The current status of opposition in our country is extremely feeble, and it’s not a healthy sign for a democracy.

If not Modi, then who? This rhetoric, which doesn’t even qualify being called a question, is suggestive of a weak state of opposition in our country, which makes people elect terror accused and hate mongers for the sake of one person. However, this question was asked after the strategies aimed to weaken the opposition were set in motion which were relatively easier, owing to their lack of competency in the first place. But what made them touch a new low and cease their existence as an alternative altogether? 

With a heavy PR marketing and ever famous IT cell, the propaganda was diluted very subtly. With huge corporate backups and resources, the opposition fell short drastically. A lack of better leadership and money as compared to the ruling party sowed seeds for cynicism against opposition. Very strategically accountability was shifted to opposition, everything started to go back to Nehru and Gandhi, and lost in this never-ending process were actual public concerns. Things were such that allegations were ensued of buying of opposition leaders in Karnataka. It’s shameful that the representatives of dissidents are thrashed so blatantly that dissidents would not want to associate themselves with such an embarrassment.

People might think why a popularly elected government with a heavy majority is problematic? Why is the opposition displeased with the works of the government aimed at national interest? Why do people speak ill of the ruling party? Well to answer that, we have to understand that democracy is not confined to a majority opinion. It’s inclusive of all the opinions by all of the people. If there’s representation of just one kind of view, it’s not sufficient. In a democracy we need to have counter opinions, checks and balances, and so far the onus of this was on opposition which has failed us and also been constructed to fail us, that we are now sinking. 

Such a bereftness led to students, activists, satirists, and artists composing a voice of dissent as opposition. Although their cause is helpful for maintaining some counter opinions thus saving us from a site of an all majoritarian crisis, unless it’s not on the political grounds as oppositions, it would do no good. 

A very basic definition of democracy taught us that it is of the people, by the people, and for the people. It’s time we see who these people are. Can you see yourself or can you see only yourself getting a representation? 

Featured image credits: News 18

Umaima Khanam

[email protected]


As we shut our ears to the cacophony of the other side, the institution of democracy loses its ability to hold people together. 

If the numbers are right, we are moving towards a world where everything is stretched and tied to two ends. Cass Sunstein, a Professor at Harvard University, argued whether the new public sphere woven by the internet acts as ‘echo chambers’ or not. In a paper published in 2002, Sunstein uses activities on Facebook to quantify people’s engagement with the other side. Several studies suggest that while interactions across the ideological divide are almost negligible, the ability to selectively exclude certain pages and people to pop into one’s feed can lead to both polarization and convergence.


Birds of a feather flock together

The idea of homophily is intrinsic to human beings. There’s a tendency to bond and associate with similar others. That is why people of a community tend to hold together in foreign lands. It is also the reason why Indians and Pakistanis bond so well as immigrants in a western country, particularly due to a South Asian affinity.

The feathers begin to rot when they’re painted with political colours. People begin to ignore facts and constantly attempt to prove the other side wrong. Political polarization then extends to sensitive issues like LGBTQ rights, climate change and abortion. The Red states in the US actively deny climate change, even after being exposed to facts which claim the opposite. Groups, therefore, have shared opinions on most issues.

Political Echo Chambers allow think tanks and entrepreneurs to exploit voters by fooling them using certain tactics. They help leaders to present different images to different people, which helps them to secure a place in the heart of every voter. A single leader can be present at many places ideologically, by presenting themselves differently to different kinds of voters.


The Internet as a ‘Public Space’

The bricks of these chambers are placed by the invisible hands of the Internet. With its invention, people believed that the world will now be able to interact with each other in a better manner, thereby filling chests with tolerance and empathy. As a fact, on Facebook, 99.91 per cent of the two billion people on it belongs to a single huge component, and hence everyone is connected to everyone in some manner. Unfortunately, none of this has led to fruitful conversations among people.

For one, sites like Twitter and Facebook function as echo chambers. The design of such websites allows people to adopt a homophilic approach, which narrows the divide between the Internet and the real world. A study of 2.2 million politically engaged users on Twitter in the US finds that while there are roughly 90 million network links among these users, 98 per cent of first retweets of Republican voters come from conservative voters. The corresponding number for Democrats is 86 per cent.


Offline Polarization

But polarization is not limited to the internet users. Fake news was invented long before Facebook, and partisanship existed through newspapers and TV channels. News Channels, to maintain their viewership, picked sides and broke their supposed vow of remaining unbiased. While Fox news moved towards the right, channels like MSNBC started appealing more to liberal voters of the US. A homogeneous audience pushed them towards their extreme sides, something that these channels might not have anticipated. Polarization has increased the most for an older audience, who are least likely to be on the internet and consume articles produced by traditional media houses.


Effect on Preferences

Economists like to assume that preferences are both stable and coherent. But the former might lose ground if the idea of Echo Chambers yields the expected results. Absurd preferences, such as a hatred for blacks, can get intensified with repetitive exposure to similar views. Such peculiar opinions keep persisting due to limited exposure to the other side. Furthermore, the opportunity to choose the news one consumes adds fuel to the fire.


An Ailing Civic Discourse

An understatement would be to say that Echo Chambers do not encompass matters of civic importance. Social media has made it easier for news to originate and circulate, which means that virtually anyone can produce a rumour within seconds, and these chambers can, in turn, empower such people. It kills the production of reliable news and analysis. Moreover, original pieces aren’t credited, since copying something is easier than ever now.

Facts cease to matter after a point. Constant repetition of certain ideas targeted at certain people pushes them into a cult. Ideas become elements of belief for people, an ideology they must hold onto to ‘prevent’ the other side from attacking them. Conversations become violent and stop yielding results. Lack of confrontation in the virtual world erodes mannerism, which encourages sharp language that only results in chaos. As Plato pointed out in Allegory of the Cave, ridiculing the uninformed is the worst form of enlightenment, and radicalization is the only fruit.


The Democracy of the Future

As people get disconnected over a network of connections, the idea of democracy weakens. Polarization, as is evident, happens offline as well, which affects people of all ages. Radical views are supported by numerous people now, and the truth loses its value. Democracy, which is supposed to work for everyone, folds itself into the world of a group of self-conforming individuals who hold mirrors and reflect similar ideas. The walls prevent interaction with the outside world. An example of how a Radio company’s actions in Rwanda led to a mass genocide of fifty thousand people is chilling. The way out of these chambers is unknown since people can customize what they view.

But this choice itself can be a saviour. Experiments show that people choose to move towards the centre when informed about the leanings of all media houses. But such laboratory customized experiments can only reveal a little about this world. We are yet to solve most of our problems.


Featured Image Credits: BBC Future


Kuber Bathla

[email protected]

The Preamble to the Constitution of India is a brief statement that highlights the values and principles of the Constitution and our Country. How far have we strayed from it though?

Thanks to the very first page of our NCERT Books, we are all familiar with the Preamble. Although the Preamble is a concept borrowed from the American Constitution, it highlights the essence of what came out of the Constituent Assembly debates. The debates concluded in making India, a Nation based on the principles of social justice and democracy.

Indian nationalism had always been inclusive, overcoming conflicting social identities for the overall development of the Nation. The Constitution laid down a strong foundation for a newly independent Nation, following the principles of social justice and inclusivity, and promoting the ideology of social liberalism. Despite this strong foundation, it seems somewhere along the line we all deviated from these principles.

The Preamble starts with the words Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, and Republic. While India’s position as a socialist country is open to question, it is no secret that India has deviated from the belief of secularism. What had started way back through identity politics was only heightened during the Babri Masjid demolition and the Gujarat riots. The openly inflammatory speeches, mob-lynching, and the recently passed Citizenship (Amendment) Act are proofs all around us. On paper, India is also the world’s largest democracy. But can a Country, whose Government remains unavailable to questions and criticism on its policies and statements by its citizens, be called democratic?

The first thing the Preamble promises is Justice (social, economic, and political). Social Justice stands for eliminating all forms of exploitation and the presence of socially privileged classes from the society. But, exploitation of women, minorities, and the poor exists all around us- in manual labour, in manual scavenging, and in the very concept of working class. Economic justice stands for equitable distribution of wealth and economic equality, but recent reports say that the richest one per cent of the Country’s population, now holds 73 per cent of the Country’s wealth. Fortunately, the basic rights of universal adult suffrage and equal political participation are still secure.

The next thing the Preamble promises is Liberty (of thought, expression, belief, faith, and worship). The lack of this principle in practice is glaringly obvious. Thought and expression are accepted, only when it conforms to the ideals of the Government. Labels of ‘anti-national’ and ‘urban Naxal’ are quick to be attached to anyone and anything that raises a strong argument against the Government. Unsurprisingly, India’s rank on World Press Freedom Index is 140 out of 180. While the liberty of belief, faith, and worship do exist, believing in different Gods has now become a cause of enmity.

The third thing the Preamble promises is Equality (of status and opportunity). But, there’s discrimination on the basis of class, caste, religion, sex, gender, and colour in our daily lives. There is an outrageous gap between the privileged and the less privileged classes of society. While the Country also guarantees us, Rule of Law, a careful look at just the recent events in the Country speak more than enough. George Orwell’s famous words in his book Animal Farm, “All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others,” are intimidatingly accurate in the context of the country. The last thing the Preamble promises is Fraternity (assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation). Fraternity, here, refers to a feeling of ‘brotherhood’, a brotherhood which gets clouded with communalism and casteism too often. Although, seeing the solidarity among the universities across the Nation against violence and police brutality in the university campuses, we hopefully haven’t diverged much from this principle.

Every day, it seems like this Country moves further away from light, and these complex terms- Justice, Equality, and Democracy- lose meaning to become mere ritualistic words. In these testing political times, we must not forget what our Constitution and our Country stand for. In these political times, we must not forget what we stand for.


Image Credits: Aditi Gutgutia for DU Beat

Satviki Sanjay

[email protected]

India, known as one of the oldest democracies of the world boasts of registering its name in the list of the most successful governments existing at present. But, to what extent are these records accurate? Do these statistics share a common view with the common Indians? This Republic day, we dive in the history of India’s elective Government and to what level it justifies this title.

Democracy as defined by the Oxford dictionary is – “a form of government that allows the citizens to participate in political decision making, or to elect representatives to government bodies.”

India, is largely considered as one of the greatest democracies of the world, for its unity while housing a huge diversity. But, how far do you think this statement holds true? Do the political leaders in power, indiscriminately represent the voice of the common for real? As per the essence of Democracy,  one may doubt that despite of a political party possessing the power the title of “ruling”, is the actual power truly resident in the hands of the Indian voters? Questions like these often pop in our mind when we start our day with our morning dose of chai reading the daily document of latest happenings.

The elective Government of India, in its entire tenure of existence, includes some happenings which make us rethink of us being the citizens of a representative nation. Infact, without any provision to make the person standing in the elections to abide by his words and promises when he gets to rule, one can even perceive the democratic rule of India to be limited only till the proceedings of the election propaganda. The leaders, who at the time of contesting elections claim to invest the people’s money in various developmental schemes, hardly maintain any transparency about the utilisation of that currency after coming into power. Ironically the Government which claims to be belonging to the people, becomes unsuccessful in being truthful and open to the same people.

The common man and woman who, sardonically are of supreme importance in an elective nation, have no direct power to remove the modern day monarch AKA Prime Minister for five complete years, if he proves to be contrary to what he projected himself while seeking the support of the people. All they can do is create pressure on the ruling party by Dharnas, protests or strikes which again by the ultimate power of the modern monarch and his officials are often shunned by their control over the police, as was exemplified by the recent speculation about the incident of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI). The opposition which is meant to play a crucial role in guarding the ruling party often ends up in either using nasty ways to brainwash the people causing a turmoil or highlighting only the self beneficent issues, excluding the matters associated with the good of the masses.

Surely, India has progressed massively since 1950 which doubtlessly deserves all the appreciation but yet, there are many deep loopholes, shortcomings and blemishes which require appropriate treatments to maintain the Nation’s spirit of democracy. So, this Republic Day lets not only celebrate the country’s success but also commit to spreading awareness, and take measures to transform it into a true democracy, not only in words but also in action.

Feature Image Credits: Medium

Kriti Gupta
[email protected]

When the world’s biggest democracy drifts away from the path of Constitutional democracy to majoritarianism, it becomes important to understand the nuances that make it so dangerous.

India in the past few months, has been nothing less than a caged reign of terror and a saffron surge. The country has been riddled with internet shutdowns and police brutality; it becomes hard to compare it to any other democracy in the contemporary World. The ambiance has become one of fear, terror, and rampant Islamophobia. This Government-funded state of terror is evidently a result of a systematic shift in the country’s democratic structure which unfortunately for the Government in power, at this point, has become hard to miss.

Majoritarianism is a traditional political philosophy or agenda that asserts that a majority (sometimes categorised by religion, language, social class, or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. On the contrary, India as a National State was made to be built on a constitutional democratic model- a democracy that takes into account the sentiments of not just the majority, but also of the minority.

Plato, when discussing democracy, asked the question of who should rule-that person being the wisest. But Karl Popper questioned that idea and talked of how this rule could turn into absolutism, where vested power turns tyrannical. It is then that popular vote becomes dangerous- after all, Perón and Hitler were voted into power democratically. Thus, democracy cannot imply that the vote of the majority is “an authoritative expression of what is right.”

A democratically elected Government of a secular state introduced a Bill that discriminated on the basis of religion, and endangered tribal cultural identity. A democratically elected Government of a Republic State gave national orders to oppress its citizens, took away the rights of citizens’ connectivity, and condoned police brutality. A democratically elected State is responsible for widespread Islamophobia throughout the nation, through a systematic way that it has managed to convince its citizens that it is in fact, not with an ideology of “eating the educated” and silencing its dissenters. It is this democratically elected Government that introduced a law comparable to Nazi Germany, where Nuremberg Laws and Reich Citizenship Laws declared who were eligible to be Reich citizens-with Jews being excluded.

It was a unanimous decision to make India a Secular, Socialist, Republic State, after the 42nd Amendment. The world’s longest written Constitution had days and months of discussion to safeguard its minorities. The National Government has passed several laws in recent years that have made life more difficult for religious minorities. India was never meant to be a Hindu homeland, they argue that it sits well with India’s ‘Humanitarian Values’. They argue that it helps safeguard minorities in Muslim majority countries but ignore India’s chequered history of refugee protection, and fail to recognise that the discriminatory nature of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, and the crackdown on dissent are signs of in-built minority persecution.

Already, countries like Canada and Australia are experiencing refugees from the ‘Hindu Rashtra’. International Law recognised persecution as a benchmark for asylum, and acceptance of these refugees from India should be a warning concern for us all. It is our duty and responsibility to safeguard the country’s minority- a country full of diversity and rich history. It is important to understand that the nation and the government are not synonymous, and to internalise it when Mark Twain said, “Loyalty to the nation all the time, loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.”

Featured Image Credits: Al Jazeera

Shreya Juyal

[email protected]

Democracy is often hailed as the ‘perfect’ government system. However, in a political system which rests heavily on its questioning nature, it is rather rare that we see questions being put up on the democratic system itself. However, this was not the case with Socrates, what was his criticisms? Read ahead to find out.

Ancient Greece is hailed for two of its prime contribution to the humankind, on being the system of Democracy and the other being Greek Philosophy. While Socrates is regarded as the father of Greek Philosophy, he did not have the same regard towards his civilisation’s other great social invention, Democracy. His problems with democracy are stated in Plato’s ‘Republic of Plato’.

Plato regarded Socrates as a pessimistic person and hence in Book Six of ‘Republic of Plato’. Plato describes Socrates falling in a conversation with an imaginary character, Adiemantus, trying to get him to see the fallacies of democracy. If you were heading out on a journey by sea, asks Socrates, who would you ideally want deciding who was in charge of the vessel? Just anyone or people educated in the rules and demands of seafaring? The latter of course, says Adeimantus, so why then, responds Socrates, do we keep thinking that any old person should be fit to judge who should be a ruler of a country? Thereby Socrates emphasises on the fact that voting is a skill and not an intuition.

He further states that citizens should be taught the ‘art of voting’. According to him, letting citizens vote without any teaching is as catastrophic as letting random people in charge of a ship heading straight into a storm. Another example, given by Socrates, is that of two contesting candidates. wherein one was a doctor while the other was a sweet shop owner. The sweet shop owner in his arguments accuses that the doctor is evil, he gives everyone bitter potions and refrains people from eating everything. While the sweet shop owner himself, says, that he on the contrary never stops anyone from eating anything and moreover gives people delicious sweets. It is not difficult to think that the doctor can’t defeat the sweet shop owner with just the argument that whatever he does is for the benefit of the people itself. And therefore, we see so many sweet shop owners and not doctors in parliaments all over the world.

Socrates never attacked on the ideals of democracy, however, he had problems with the system which we today know as Universal Adult Franchise. Moreover, Socrates advocated for the democracy which we today know as ‘intellectual’ democracy rather than democracy ‘by birth’. He warned us that this indiscriminate granting of voting rights to people without proper education would lead to Demagoguery or the practice to getting votes by appealing to the desires and prejudices of the voters rather than using rational arguments. We can clearly see today, as to why Socrates was concerned for democracy.

Taking the example of India itself, we as voters have been swayed by political parties for a long time by issues that only appealed to our prejudices and not to our needs. Be it reservation or agricultural loan waivers, political parties often use these issues to gain votes. On the other hand, the public also has become so familiar with this form of appeasement that elections are used as pressure points on various parties by the people wanting to get their job done.

Moreover, the voters also vote for leaders who provide short term lucrative solutions rather than the ones who implement long term measures. It is this political illiteracy because of which our parliament houses a total 43% Ministers of Parliament (MPs) with a criminal background. Be it the Indian National Congress MP from Idukki, Dean Kuriakose who has over 204 criminal charges like homicide, robbery, etc. or Bhartiya Janata Party’s MP Pragya Singh Thakur who is the prime suspect of Malegaon Serial Blasts or Bahujan Samaj Party’s MP Atul Singh who has charges of murder on him.

Faizan Salik, a student of Jamia Milia Islamia, said, “In my opinion, teaching fundamental rights and duties of Liberal Democracy at primary level doesn’t help, as most just study it for the sake of studying they fail to understand things, which is really problematic, teaching of essential politics is as essential as basic banking, else wise things can go in dungeon”.

An alumna of Delhi University, Mrinalika Chauhan, said, “We as voters have to understand that it is not in our favour to vote for leaders who aren’t rational enough. Yes, it will take time but we have start at the grassroots level. Each and every person in India is interested in politics, whatever their leaning maybe. What needs to be changed is that people vote based on their understanding of politics, instead of sticking to their traditional party.”

The question which arises is that whether we can change this setting or not? And here also it is Socrates’s thoughts which can help us, “Struggle is like a steep hill which looks just impossible to scale at once but when you reach the top, you don’t think about the climb but the triumph.”
Featured Image Credits: Flickr
Aniket Singh Chauhan [email protected] 


On 5th September, 2019, DU Beat conducted an interview with Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad’s (ABVP) Vice Presidential candidate, Pradeep Tanwar to know him and his perspective regarding the upcoming Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections.

Pradeep Tanwar, is a graduate in B.A. Programme from P.G.D.A.V College. He’s currently pursuing his masters in Hindi from Deshbandhu College. He has been a part of ABVP since 2015, and believes his true interest lies in politics and solving students’ problems.

What are the main issues you and your party will focus on for DUSU 2019? 

The main issues we will focus on are:

  1. Metro concession pass: it’s unfair to ask a student who comes from a middle-class family to spend so much on travelling. Our biggest fight is for metro concession passes.
  2. Hostels in South Campus: Except Venky (Sri Venkateswara College), there aren’t a lot of colleges that have hostels in south campus. We will work to establish these hostels.

To the common student, DUSU feels like an unapproachable political entity, what will you and your party do to ensure accountability to the students of University of Delhi?

I, along with other ABVP members, have went to each college to personally listen to the problems of students and solve them. Students get help from ABVP from the time they get their admission done to the date of their farewell. I will personally organise campaigns in each college to listen to students.

The incidents on Old Gupta Road and Hindu Rao Hospital highlight security concerns for those living in North Campus, what steps will you take to ensure safety and security on campus?

Of course, we’re working towards making campus safer. We’ve made a committee to look into this, and asses the cases to make campus student-friendly.

Campaigning every year uses up a tremendous amount of paper for pamphlets, posters etc., which then leads to litter on campus, what is your say on the matter?

These are how elections take place, it has become a method by all parties. ABVP doesn’t do littering as we’re always fighting for a clean campus.

University of Delhi (DU) was recently declared an Institute of Eminence by the Union Government which entitles DU to a payment of a 1000 crores over 5 years, however,  the trend in 2019 in DU has been of increasing fees and hostel rates, why do you think this is so? And what will your party do to reduce fee hikes and hostel rates?

It’s the staff and other people involved who are using this money for their own benefits. We’re working constantly towards fighting fee hikes. We protest or petition, but we always get success for students. Deshbandhu College had raised its fees, we had protested there with the students.

The Lyngdoh Committee lays down 5000 rupees as the maximum expenditure amount, how does your party maintain it?

We always manage our campaigning under the budget. We follow all rules of the committee. ABVP works all year round so we don’t require high campaigning.

Which element differentiates you from the other contenders for the post of Vice President?

What differentiates me, is my affiliation to ABVP. Students will vote for me as ABVP is the only party that works year-round for the students on a ground level, unlike other parties.

Last year, there were allegations of EVM tampering against ABVP, also to be noted, the EVM’s were privately supplied and not by the Election Commissions, how do you plan to make sure elections are held fairly?

You ask this question to us on every meeting. I would like to inform that ABVP follows the rules of Lyngdoh committee very well. At this point, all other parties are non-existent and then they use these dirty tactics making politics intimidating for all.


ABVP Panel

President: Akshit Dahiya, Ballot No.1

Vice President: Pradeep Tanwar, Ballot No. 5

Secretary: Yogit Rathi, Ballot No. 3

Joint Secretary: Shivangi Kharwal, Ballot No. 4

Feature Image Credits : ABVP

Chhavi Bahmba

[email protected]


In July, 2019, the Allahabad University replaced the 96-year-old Student Union with a Student Council. Running on the same track, in October 2018, the Odisha Government notified that the Students’ Union polls will not be held in five major universities and 35 colleges due to violence . On June 7, 2017, the West Bengal government issued an order that replaced the term student union by student council . Although the Lyngdoh guidelines are mandatory for all colleges and universities and its first clause says that elections must be held in the institutes, but many universities like the Banaras Hindu University and Osmania University do not have a student body and elections have not been held since long. Out of the total 789 universities, only 50 or 60 universities are properly conducting student election . The mandatory elections norm continues to be violated by several
universities across the country.
However, student elections will take place this year in Maharashtra’s 11 state universities and affiliated colleges more than a quarter century after they were banned in 1993 by the then Congress government of M Sudhakar Rao Naik. The decks have been cleared for holding the student union
elections in Bihar universities after a gap of almost three decades in August ,2012.
The states and universities authorities take all the decision arbitrarily on the serious issue of students politics .The authority gives two grounds – first violence and second violation of Lyngdoh Committee. There are violence and hooliganism in the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha Elections as well. If Election Commission can conduct free and fair election in Baster and Kashmir then why
authorities are failing to conduct it in campuses.
So on the ground of violence, administration can’t deny electoral right. Actually, student politics need to be systemized with the law and order . Even, Indian parliament has failed to address and readdress student election problem. In spite of the fact that most of the famous and established
leaders come from student politics.
Presently, student election is being regulated in India by the judicial order not by any executive or legislative order . After the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principal’s Colleges, Kerala & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 304, (referred to as “University of Kerala 1”) case , Lyngdoh Committee
was formed in 2006 by the HRD ministry to suggest reforms in the student union elections at the college/university levels. It was argued that these were becoming places of political tensions escalating into violent encounters between students. Under the leadership of J.M. Lyngdoh, it submitted its report to the Supreme Court of India on May 26, 2006. The Supreme Court on
September 22nd of the same year issued an order directing the college/university to follow and implement the committee’s recommendations. Lyngdoh Committee aimed at making elections cleaner, non-violent, and curbing the use of money and muscle power in the elections. In the
committee ,there were . Mr. J.M.Lyngdoh, Retd. Chief Election Commissioner (Chairman), Dr. Zoya Hassan, Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Dr.Daya Nand Dongaonkar (Secretary General of the
Association of Indian Universities). Justice Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly held the order of Lyngdoh committee report as legislative order.
Lyngdoh Committee aimed at making elections cleaner, non-violent, and curbing the use of money and muscle power in the elections but it has failed on all fronts. There is a long list of recommendations, which are flouted in every elections, like the Committee explains that (6.6.1) the maximum permitted expenditure per candidate shall be ?5000, clause 6.7.5: No candidate shall be
permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets and 6.7.9: clause says that during the election period the candidates may hold processions and/or public meetings, provided that they do not, in any manner, disturb classes and other academic and co-curricular activities of the
college/university. Lyngdoh prohibited political parties from contest election and said that only
independent candidates can contest. The Lyngdoh also confused student council and student union.
Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.1 of the Lyngdoh committee reports that only universities with a small
campus and fewer students, like JNU and Hyderabad University, should be allowed to form their
student unions via direct elections. The Allahabad university administration’s scrapped the Union
into council on this basis. The model Student Union differ from student counselling on fundamental
structures. Various positions of this council including President and Treasurer will not be elected by
students but nominated by the head of that specific institute. The Class Representatives will vote
and choose it’s General Secretary instead of direct elections. Basically, this body would be stripped
of its political voice or ability to reconcile under a banner to raise demands of the students. It would
be limited to organize cultural events and other such activities.
In reality Lyngdoh has failed and students politics needs major intervention by the Parliament.
Students politics needs a valuable legislation to scrap the Lyngdoh like National Student Union Act.
Instead an idea of one nation one election should be implemented in all the university. Election Commission of India should conduct elections instead of the university authority.
In reality, students politics is not only important for students but it is in national interest. Without the strong students politics Indian democracy can not run energetically. The democracy needs aware citizens , movement , intuitional awareness and those who can resists for their right .The students politics has all these character.
The youth is largest stake holder in Indian politics .The largest identity has its own challenges .

Without the integration of youth, Indian democracy can’t survive .The Indian parliament is one of the oldest parliament(in terms average age of parliamentarians) in a young country like India. The present day politics has excludes youth from politics as they think it to be highly nepotistic and filled
with unnecessary money-muscle power. This can be corrected through student politics . It is one of the easiest way through which a marginalised can become a leader. The philosopher likes of Plato as well as contemporary thinkers including American philosopher Martha Nussbaum have emphasised the need for political consciousness among the youth, which student politics create. Nussbaum has
written in her work, Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education, “It would be catastrophic to become a nation of technically competent people who have lost the ability
to think critically, to examine themselves, and to respect the humanity and diversity of others .”
The Indian youth have the capacities to take democracy in their hands .He has capacity to
revolutionise the people like international students movement . The Vietnam War Protests – 1966-1969 , Anti-Apartheid – 1976 and Tiananmen Square Protest – 1989 ,these three student protests that changed history of the world. Even, Indian student movements have had some successful movements like, indian freedom struggle ,1977 Sampoorn kranti JP movement and 2011 Anti
corruption movement .
In the first week and second week of September,2019 ,Asia’s biggest Students Union election would be happening in the Jawahar Lal Nehru University and University of Delhi. Let’s celebrate youth democracy and demand to regulate the law of National students union election and open the door
of youth into politics .
Raja Choudhary
(Former DUSU Presidential candidate and student of Faculty of Law , University Of Delhi . He is also the author of a book titled ‘Ayodhya’)

A true democracy is where everyone is equal. The one who sits on the chair and the one who stands below have equal rights and powers. This equality comes when everyone has the right to question those in power. This makes the authority accountable to people and also allows those who don’t hold any position of power demand the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution. In the Indian scenario, where questioning elders is deemed as disrespect, a majority of the country never learns this art of critical thinking which is essential for the soul of every democracy to survive on.

The University of Delhi (DU) is considered as one of the most politically active campuses in the country. Every other day, you can find a protest, gathering or a rally for various reasons in its north campus. This protest culture of the University offers a lot to learn from the students. These protests not only gather support for various demands but also become an important chapter in your learning process. It teaches you how to question authority and how to register dissent in person or as a community. This lesson further helps you to speak your mind and share your thoughts without any fear of authority.  Regardless of the immediate goal at hand, be it high hostel fees or poor infrastructure, it trains you to be proactive against larger issues throughout your life.

These protests also instil in you the courage to fight and the resilience to survive opposition from systemic forces. Many a time, people face oppression because the victim either lacks the courage or the knowledge required to speak up. This courage won’t just help you grow as a leader but also helps you in articulating your opinions on public platforms. Be it in corporate boardrooms or political meetings, courageous leaders are the need of the hour today. Given the history of the University, some student protesters such as Arun Jaitley and Shashi Tharoor have grown up to become senior politicians in the country. The ability to stand up for what you believe in determines your position in the society.

Be it the case of adhocism of teachers, a fake encounter in a Naxalite area or the plight of Syrian refugees, every major injustice, be it local or global is highlighted through protests in the University.

Today, as incumbent governments across countries are cracking down on dissent and vilifying the protest culture as ‘anti-national’, the time requires you to learn how to protest more than ever before. The next time you see a protest or find an invitation regarding something you feel strongly about, make it a point to participate. By staying silent or avoiding protests you are killing someone who is most important to your future, the leader inside you.


Srivedant Kar

[email protected]

Now that the MBA entrances are over, it’s time for the Group Discussions, Interviews and so the preparations are in full swing. When it comes to mock GDs, there are always those clichéd topics that never seem to get old and make the students feel like they’ve hit the jackpot.

One such evergreen topic relates to the success (or the lack thereof) of democracy in India. This seems to ignite such passion in the contestants that the best you can do is to hide under your chair to prevent being caught in the crossfire as they try to rip each other’s throats out. But the one emotion that seems to stand out in such a heated discussion is the absolutely loathsome outlook that they share for the politicians across the country.

While some argued that the numerous scams that pop up each day spelled the death of democracy, yet others argued that it wasn’t irreparably damaged and that effective policies could go a long way in helping it rise from the ashes. One gentleman vehemently argued that there was no antidote, for the system had completely failed. He went on to add that India should emulate the American bipartisan system of democracy and that he would rather migrate to the USA than live in India. There were a few who tried feebly to counter his arguments but were soon convinced by his arguments and nodded meekly as they were swayed by his ‘eloquence’.

Conclusion: We’re tired of such rampant corruption and lack of even a shred of morality in the political structure of this country. But we’re much too involved with our own lives to take a step forward and own up to our responsibility; to ever make an active contribution to cleaning up the mess that is politics for the fear of tarnishing our own image by mere association.

That right there, I believe, is the death of democracy; where the people have the freedom to make a choice but don’t want to exercise it. If we can’t forgo our own selfish interests, regardless of what they might be, and choose to curse from afar, then why do we expect the politicians to put national interest ahead of their own needs? Be the change you want to see, isn’t it?


Surya Rajappan
[email protected]