Latest
DU Beat – Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper
Tag

dusu

Browsing
Campus Central

Manufactured Choices in DUSU Elections and What Needs to Be Done Beyond the Ballot

By

Campus politics often mirrors national politics in ways that feel uncomfortably familiar. The fractures inside DU echo larger democratic patterns, while the Left continues to wrestle with questions of unity, relevance, and survival in DU’s current landscape.

Every year in DUSU elections, the positions are clean-swept by ABVP and NSUI, the student wings backed by the RSS (and by extension BJP) and Congress, respectively. Each year during the elections, questions are raised about what drives the electoral politics of DU, and the answer often isn’t ideas but an intermix of caste and class, alongside a blind display of money and muscle, not just in campaigning but even in how candidates secure their tickets. From the number of SUVs to banners and posters printed, everything is taken into account. This reflects how politics and democracy in our country often seem to operate based on social and caste equations; here, ideas and ideologies frequently take a back seat.

This time we saw an overwhelming majority of ABVP wins in DUSU; the only seat won by NSUI was the Vice President’s. After Ronak Khatri’s viral Instagram reels and popularity, NSUI might have expected a better chance, so where did it go so wrong? The answer, which connects us to the bigger picture as well, may lie in the sudden exit of Umanshi Lamba from NSUI. After Khatri, she was perhaps their most popular member, but when the party refused to give her a ticket, she contested as an independent candidate. While details on why she was denied remain unclear, it can be speculated that the party’s decisions were shaped less by ideas, logic, or strategy and more by personal relationships. A parallel can be drawn with the 2024 Haryana elections, where Kumari Selja, Sirsa MP and senior Congress leader, had expressed willingness to enter state politics and sought a ticket for a family member from Uklana, her native village. Despite local enthusiasm and Selja’s overall popularity, the ticket was denied, leading to the BJP’s win in her own constituency. This pseudo-democratic model of elections, where choices are manufactured and popular candidates among voters are sidelined, often results in the kind of politics we see in DUSU today.

When ABVP sweeps votes in this way, questions are also raised about the significance of progressive politics and organisations in DU. AISA, even with a larger cadre than other leftist groups, often fails to deploy candidates with experience and real popularity on campus. First-years are frequently fielded—students who have only just joined the university are expected to gather support, build campaigns, and become the party’s public face. The AISA-SFI alliance in DUSU was finalised only in the last week before the election, leaving their campaigns entirely separate. This reinforced the perception that the Left is not a united front. AISA and SFI often distinguish themselves because of their different parent parties, and though their student members protest similar issues, the alliance falters on these divisions. The breaking of the AISA-SFI alliance in JNU and HCU has likewise allowed ABVP to bag seats in universities where progressive organisations had enjoyed majority support for decades.

That said, it would be false to say the Left’s electoral losses are solely due to weak campaigning. More than a decade of right-wing rule at the centre has fractured university structures, making it increasingly difficult for progressive organisations to sustain themselves. Right-wing ideologies are being taught and subtly embedded into daily life, to the point of becoming the default. To bridge this gap, the Left needs to focus on building strong organisations and mobilising students through education, creating space for nuanced and alternative ideologies, and calling out pseudo-democratic elections, rather than participating in a corrupt electoral system without first demanding change.

Image Caption: NSUI vs ABVP: more muscle, less manifesto. 

Image Source: SVC Student

By Gaurika Bahl

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUSU

Understanding Ideologies: DUSU Candidates and what they stand for

By

There has always been an ideological conflict in the Indian political environment, which has inevitably trickled down to student politics. Understanding national sentiment and its future is thus impossible without first understanding how the youth perceives it. 

The Delhi University student election season has come and gone yet again, with another set of representatives coming into office. This year, we saw an ABVP majority within the four central panel posts, namely Aryan Maan from ABVP as DUSU president, Rahul Jhansla from NSUI as vice president, and Kunal Choudhary and Deepika Jha, both from ABVP, as secretary and joint secretary respectively. While all candidates who contested for these posts expressed concern over student welfare, different approaches were taken to this endeavour by candidates affiliated with the different parties. 

ABVP reportedly consulted over 5000 students to construct its campaign manifesto, which included largely infrastructural reforms, along with pan-DU college integration, a section on gender sensitisation, (where “Pink Booths” for female police officers would be set up around girls’ colleges) subsidised health insurance for students, while also mentioning students with disabilities, metro concessions and concerns regarding ECA admissions. Since the ABVP is the student wing of the RSS and a consequent affiliate of the present ruling government, it was noticed that many of the points brought up in their manifesto actually represent a student-centric translation of the issues talked about by the present government, such as the sanitation of stray dogs, for which it faced controversy earlier in the year due to a perceived extreme stance. 

 

On the other hand, even though the campaign manifesto released by NSUI voiced many of these same concerns, some said that the issues raised were indicative of Rahul Gandhi’s idea of opening a “Mohabbat Ki Dukan”. While addressing infrastructural, accessibility, and inclusivity issues similar to the ABVP, the party also promised the abolition of the Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) and its consequent fee hikes, in addition to demanding the rolling back of the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020, on the grounds that it commercialises education. The party also released a distinct “NSUI’s Women Manifesto” under which 12 days of menstrual leave per semester would be granted, in addition to pledging a zero-tolerance policy on harassment, medical and counselling sessions, a functional Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) in every college and bhaagidari or equal representation at all levels.

 

While some have said that the issues targeted by ABVP and NSUI and the solutions provided by them are “practical” in nature, students have been known to widely identify with the left-aligned organisations as well.

 

While these organisations, also contesting in the DUSU elections, were not able to secure any of the four central positions, they had their own distinct approach of expressing student issues and campaigning. SFI and AISA had dominated Delhi University student politics for years before losing popularity in recent years, and moved on to contest DUSU polls as the SFI-AISA alliance, largely representing the left-aligned groups. Much of the alliance’s popularity remains with students who recognise the money-muscle power approach of the other mainstream parties. This year, they raised demands for affordable education and hostel facilities for all students according to UGC norms, assistance with CUET admissions, and the removal of the, what they called, “bogus” SEC and VAC courses. They have also advocated for the strict execution of the Rent Control Act, especially in university and student areas, as well as for the provision of menstrual leaves through protests and highlighting the everyday struggles of queer individuals in the university space and celebrating their resistance through a campus pride parade organised recently. They have also been known to ask for the inclusion of girls’ colleges that are not affiliated with DUSU, such as Lady Sri Ram College, Daulat Ram College, and Gargi College, in the union. 

 

In addition to SFI-AISA, the manifesto released by the Disha Students’ Organisation, who put forward Yogesh Meena as their presidential candidate, where they called themselves an “independent revolutionary alternative”, put across some similar points, which were aimed at fighting the “fascist agenda” and committed to “reject[ing] the politics of hooliganism and opportunism”.

 

While every party is ultimately advocating for issues voiced by the students, it is interesting to note how the approach towards this goal differs among them, and is ultimately both a reflection and rehearsal of national sentiments from the point of view of the youth. Not only are the DUSU elections indicative of the ideological battles fought at the national level, but are also a testing ground for party strategies, messaging, and campaign strategies utilised at a larger level.

 

Image Caption: DUSU candidates’ manifestos indicative of a larger ideology 

Image Source: Daily Pioneer

Manya Marwah 

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
DUSU

Why did the Voter Turnout rise, and why is it still so low?

By

 

The Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections in September 2025 saw turnout climb to around 39–39.5 per cent, a notable increase from last year’s 29.7 per cent. While this rise suggests some renewed engagement, it also means that more than 60% of students either could not or did not vote. The paradox raises a deeper question: why does a union with such visibility fail to attract the majority of its student body?

Part of the answer is structural. Many colleges, such as St Stephen’s, Lady Irwin and DCAC are not affiliated with DUSU, excluding large sections of the university. Students in these institutions do not see the elections as relevant to their daily academic lives. Even within affiliated colleges, however, participation is often shaped by what political scientists would call a cost–benefit calculation: the perceived risks and burdens of voting outweigh the likely impact of a single ballot.

For many, the costs are immediate and physical. One undergraduate recalled, “There was a huge turnout this year, and our colleges do not have the infrastructure to support the same. Many of my friends stood there for three to four hours to cast one vote. Another described the atmosphere starkly, “For the lack of a better word, I would say the main reason why I personally don’t go to vote is the sense of gundagardi that surrounds the campus.” Another student who skipped voting admitted, “There was so much stress and fear around the campus that I thought there is no point in risking my safety for one vote.”

Even when students did turn up, the presence of candidates near polling areas created unease. “A friend said that at times so many candidates were around the polling booths that it created a sense of fear amongst the students,” one student reported. Several students also mocked the dramatics of campaign appeals. Students allege that Aryan Maan was near the Miranda House campus and kept approaching students by saying, “aap sabhi behene ho meri isliye bol raha hu votes ke liye.” These accounts suggest that what is framed as democratic engagement often feels like pressure, even surveillance.

Credibility further erodes incentives to participate. “It’s a waste of time for me to put my safety and security at risk, travel for two hours, and wait for another three hours, to cast one vote when I know no tangible change will come out of it,” one student complained. Another added: “Har saal wohi posters, promises, rallies; result toh pehle se decided lagta hai.” Ongoing legal challenges to the election process, including petitions around EVM integrity, reinforce these doubts.

If students perceive the institution as structurally exclusionary, procedurally unsafe, and substantively captured by dominant parties, their withdrawal is not apathy but a rational response. Turnout rose this year, likely due to mobilisation by major political outfits rather than restored trust.

Until questions of safety, accessibility, and credibility are addressed, DUSU’s symbolic prominence will remain unmatched by genuine representativeness.



Image Credits: Times of India 

Image Caption: Who does the DUSU really represent?

Sakshi Singh 

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

The Diminishing State of Student Politics in India

By

 

Every year DUSU elections are greeted by much pomp and circumstance. From the beginning of the new academic year to the day of results, it is impossible to escape the crowds, the white paper slips, and the sounds of the world’s largest student body electing its representatives. However, in India’s major state universities, this exercise in democracy is nowhere to be seen.

 

In 2006, Lucknow University – one of the oldest state universities of Uttar Pradesh – suspended student elections citing incidents of violence, and the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, which was created to ensure transparent and systematic student elections. Since then, no elections to the students’ union have taken place, despite demands and demonstrations by students. 

 

This is not a unique case as students of colleges and universities, both at the state and central level, report fresh cases of suspensions and delays of student union elections coming in every day.

 

Earlier this year in West Bengal’s Jadavpur and Presidency University campuses, student groups staged protests demanding elections to the students’ union, which have not been conducted since 2017. Similar problems of student representation persist in Tamil Nadu politics. 

 

Without official status as representatives, student groups still stage protests and raise student demands but the effectiveness of such efforts remains questionable. Without elected representatives, it becomes easier for Universities to dismiss even the valid and justifiable grievances and concerns of students as acts of provocation or aggression. Any dialogue between students and the administration becomes challenging. The lack of accountability has left students feeling disempowered.

 

In many cases, the elected student union has been replaced by an appointed or indirectly elected council, in a process  alleged to be full of biases and corrupt practices.

 

Not just University authorities, but state governments have not been very supportive of students’ unions. In 2023, Ashok Gehlot-led Congress government of Rajasthan was criticised for not holding student union elections in that academic session, due to concerns of ‘money and muscle power’, in a move which was protested by student groups including the Congress student wing NSUI. 

 

The Gujarat government has also been criticised for the ‘Gujarat Common Universities Act’, which allegedly seeks to end student politics on campus by concentrating the powers of administration of universities in the hands of the state government.

 

In the face of the diminishing state of student politics in India, the emphasis on DUSU elections is very significant, yet the prevalent freebie culture, funneling of resources by respective political parties and lack of productive political discourse on campus paints a distressing picture for the future of student politics.

 

For better or for worse, the union elections at Delhi University are more about visibility; the competition between the four major student organisations and by extension, their parent organisations. From the colourful banners, to the sloganeering, to the displays of financial and political power and influence in the form of pizza parties and Lamborghinis parked outside colleges, student elections have been reduced to a spectacle. Students today often vote along ideological lines, but in the noise of student elections, campaign manifestos and promises are buried beneath mountains of ballot slips. Voting becomes less about what candidates represent and more about simply remembering who they are.

 

Universities often tend to express worries over student protests being taken over by ‘outside elements’ and have cited that as a reason to dismiss student unions, but the issues of policies which are purely decorative and leaders nowhere to be seen post-elections already inundate the most prominent unions. Others are still fighting for their share of democracy.

 

Image Credits: Divyanshi for DU Beat

 

Mangalya Singh

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DU History

DUSU: A Remembrance of Things Past

By

From its establishment in 1949 to first elections in 1954, the Delhi University Students’ Union has had a long run, one that preceded India’s Independence and saw the rise and fall of multiple governments in its lifetime. 

 

It has become difficult to discern the notion of student politics at any level in India without mentioning the inception of the country’s biggest Student’s Union, DUSU. Seven lakh students, ninety-one colleges and a run of over seventy years: the Delhi University Students’ Union has had a legacy that continues to define and re-define student elections and politics in India.

 

Late historian and professor, Aparna Basu, in her book, University of Delhi (1922-1997) details the formation of the body politic of the university at a time when quiet rebellion against British Raj was brewing, alongside a surge of student-led activities. It becomes imperative to note that the opposition to colonial rule worked in tandem with student demands for a space where they could air out concerns in relation to administration, education and other issues in relation to DU on democratic terms. It all began in the same year India got Independence—1947.

 

Students across colleges under the University had been raising demands for a Union that catered specifically to the needs of DU students, a task into which discussion was initiated by the–then Head of DU’s Economics Department, VKRV Rao. A provisional committee consisting of presidents of all unions across colleges was set, following the undertaking of a general meeting with an advisory board. Two years after, in 1949, the Delhi University Students’ Union was inaugurated by the–then Prime Minister, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and was inculcated into the University. 

 

DUSU’s origin story can be traced back to a few years prior, when in 1942, during the Quit India Movement, students from colleges of North Campus like Hindu, St. Stephen’s and Indraprastha went from college-to-college encouraging students to participate in protests for liberating Congress leaders who had been jailed previously.

 

The students then went down the road adjacent to Chandni Chowk, shouting slogans and organizing protests the records of which can only be found in resources like Basu’s book. The Union was the product of a multitude of college students across the DU circuit coming together to champion the quest for a platform that was for the students, by the students and of the students. 

 

As the years passed by, DUSU had made contributions to some of India’s biggest political movements, demonstrating participation in the Jayaprakash Narayan Movement that originated in Bihar in 1974, as well as the imposition of the Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1975.

 

The Union has four office bearers officially: President, Vice President, Secretary and Joint-Secretary, all of which can be contested for by student organizations across the college circuit. Positions are elected individually, which means that members that make up the Union need not be from the same political affiliation. It can be said that DUSU exist as a microcosm of majoritarian politics in India, given that some of the biggest names in the game, Akhil Bharatiya Vishwa Parishad (ABVP) and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) are affiliated with political parties (the Bharatiya Janta Party and the Indian National Congress respectively) that have held office at different times and have defined the political landscape of India we see  today. In all of DUSU’s recorded history, with the exception of one candidate (Manoj Choudhary, who held the seat from 2009-2010 and contested as an independent candidate), all student-elected Presidents belonged to either of the two organizations. ABVP candidates have been elected President nine times more than NSUI candidates, a testament to the party’s legacy as the largest student organization in the world, having over a fifty-five lakh membership count.

 

This is not to say that student parties are partial to majoritarian politics. Left-leaning parties like All India Students’ Association (AISA), which works in association with the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) have made waves in the landscape of student activism in India. Though their popularity amongst students of the University has been largely clipped, and cannot rival the widespread acclaim they have gathered in similar institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University, left parties have played an integral role in taking up issues that have drowned under the flashy displays of money and muscle power.

 

While student leadership in India did not begin with DUSU alone, it continues to remain one of the most longstanding and successful examples of it. As Delhi University’s official website puts it, “In the past, several of the official bearers of Delhi University Students’ Union have gone on to hold public offices in State and Central Governments.” Some of the biggest names in DUSU have gone on spearheading a similar route in Indian politics, including the late Arun Jaitley, who served as India’s Minister of Finance and Corporate Affairs from 2014 to 2019.

 

While pursuing his bachelor’s in Commerce at SRCC, Jaitley was elected President of the Delhi University Students’ Union (1974–75) and it was under his informal leadership that DUSU made the shift from indirect to direct elections through an agitation that lasted almost fifty days. Between 1972 and 1973; the University was shut down without a formal day of re-opening, and administration settled on allowing all students from colleges affiliated with DU to participate in voting directly for their leaders. Jaitley, the-then President of his college’s Students’ Union was pivoted into stardom after being one of the few familiar faces who led the crowd, and ABVP made a clean sweep across all contesting positions in the elections held in the following year. Jaitley was elected DUSU President.

 

The Delhi University Students’ Union has had a legacy that stretches far beyond the divisions of the multi-party system that it took from the country’s election system. It is not merely a topic of discussion for students enrolled in one of DU’s colleges, but a multi-tier apparatus that exists as a larger reflection of the timelessness of student activism, student politics and student leadership in India. 

 

Image Credit: Hindustan Times

Image Caption: Former DUSU President Arun Jaitley, as seen post-1974 win

Aastha Singh
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

More Students Voted, More Said “No” 

By

The 2025 DUSU elections showed a striking paradox: voter turnout increased, while NOTA captured over 23,000 ballots. Together, these trends reveal a student body eager to participate in democracy yet frustrated with the choices offered.

The Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections this year told two very different stories simultaneously. On one hand, Turnout this year stood at 39.45% , a clear jump from the 30–35 % range of the past few years. On the other, thousands of them also pressed the “None of the Above” (NOTA) button, choosing to reject every candidate on the ballot. Put together, these numbers show us a student body that is more active but also more dissatisfied with the choices in front of it.

Many credit this rise of turnout to the “Clean Elections” effect. After the Delhi High Court pulled up DUSU candidates last year for their excessive defecation, this election was much more regulated. For many first-year students, this made the whole process worth engaging with. 

However, many also used their vote to say no to everyone. NOTA polled over 23,000 votes across the four central panel posts—around ten per cent of all votes cast which is significantly higher than last year’s. 

 

Post NOTA Votes Percentage of Total Votes Polled (Approx.)
President 3,175 5.3%
Vice President 5,820 9.7%
Secretary 7,365 12.3%
Joint Secretary 7,314 12.2%
Total Across 4 Posts 23,674 ~10% of total votes polled

 

Why did so many students go this way? For one, the reputation of DUSU elections as contests dominated by money and power still lingers, even if this year looked cleaner. For another, there’s frustration with the limited choice. The ABVP–NSUI rivalry has long dominated the union. 

This leaves us with a paradox. Students are more engaged: they are turning up to vote in bigger numbers—but they are also more critical, and less willing to settle.

 

Picture Credits: Anjali P for DU Beat

Juhi Bansal

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

Taking off the Blindfold : Uncovering Caste in DUSU

By

The politics of our country has long been shaped by caste arithmetic. DUSU politics could have been a model of issue-based politics but, even today, its elections are swung by the “caste lobby”.

To me, the most attractive thing about DU’s red brick walls used to be their political spirit. Debates at tapris, protests against administrations, and the feeling that there I could touch and feel politics was what defined DU for me. I once imagined student politics as an accessible space. A space where any student, regardless of background, could speak, contest, and belong.
That imagination was built on the hope that education and democracy could dissolve social hierarchies, and that Delhi University, with its national reputation could be a rare equaliser. That utopian vision perhaps came from DU’s reputation as a cosmopolitan university—a gathering  of bright young minds from across the country. In some sense, it is cosmopolitan. However, its student union is anything but.

The Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) has become a mirror of the worst in Indian politics. It is a space where the caste arithmetic dictates tickets, campaigns, and results.DU’s campuses draw their student demographic heavily from Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand, and the political fibres of those states replicate themselves on campus. The student wings of the RSS (ABVP) and Congress (NSUI) end up mimicking the caste blocks of their parent parties. The Jat community, for instance—an influential agrarian group forming roughly a quarter of Haryana’s population—has long dominated the state’s politics. The 2016 Jat reservation agitation, which paralysed Haryana for days, showed us just how decisive their mobilisation could be. Since then, both BJP and Congress have carefully calibrated tickets along the “Jats versus others” divide. This same arithmetic plays out in DUSU, where tickets rarely ever go outside Jat and Gujjar groups.

On paper, it may seem that this student election is free for anyone interested. But to fight a DUSU election with any reasonable chance of winning requires resources, and resources have always been controlled by a few groups. Networks of village associations, PG landlords, shopkeepers, and alumni associations directly transform this caste mobilisation straight into votes. As per policy, DU has a 22.5% reservation for students belonging to Scheduled
Castes and Tribes (SC – 15% and ST – 7.5% interchangeably), a policy that frequently comes under fire from supporters of “meritocracy”.

It’s worth asking then why our student politics remains firmly in the grip of dominant castes. Not once in its history has DUSU elected a Dalit or Adivasi president. The post has always gone to Jats, Brahmins, and other dominant communities. In the last two decades especially, Jat dominance has been near- total, perhaps a spillover of their post- 2016 political assertion.

In a student election as important as DUSU, where campus news makes national headlines, representation matters. Almost every DUSU office- bearer goes on to a career in mainstream politics, and the exposure and connections it offers are invaluable. That Dalit and Adivasi students—despite being present in significant numbers—are systematically excluded from leadership is evidence of the glaring social and resource gaps that remain.

The knowledge of the overpowering sway of caste politics on DUSU has become almost banal. During the 2025 campaign, rebel candidate Umanshi Lamba told Dilli Tak that Joslyn Nandita Choudhary “isn’t a Jat, nor…a Gujjar…[and yet] she got the ticket on Jat lobbying, but now is saying she is a Gujjar. I am a Jat.”

The interviewer further continued on this line of questioning asking, “Aryan Maan is a strong Jat candidate, and you are a female and a Jat, how come you did not get the ticket?”The fact that such statements can be made openly, in 2025, inside one of India’s premier universities, says it all. DU is meant to be a representation of the brightest, most intelligent minds of India. What does it say of our character that the brightest kinds of our country are only as powerful as their background allows them to be?

The share won this year by SFI-AISA’s Abhinandana Pratyashi suggests students are not only voting along caste lines. Perhaps it was her strength as a candidate, perhaps a new appetite for issue-based politics. I used to find it inspiring to hear parties talk of menstrual leave, scrapping SEC/VAC, or defending student rights. But the politics of marginalisation, of equality, of an end to the caste system, doesn’t seem to carry much weight.`DUSU should have been a space of cross-state unity and collaboration, a place where the most marginalised voices of our student body could take centre stage. Instead, it has been reduced to a microcosm of India’s ugliest politics. Until caste dominance is broken here, DU cannot claim to represent the future of India.

Perhaps this is the sobering truth we must face: the very students who are supposed to create a more equal tomorrow have become complicit in a tragically unequal system. If our leaders here believe that this exclusion is natural, then we shouldn’t be surprised when the same logic echoes in Parliament.

 

 

Image Credits: Manan for DU Beat

Anjali Paruvu
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Editorials

Jashn-e-Satta

By

Amidst the festive fervours of the electoral season, laden with processions, celebrations, and dynamism, the critical question persists: does the participatory spirit of DUSU elections still survive?

The month of September adorns the nation with a wide range of festivals, every weekend bringing to the fore another tile of the cultural mosaic that pieces Dilli together. True to its microcosmic nature, the University of Delhi steps into the season of retreating clouds with the festival of election, the jashn-e-satta. Streets dazzling with the chaos of participatory measures, music concerts and bhandara-like freebie stalls floating through the lanes, processions flow not in devotion to gods but allegiance to people, to democracy. The satya-ki-galiyan and kamla lanes turn into epochal grounds of jubilation, marked profoundly with the political propaganda of all the competing factions. In a nation that has borne the curse of giveaways for decades, the students don’t usually get driven away by the gluttony of political theatrics but rather opportunistically immerse themselves into the joy of the ‘free’. What’s left behind is the debris, not just of the material, but also of promises and initiatives that ought to have lived in these streets instead. 

The Delhi University Student Union (DUSU) elections might appear loud, chaotic, or even the prodigal child of Indian politics. However, dismissal on those grounds strips away the political and intellectual imperatives it holds that are almost reflective of the paradoxes and possibilities of Indian democracy. German philosopher Jürgen Habermas situated democracy within the ‘public sphere’, the space where political opinions can be cultivated in the social arena through discussions and deliberations that fuel publicised discourse, which then influence governance and political action. Universities, when functioning optimally, represent a similar sphere where students formulate and refine their political beliefs and opinions. 

At Delhi University, the DUSU elections transform everyday spaces into stages of political practices. The chai-ki-tapris near the colleges, the packed metros en route to academic spaces, and the student accommodation areas, all echo discourse on the political season. Albeit often divergent and contrary to each other, these discussions ensure that at least a certain degree of participation seeps into every stakeholder. Habermas’ construction of the ‘public’ holds profound relevance here: democracy cannot just be reduced to institutions of governance; it lives in the spaces of everyday discussions, the ‘public sphere’. And so, the cacophonous chaos of DUSU is not a distorted version of democracy but plausibly one of its most authentic enactments. 

Carole Pateman’s theory of participatory democracy further strengthens this view, drawing upon earlier proponents of the same, in Rousseau, Mill, Cole and others. The refined theory argues that democracy cannot just be reduced to the act of casting a vote; it needs to sustain an active involvement in the decision-making and pre-electoral processes. Participation itself, she argues, is of educational value; it empowers citizens with the ability to deliberate, claim rights, and hold accountable their chosen representatives. The pre-election canvassing, the student interactions, and the presidential debates; all lead one to appreciate the didactic model of participatory democracy that DUSU elections embody. 

However, the data speaks in a different code. While the voter turnout has witnessed a steady increase every year, it still stands at nearly half the voter turnout of the general elections of the nation, brewing questions for the voters: Does the participation from students restrict itself to the performative phase of the pre-election phases? And by extension, does the practice of deliberation and accountability dissipate once the vote is cast, creating a void where participatory temperament once held ground?

However, to see the elections through the lens of Pateman and Habermas allows for knowledge of only fractional perspectives of the election season. Gramsci’s reflections on hegemony extend into all institutional spaces, and inevitably into Delhi University as well. National and regional parties treat the DUSU elections as training and testing grounds, investing significant capital into shaping the candidates and their public perceptions. While some of them practice it overtly, others do it from behind drawn curtains. Thus elections, even in hyperlocal forms, risk reproducing the dominance of the privileged classes, with the apparently subordinate groups in agreement with it in most cases.

The sub-localised nature of the elections also attempts to ensure that the political arena remains a fluid space, wherein every movement births a counter-movement that finds expression—campaigns led by the diverse groups, independent candidates, and collectives might not always lead to electoral victory, but they do succeed in establishing a narrative alternative to the popular discourse. In essence, the DUSU elections uphold a central paradox of practicing democracy; they become simultaneous mechanisms for reproduction and contestation of prevailing ideologies. 

Despite embodying the features of a participatory democracy, the DUSU elections fall short in most other avenues. The passive disengagement from a larger section of students, reflected in the less than 40 percent voter turnout, reveals the inconsequential temperament attached to the votes. This creates an enigma, wherein participatory measures exist, but their effectiveness lies in the students realising their own agencies. In the noise of campaign slogans and the clutter of posters, then, lies something far more enduring: the rehearsal of democracy itself. To participate in DUSU is to learn, however imperfectly, what it means to be a citizen in the largest democracy of the world.

Image Credits: DU Beat

Shikhar Pathak

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

DUSU Elections Record 39.36 per cent Turnout, Up from 2024 Amidst Clashes and Controversies 

By

DUSU elections saw 39.36 per cent turnout, up from last year but below 2023 levels. Voting was peaceful yet marred by littering, clashes, traffic, and EVM tampering allegations amid tight security and 21 candidates contesting.

The voter turnout for this year’s Delhi University Student Union (DUSU) election stood at 39.36 per cent, a decent rise from last year’s turnout, which stood at 35.2 per cent, but it still does not meet the rate of 42 per cent, which was recorded in 2023. This was amidst a 3-year halt in the conduction of elections due to the COVID-19 outbreak. Polling was conducted at 52 centres with 195 booths, where 711 Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) were deployed.

Chief Election Officer Raj Kishore Sharma said polling proceeded smoothly across most colleges.

Out of the 1.53 lakh registered voters, 60,272 students cast their votes. At Kirori Mal College, the turnout was 32 per cent.  Principal Dinesh Khattar said,

The college has successfully conducted polling, and the campus is clean… no defacement or waste lying around.

At Ramjas College, the turnout was slightly higher but still lower than the average at 37.52%. Principal Ajay Arora stated that,

Voting has been successfully held at seven booths.

Miranda House saw an active participation of over 2500 votes in the first phase. Polling in the college was conducted in two phases: from 8:30 am to 1:00 pm for day scholars and from 3:00 pm to 7:30 pm. Delhi Police deployed over 600 personnel, including 160 with body-worn cameras, while drones and CCTV surveillance covered sensitive areas.

The election was conducted not without its hurdles; the area surrounding the campuses saw littering due to cards of candidates being distributed. Despite tight police control, clashes still occurred between rivals, and supporters of each faction gathered in huge numbers, resulting in road blockages and significant traffic congestion. 

The elections also witnessed controversies due to allegations of malpractice by the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI)’s presidential candidate, Joslyn Nandita Choudhary, alleging that she observed blue ink on the EVMs near the name of Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP)’s presidential candidate, Aryan Maan.

Delhi ABVP State Secretary Sarthak Sharma responded by stating,

Just as the Congress blames EVMs after every electoral loss, NSUI is following the same pattern. Their desperation is evident from their fear of defeat and declining popularity among students.

This year, 21 candidates were contesting for the four main student body posts – President, Vice President, Secretary, and Joint Secretary. Of these, nine contestants were competing for the president’s seat, while the remaining were contesting for the other three positions.

Read Also: What Does the Student Body Want? 

Image Credits-: Sameer for DU Beat 

Divyanshi Dusad 

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUB News

High Court Puts a Stop to Victory Parades

By

The Delhi High Court prohibited victory processions after the DUSU election results, citing security and order concerns.

On Wednesday, 17th September, the Delhi High Court ruled that no victory processions shall be carried out in the capital by candidates or their supporters post the result declaration of Delhi University Students’ Unions (DUSU) elections on Friday, 19th September. This has come from the bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in response to Advocate Prashant Manchanda’s plea, concerning widespread violations of Lyngdoh Committee norms and other poll codes. The latter had submitted photographs showing alleged violations being carried out by candidates. As per Law Beat and The Indian Express, it involved large-scale campaigning using money and muscle power,  traffic breaches and damage to public property. According to The Hindustan Times, the High Court has also warned:

We’re not interfering with elections, but if the elections do not happen in a satisfactory, peaceful and orderly manner, if your reports are not positive, counting may take place, but we will stop functioning of the office bearers of the election.

The Court took notice of the fact that once the counting concludes, victory processions taken out by the winning candidates and their supporters become difficult for the police and university authorities to manage. Following this, the Court has not only prohibited these victory processions in and around the university campuses and hostels, but has also directed the Delhi Police, the university administration and the local civil administration to take all necessary measures to ensure that no untoward incidents occur during the polling process or at any time before or after it. It further instructed that no violations of regulatory norms be allowed.

According to The Hindustan Times, around 2.8 lakh students cast their votes today. More than 600 police personnel were deployed to ensure a smooth voting process, including 160 equipped with body cameras. The Supreme Court-appointed Lyngdoh Committee, which delineates mandatory rules to ensure free, fair and orderly DUSU elections, has capped the election expenditure of each candidate at Rs 5,000, and has allowed only handmade posters, that too at specified locations and in limited numbers. However, violations in the form of large convoys of luxury cars, excessive use of graffiti and banners and traffic disruptions necessitating road detours are visible. The HC ruling prohibiting celebratory marches is aimed at maintaining peace and order during elections.

Read Also: From Lecture Halls to Delhi High Court: DU’s Bribery Scandal Ends in Justice

 

Image Caption: Delhi HC prohibits victory processions after DUSU election results

 

Image Source: The Hindustan Times

 

Nasheta Zaidi

 

zaidinasheta @gmail.com

 

Keep Reading
By