous predominance of leftist ideology and a ceaseless opposition towards nationalist ideology, Indian culture and the RSS”.
For more details on why the revised syllabus faced objections, read this author’s previous piece here.
We asked Mr Singh what was a bigger reason for his objection – the content of the proposed chapters or the English department allegedly not following the ‘30 per cent’ CBCS rule. While he said that the latter was also an issue, the content of the chapters remained more problematic. Objecting to what he called the “monopoly” of one ideology (read leftism) in the syllabus revision exercise, he said that a more inclusive process, accounting for teachers with “diverse ideologies and specialisations,” would have been less controversial.
At this point, we wondered whether Mr Singh had some reservations about the ideology of the left itself. He denied. He said that he did not have any issues with the priorities and politics of the left, but with their “exclusive” presence in the process. “Inclusion of other ideologies in the process would have made for better discourse,” he said. Mr Singh’s reservations over the inclusivity of the process also extended to the sources of information supposedly used. Claiming that most news sources used for the Gujarat and Muzaffarnagar riots case studies – The Wire, Scroll, Al Jazeera, to name a few – were ideologically-driven and not mainstream either, he said that other sources, such as Aaj Tak, ABP News, NDTV and The Indian Express, should also have been used.
An SFI press release had mentioned other instances of what they called attempts by the RSS and its “frontal organisations” to “tamper with the education curriculums”. There had also been allegations – such as the one by Professor Nandita Narain, former President of Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) – that the ABVP protest turned hostile wherein the protesters allegedly demanded that the Heads of Department of English and History departments of the University and AC member Professor Saikat Ghosh be “handed over” to them. Mr Singh – an ABVP leader during his student days – denounced violence and misbehaviour against teachers perpetrated by any organisation. However, he claimed with “full responsibility” that these allegations were false. Christening the ABVP “the most culture-conscious party” out of all student organisations, he said that while the protesters did enter the Vice-Chancellor’s office, they did not enter the Council Hall. “I’m disappointed that some AC members called the students ‘goonda’; students are also important stakeholders [in determining the syllabus],” he said.
{Two}
“This is the most ridiculous allegation that can be heard,” says Siddharth Yadav, the Delhi State Secretary of ABVP, when we ask him about the veracity of the alleged hostile nature of his party’s protest. “We have fundamentally opposed the changes, both technically and ideologically. Why would we demand the teachers be handed over? I don’t even know who comes up with these things. Technically we oppose the process which was adopted for these changes. We have been demanding student representation in the academic council for a long time. A handful of teachers made the entire course without any discussion with the stakeholders. This was our second protest in a row to prevent the mishappening,” he adds.
In their press release, the ABVP had said that they don’t want the “anti-Hindu mindset of the left” to dominate the curricula. However, professor Rasal Singh of the AC had raised other objections also. Was the ABVP against those issues as well or only against RSS’ alleged negative portrayal? We posed this question to Mr Yadav, to which his response was: “Ideologically we are opposing a lot of changes. All Dalit writers have been removed from ‘Hindi Upanyas’ curriculum, Ambedkar’s name has been removed from Dalit thinkers, Godhra riots have been wrongfully presented, a lot of ancient history has been deleted and only the colonial period is focused upon, Maoism and Naxalism is shown as a social movement, Hindu gods and goddesses have been wrongfully commented upon by relying on secondary sources and the list goes on.”
Saying that “all we wanted” was a “review of the syllabus”, Mr Yadav said that there was “a lot more than what is being told. I hope it comes out soon.”
{Three}
The Vice-President of SFI Delhi State, Sumit Kataria, says, “Whenever the BJP has been in power, they’ve always attacked our education system”.
There is a general belief that the academia is largely populated by left-liberals. From some of the most prominent historians of our country, who tend to belong to Marxist schools of thought, to litterateurs critical of the right-wing, there probably is a presence of a more left-oriented academia. After all, the ABVP and Professor Rasal Singh expressed clear displeasure over the alleged leftist character of the revised syllabi. This situation is perhaps not even unique to India either; conservatives in the United States have been claiming for quite some time now that their voices in the university spaces are shrinking. We asked Mr Kataria if he felt that there was a general dominance of the left in academia and if that could make the right-wing voices feel that they are not heard properly. “To say that there is a general dominance of the left ideology is a very ahistorical statement. When has the left ever dominated the academia? It [academia] has always been dominated by the elite and the upper caste sections in India. The left is not in power, so how can we dominate?” he responds. “It is the right-wing organisations’ propaganda and nothing else.”
Now that the revised syllabus has been taken back, essentially ending things the way the ABVP wanted, do parties like the SFI consider it a loss? Mr Kataria says, “It doesn’t mean that ABVP has won. It is our education system that has been defeated and not SFI or any other organisation…These are just attempts at destroying our democratic education system.”
{Four}
Professor Saikat Ghosh. AC member. Professor of English. Allegedly wanted by the ABVP to be “handed over”. Speaking to Mr Ghosh brings a few twists, and confusions, in the story.
He tells us that the information about the alleged “handing over” demand of the ABVP was given to him by the security personnel at the Viceregal Lodge, where the office of the Vice-Chancellor is located. “We were told by the security guards to disperse from the University premises at the earliest as the threat of violence is real.” He further added, “We were escorted out of a back entrance of the Viceregal Lodge in a clandestine way. We were also told that the lights surrounding the Garden outside the Viceregal Lodge were switched off by the ABVP to ensure that CCTV becomes ineffective in the case of an actual physical attack.”
“Unfortunate and indicative of vindictive rejection of the English Dept’s academic autonomy,” was how Mr Ghosh described the resultant withdrawal of the proposed syllabus by the English department. Claiming that the department’s “academic arguments are not being heeded,” Mr Ghosh alleged that the University Undergraduate Curriculum Revision Committee – tasked with overseeing the revision process – had “taken the role of a bully on behalf of the ABVP and NDTF (National Democratic Teachers’ Front)” – both linked to the RSS.
While Mr Singh had called for consultations with more teachers to ensure inclusivity in the process – he said only around 15 teachers of the English department drafted most of the new syllabus – Mr Ghosh contradicted him. “Prof. Rasal Singh is conveniently hiding the fact that 120+ teachers from across 50 DU colleges participated in the English syllabus revision,” he claimed. He further said that an “open call” was given in the English teachers’ General Body Meeting (GBM) in 2017 for voluntary participation in the syllabus revision, of which the “right-wing” teachers chose not to be a part. “Students, alumni and peers in the international academia recorded overwhelming praise,” he said about the revised syllabus, which was supposedly open for “public review and feedback for a month”.
“The NDTF and ABVP seemed to be sleeping through the entire exercise. The RSS is politicising it and not engaging with the academic merits of the syllabus,” he alleged. When we asked Mr Singh whether this was true, he replied that he said “whatever is fact.”
Mr Ghosh profoundly disagrees about the whole issue being an ideological one. He has been associated with the SFI in the past, but strictly maintains that his support for the syllabus has been on academic grounds and that he has not “asserted any party agenda.” He also said that many of the teachers involved in the exercise did not belong to any political background.
“The issue is not a battle between the Right and the Left. It is being given an ideological colour by those who don’t want the English department to give its students a world-class syllabus that allows them to engage with contemporary social and aesthetic concerns. The people opposed to the English syllabus are being unfair to thousands of students who dream of pursuing an English Honours degree from DU colleges,” he said.
Was the process really ideological in nature? Were only members of a certain ideology considered for the syllabus revision exercised, as alleged by some? Or was there an attempt made by the departments to accommodate as many teachers in the drafting exercise as possible, as was claimed by some others?
Professor Sanam Khanna, a teacher of English at Kamala Nehru College, also participated in the syllabus revision exercise. She said that the whole syllabus drafting exercise, which began two years ago, went something like this: “The English department called a General Body Meeting of all teachers from across the University. From the GBM, subcommittees were formed to look after clusters of papers. The drafting process starts from there based on what the teachers feel the students need, the shortcomings of the current syllabi, and feedback from their departments.”
DU Beat got access to some of the emails, dated 2017, which were sent as intimation regarding the syllabus drafting exercise.
E-mail 1E-mail 2The emails accessed by DU Beat show that invitations to be a part of the syllabus revision process were sent to a large number of professors and colleges.
The first and second images of the email dating 30 August 2017 show that the revision exercise was already underway at least as early as September 2017. Here, a clear request has been made for publicising the email as widely as possible and suggestions and recommendations have been invited. The email was sent by Professor Christel R. Devadawson, the then English HoD. The second email – also by Professor Devadawson – dated 29 October 2017, was sent to 357 recipients. The email seems to be about the committee on revising the syllabi for the core courses – an indication that multiple people were involved in the drafting exercise. “Mails such as these were sent to all principals and colleges as well as English teachers’ groups and email lists, inviting suggestions and participation,” Ms Khanna said. “So how can anyone say the process was ‘limited’? Whoever was interested came, attended and worked for over two years,” she added.
Ms Khanna also denied any ideological motivation behind the syllabi. “This is a huge collective effort. It decolonised the study of literature. For the first time in DU, so many Indian authors have been introduced in the syllabus. More than 100 Indian authors across different time periods and genres [were included]. What is leftist here? It is deeply painful to hear such unacademic responses,” she said.
We tried contacting Professor Sunil Kumar, the HoD of the History Department, via email but he did not respond to our queries by the time of publishing this article.
{Five}
What may have started as a purely academic exercise has now taken the form of an ideological and political tussle. The organisations holding protest after protest all come from one or the other ideological leaning; and the demonstrations seem to have taken an ugly shape. While all the politics is fair and well, we do wonder if the agitating parties have gone through the newly proposed texts. For all their claims of holding dialectics and discussion in high regard, did the right engage enough with the left and vice-versa? We may never know.
However, as things stand, another protest was held on 23rd July. Two days earlier, the revised syllabus was put before the Executive Council of the University for final approval; it was sent back for revision. Mr Singh welcomed this decision of referring back what he called the “propagandist” and “non-inclusive” syllabus to the respective departments. He said that the syllabi of these departments should be “comprehensively reviewed by including more teachers and stakeholders in the exercise.” He however expressed disappointment as “the teachers are hardly given any reasonable time to comprehensively and critically analyse all contents of these departments. The cosmetic and superficial approach on such an important academic matter will not serve the purpose.”
An oversight committee is now tasked with finalising the syllabi by 31 July. The syllabi of these departments was supposed to take effect from the current session onwards. While the revised syllabi of many other courses has been approved, as available on the University website, that of these departments hangs in the balance. Ms Khanna hints at this when she says, “We are worried about our students who are without a syllabus when every day is precious in this short semester system.”
March in defence of academic freedom and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s (ABVP) interference in the syllabus making of various departments of the University of Delhi, namely English, History, Sociology and Political Science took place at the Faculty of Arts on 23rd July amid tensions between the ABVP, departments involved and other student bodies. The protest took a political turn when the members of ABVP and Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) held a counter-protest expressing dissent over the protest.
Students from the English Department and student unions like Students Federation of India (SFI), All India Students Association (AISA), Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Pinjra Tod, along with the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA) held a march in the north campus of DU against ABVP’s opposition to DU’s syllabus-making process. An exercise that was meant to be academic in nature took a distinctly political turn at the meeting of the standing committee on academic matters, where the syllabus was presented on11th July. Rasal Singh, an elected representative of the National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) which is supposedly aligned with the ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), took issue with parts of the English syllabus that he wanted to be removed and some of the history syllabus that he wanted to be added.
The protest came in the wake of the episode of ABVP barging into the compound of the Vice Regal Lodge, and was rumoured to be asking for three professors, including the Heads of English and History department, to be handed over to them. Since then, ABVP has been protesting against those departments.
Kawalpreet Kaur, Delhi State President of AISA said, “It is well known that the syllabus of Delhi University has an unmatching standard. This owes to the professors who worked hard to maintain the DU’s academic quality. Clearly, ABVP’s intervention calls for systematic destruction of the course content of Delhi University. It is high time that we should all join hands and resist all such moves.”
Changes in the syllabus proposed by the English department of the University were opposed in a meeting of the Standing Committee to review the Undergraduate syllabus on 11th July. Among the proposals was the inclusion of study materials related to the role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and use of Hindu deities in the reading of Queer Literature. DU, having one of the most prestigious and world-class education in humanities and social sciences intends to provoke a critical faculty among the students. However, the references to Hindu deities and Gujarat riots have irked the right-wing forces.
Mahima Chaudhary, a student of Hindu college told DU Beat, “In an academic institution, no party has any right to dictate what should be taught and what not. It is truly fascist and undemocratic.”
Protesters at the Faculty of Arts.
ABVP and Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) have sought support from the academic world for representation of the students with regards to the inclusion of three R’s in the syllabus i.e. representation, review of the syllabus and rational debate. ABVP emphasised on the need for democratisation of academia. However, the intimidation and threatening nature of dissent ABVP used turned out to be anything but democratic.
Addressing the students, Sachin Narayanan, who teaches English at Dyal Singh College, said, “The controversy over the short story ‘Maniben alias Bibijan’ exposes the sinister designs of RSS-BJP government-backed groups and individuals in academia. Factually, neither this story nor the text containing this story was part of the Syllabus Committee’s proposed Undergraduate Programme English language syllabus at any stage. Bunch of lies are being spread to misguide people which must be exposed.”
Given the fact that the revised syllabus was uploaded on the website of the respective departments in the month of May, and feedback from the public was invited before it was presented before the University’s statutory bodies on 11th July, none of the objections was raised, giving the whole syllabus-making process a political turn. The protest took a political turn when ABVP and DUSU held a counter-protest outside the office of HoDs of 5 Departments of English, Sociology, Political Science, History, and Hindi. Headed by the President, Shakti Singh, members were seen shouting slogans like, “Tum naxalvaad se desh todoge, hum rashtravaad se jodenge” and criticised communist and left-wing forces in the campus. The campus had a heavy presence of police in view of the political turn the events had taken.
ABVP Protesters at Faculty of Arts
Shakti Singh told DU Beat, “The way in which Hindu deities are being depicted in the syllabus is very unfortunate. We have written to the Chancellor of DU for the students’ representation in the syllabus making process, and we demand the administration to bring in a new syllabus considering the demands of the students.”
“The entire left-wing professors and the administration of Delhi University must be held responsible for this.” he further added.
The fact of the linkages between Hindu deities and LGBTQ being regarded as “unfortunate” is itself contradictory for a progressive institution like DU. The academic fervour of the University stands threatened and vulnerable by the political turn the events have taken. The subjects of humanities and social sciences are undoubtedly political in nature; however, they also amalgamate the confluence of various thought of schools and discourses. Turning a blind eye and creating a political situation on a dominant opinion threatens the academic stimulation of the various courses being taught in the University. The consequences of the ideological warfare have to be borne by the students and the politicisation of an academic affair raises eyebrows over the academic autonomy of the University
Feature Image Credits: Sriya Rane and Noihrit Gogoi for DU Beat
