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 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?
A brief look at the Ministry of Human Resource Development’s (MHRD) letter to all higher education institutes to link all student accounts to the social media accounts of the institutes, and the ministry and the reactions of college students.
A letter sent on 3rd July 2019 by the MHRD to all higher education institutes requesting them to identify and designate a faculty/non-faculty member as the “Social Media Champion” (SMC) whose duty it will be to get all the students of the college to connect their Twitter/Facebook/Instagram accounts to that of the MHRD and the educational institution by the 31st July. This move has already received a lot of backlash with the AISA saying on 9th July, that this step was aimed at curbing the freedom of expression of students. While the MHRD has replied that this step is completely voluntary for the students and they will not have any access to the student’s posts or data if a student follows them on social media, this move is still a cause for concern among the student community.
A copy of the MHRD’s letter sent to all Higher Education Institutes
On talking to several students, it was found that some students felt the very act of asking students to follow certain pages was wrong, even though the MHRD ministry claims that it will just use this as a way to promote good work done by them and the educational institutes. Srijan Vaish , a first-year student from Dyal Singh College said, “The MHRD ministry is run by the government which is run by a political party with its own particular ideologies, in this case the Bharatiya Janta Party and the ideology of ‘hindutva’. So if students are compelled to follow their page, as young students, we can fall prey to the ideas that the central government is trying to promote. I feel that this manipulating the youth and not giving us the right to think for ourselves.”
While most students disagreed with the idea of following the MHRD, there was some who felt that something more sinister was going on behind the scenes, and felt that this would be the first step to monitoring students, their posts and their data. Prachi Johri, a second-year student from Indraprashta College for Women said that this could open the door for the government to “invade the privacy” of students. Prachi went on to say that if the government does take this extreme measure, it would “make the minorities, Muslims, LGBTQIA+ community, tribes and people with ideologies against the BJP lives very hard to survive, as the government will probably bully or lock them up for speaking against the government. It’ll disclose a lot of things to public which a student might not want to share. This will create a sense of fear and will stop students from pursuing higher education.”
In conclusion, while the MHRD might have good intentions and want to share their good work with students, perhaps connecting social media is not the best way to do it as lots of students are against this step, and additionally, feel that “sharing good work” is not the real motive of the government behind taking such steps.
According to a press release, the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) formed an open forum for ‘scrutiny of undergraduate curriculum’.
The Delhi University Students’ Union formed ‘Student’s Open Forum for Scrutiny of Under Graduate Curriculum’ (SOFSUGC) for ‘Scrutiny of Curriculum’. This move comes after the controversy over the English syllabus, which the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) opposed as leftist propaganda.
Through the open forum, the DUSU will submit its report to the Heads of Departments of English, Sociology, Political Science and History, after seeking students’ views on the syllabus. In the press release, the DUSU urges the head of departments to review and consider the committee’s suggestions. The forum is expected to submit its report by 30th July, just five days after its formation. The DUSU expects the Heads of Departments to hold a meeting of the syllabus drafting committee only after the DUSU submits its report.
DUSU President Shakti Singh said “It is important to listen to the suggestions of the students in the context of syllabus and to implement the relevant suggestions as the students are also stakeholders in the decision of the University and any decision has a direct and first effect on them. This committee will democratise the process of syllabus drafting.”
DUSU Joint Secretary Jyoti Chaudhary said, “We have already made it clear that students should not be on the losing end. If the syllabus drafting committee had adopted democratic process in the past, the students would not have suffered like this. We hope that the syllabus review committee of above mentioned departments will discuss the suggestions of the students and the false propaganda made by the left will come to an end and we students will be on track to study.”
However, students seem to be disgruntled by the move. “I think the syllabus offered to us is quite alright, and as for students we actually do not know what syllabus we actually need, so consulting the HoD is needed,” said Suman, a third-year Political Science student from Ramjas College.
“The demand to alter or change the content being studied is not only an attack on the academic right of a student but also on the core fundamentals on which a University stands. Personally, I have no confidence in the ABVP backed DUSU, therefore if a student forum is formed by DUSU, I doubt that the suggestions made by the forum will be free from bias. Moreover, I do not think it is appropriate to change or alter the syllabus which has been recommended after years of studies by eminent scholars based solely on suggestions made by a student forum,” adds Noihrit, a second-year History student at Ramjas College.
This puzzling move leaves one wondering why only four departments from the humanities and social sciences were targeted for this students’ forum. The accessibility of this forum and the details of its members are still unknown. DU Beat reached out to Sidharth Yadav, the media secretary of ABVP who remained unavailable to comment.
Feature Image Credits: Saubhagya Saxena 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
The University of Delhi (DU) works as a microcosm of the world. And like the bigger picture, it has its own sense of politics. Here is a brief intro to Delhi University Student’s Union (DUSU) and its significance.
Many big names in contemporary Indian politics have had a stint in their college elections. Be it Arun Jaitley, president of the DUSU in 1974, or Kanhaiya Kumar, the Students Union President of Jawaharlal Nehru University; these elections seem like a foundation for a career in politics.
The DUSU is a student body which held its first elections in 1954. It is the body which regulates and renegotiates the policies, rules and regulations agreed on by the varsity. DUSU actively involves itself in student-related issues and problems, tries to resolve them by pursuing the administration and works for the welfare of the students. DUSU has actively involved itself in the admission-related processes and issues of students.
However, this entity is not free from dirty politics and hooliganism. The student politicians are infamous for staging protests, illegal activities, and unnecessary violence. The rivalry between ABVP (Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad)— student-wing of the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)—and National Students’ Union of India (NSUI)—student-wing of the Indian National Congress (INC)—is representative of their much larger right-versus-left conflict.
Supplementing this circle of politics are organisations like Pinjra Tod, Student’s Federation of India (SFI), All India Student’s Association (AISA), Democratic Student’s Union (DSU), Krantikari Yuva Sanghatan (KYS) and many others.
The most important takeaway from the DUSU and its functioning for the university students is that it allows students to have an opportunity to contemplate their political choices, their freedom to vote, and the ‘apparent’ legacy of their family opinions. The first vote a DU student casts is for this simulation of National democracy.
Jaishree Kumar, a final year student of History from Ramjas College has experienced this circus for the past two years. She states, “Politics in the university can be intimidating, but it’s also a reflection of National politics, and in some ways, a caricature of it. Its apparent omnipresence is suffocating sometimes, but don’t get deterred by their loudness. Their freebies and niceness don’t matter. Their ‘may I help you’ signs disappear once the elections are over. Don’t run away from the politics, don’t take pride in calling yourself ‘apolitical’, don’t follow an ideology which has been passed down your family. You’re a university student, question everything.”
Some first-time witnesses of DUSU politics, like Prateek Pankaj from Hindu College call it “a social laboratory to understand how politics at the larger scale works”. He says, “More than anything, it teaches how democracy lives and breathes around us. When you see people protesting against the dismissal of sanitation workers or for the rights of ad-hoc teachers, it tells you how issues actually impact people.”
A humble advice to all the freshers: be aware, be involved and be alert. Form your own political opinions. I myself have experienced this ‘House of Shards’ for the first time last year, and I am already looking forward to this year’s dynamics.
Feature Image Caption: Students queued to cast their votes during DUSU Elections 2018-19.
Recent proposals for changes in the syllabi of various undergraduate courses have sparked opposition from the teaching staff, and the ABVP.
Controversy over academic matters arose in the University of Delhi (DU), with some members of the Standing Committee and the Academic Council (AC), along with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) taking objections to some of the proposed changes in the syllabi of various undergraduate courses.
The controversy has taken the form of opposition from Academic Council members and protests by the ABVP, which some had alleged to have turned hostile.
The Background
A report in The Hindu stated that 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.
Similar was the case with the English Journalism syllabus. As reported by The New Indian Express on 15th July, objection was raised by some members of the Academic Council over the inclusion of chapters about Muzaffarnagar riots, and instances of lynchings.
On 17th July, The Indian Express reported about the syllabus changes of other courses and the objections that came along with them. These included syllabi of History, Political Science and Sociology, along with English. The report stated that the Academic Council “referred the syllabus of English and History back to the respective departmentsfor reconsideration, thereby refusing to pass it as it is.” The report further read, “On the syllabi for Political Science and Sociology, some AC members said they too had been sent back for modification, while others claimed they were passed with ‘minor modifications’.”
Who objected and why?
Professor Rasal Singh, a member of the Academic Council, had raised objections regarding the syllabus changes. He alleged that in the story Maniben Alias Bibijaan – a background to the 2002 Gujarat riots – RSS and its affiliate organisations like Bajrang Dal were shown in a “very bad manner”, and were portrayed as “looters” and “murderers”.
He further said that in the syllabus proposed by the English department, “Gods Vishnu, Shiv, Kartikeya and Ganesh were depicted as part of the LGBT community. The sources and evidence for these were secondary sources like ‘Same Sex Love in India’ written by Leftists on the basis of foundational texts of Indian culture such as the Bhagavata Purana, Skanda Purana, and Shiva Purana.” He also alleged that “too much Literature was being incorporated in a paper like ‘Communication Skills’. Instead of core courses like ‘Indian Writing in English’, new papers such as ‘Literature and Caste’ and ‘Interrogating Queerness’ were started.”
Regarding the History department, he said that “[topics about] Rajput history, Amir Khusrau, Sher Shah Suri and Babasaheb Ambedkar were removed from the syllabus. In the ‘Democracy on Work’ course, only the history of Naxalism and the Left have been included.”
He also said that the topics related to the Vedic society, the joint family, village swaraj, and “basics of Indian cultural thought such as environmental discussions and nature worship” were removed from the Sociology syllabus. On the Political Science front, according to Mr Singh, Maoism had been included in the course on ‘Indian Social Movements’, while other social movements like the Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, and Khudai Khidmatgar were removed.
Mr Singh also alleged that the English department had not complied with the format and instructions of the Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS) and instead of a 30 percent change in the syllabus, close to a 100 percent change had been done.
The syllabus showed “tremendous predominance of leftist ideology and a ceaseless opposition towards nationalist ideology, Indian culture and the RSS,” Mr Singh said.
The ABVP, the student-wing of the RSS, organised a protest on 15th July, against the “inclusion of false facts relating to Hinduism and nationalist organisations.” The ABVP also demanded for the “inclusion of elected office bearers of Delhi University Students’ Union in the Academic Council,” as per a press release made by the student organisation on 16th July.
While some alleged that the ABVP tried to “barge into” the Vice Chancellor’s office and demanded that the Heads of Department of English and History, and Academic Council member Saikat Ghosh be “handed over to them,” the student organisation maintained that the protest was “peaceful.”
“Following the protest of ABVP yesterday, Delhi University administration has withdrawn the proposed syllabus of Political Science, English, History and Sociology courses for revision and decided to retain 5 students as members in the Academic Council,” said Ashutosh Singh from the ABVP.
Note – Mr Ghosh could not respond to requests for comments by the time of publishing of this report. This report would be updated as and when he does.
Similar instances in the past
In October last year, the ABVP had objected to the appointment of historian Ramachandra Guha as the Shrenik Lalbhai Chair Professor of Humanities and the Director of the Gandhi Winter School at the Ahmedabad University’s School of Arts and Sciences. Pravin Desai, the ABVP Secretary for Ahmedabad city was quoted in The Indian Express as saying,“We said that we want intellectuals in our educational institutes and not anti-nationals, who can also be termed as ‘urban Naxals’. We had quoted anti-national content from his [Guha’s] books to the Registrar. We told him, the person you are calling is a ‘Communist’. If he is invited to Gujarat, there would be a JNU-kind ‘anti-national’ sentiment.”
Following this, Mr Guha announced that he would not be taking up this position due to “circumstances beyond my control.”
Counter-protests
Some student organisations have condemned the ABVP’s protests. Organisations such as the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Collective, and others had called for a ‘joint protest’ on 17th July at the Arts Faculty, to “save our critical thinking universities and textbooks from communal forces.”
Amarjeet Kumar Singh from AISA said, “We demand that the syllabus should be decided by the Academic Council and not by the ABVP.”
The continuing problems related to admissions in the varsity have raised several questions on the functionality of the administration.
Student organisations Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and National Students Union of India (NSUI) of the University of Delhi (DU) have voiced their concerns and demonstrated against the DU Vice Chancellor regarding the difficulties faced by students during the time of admissions. The demonstation also sought to question the fee hike that has taken place for almost all courses in the University.
ABVP has voiced the concerns of the students by protesting at the Arts Faculty, addressing various issues related to admissions. The increment in college fees has been challenged along with irregularity in Sports Category admissions. Provision of admission by accepting undertaking, and introduction of EWS category in M. Phil/ PhD admissions has been requested. Importantly, inadequate arrangement in colleges for parents at the time of the admission process are some of the issues amongst other key issues that have been raised by the ABVP.
They (ABVP) has brought into the limelight how the admission staff in colleges who were admitting students to the first cut-off were not aware of the rules prescribed by the University. This caused problems in the smooth functioning during the admissions process. Admissions of students were also cancelled due to loopholes in the admission process.
Siddharth Yadav, the State Secretary of ABVP Delhi, said that if the demands are not met within the time period of ten days, then there will be more resolute protests against the administration.
DUSU President Shakti Singh also highlighted the issue of fee hike by saying, “There has been an arbitrary unaccounted fee increase in many DU colleges.” The issue Ramjas College’s fee hike has been previously reported on by DU Beat.
A memorandum to the Dean of Students Welfare had been submitted after the protest ended by the the ABVP delegation.
Attempts have been made by the student organisations so that the DU admission process does not become tedious and burdensome for the students. The true effects of the protests remain to be seen.
NSUI’s offer to bear expenses, expressed in a press release made by NSUI on 19th June, was made on the occasion of the birthday of Congress President Rahul Gandhi.
The student wing of the Congress, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI), has decided on a move to pay the first-year fees of the children of late soldiers and farmers who are taking admission in the University of Delhi. The offer, expressed in a press release made by NSUI on 19th June, was made on the birth anniversary of Congress President, Rahul Gandhi.
“NSUI has made a plan to take an important step to serve the families of the Army on the occasion of the birth anniversary of Congress President Rahul Gandhi Ji. NSUI wants to help and provide services to the children of the family of martyred army, security force [sic]. For this, NSUI wants to pay one year fee for the children of martyrs who are going to take admission in Delhi University this year,” the press release stated.
Calling out the “unfortunate and painful” manner in which the army had been “politicized” by “all the parties” in the “past few days,” the press release said that the NSUI was “standing in every way with the families of those soldiers.”
The press release further said, “The National Student’s Union of India [sic] is also standing with the families of the farmers, who had to commit suicide due to non-payment of loans to the banks. NSUI also wants to pay fees of the children of those farmers.”
The process for the same requires students to register on the email [email protected], following which the National Committee of the NSUI will verify the students’ details.
NSUI National President Neeraj Kundan was quoted by ANI as saying that the party will reimburse the students’ fee in case they had already submitted it to the University, while also adding that the programme “reverberated” Rahul Gandhi’s thinking.
When asked about whether the decision was taken in view of the student polls, Kundan was quoted as saying that the organisation wanted to forward it’s leader, Rahul Gandhi’s ideas instead of just cutting a cake on the occasion of his birthday.
DU Beat tried contacting Saimon Farooqui, the National Secretary of NSUI for a comment, but he was not immediately available.
In our view, while no political move can be separated from the idea of seeking votes or at least, acquiring votes as a byproduct of even a desirable move, political parties often act in subtle ways to expand their reach over the masses. While it is not clear what kind of information will be sought by the NSUI for the programme in question here, a reasonable expectation would be that information such as mobile numbers and other contact details will not be used by the party to reach out to the registrants – such that it does not become a political tool. But voting for a party as per one’s own judgement is, of course, a right available to all.
