Maithry, DU’s Kerela’s student fraternity body, recently held elections for a new cabinet for the term 2022-23. Read more to find out the results.
Maithry, a Delhi University student fraternity body for Malayali students and students coming from Kerala, recently held elections on 19th April 2022 for forming the cabinet for the term 2022-23. The result for the elections came out on the same day with new members being elected to 12 different posts.
The mantle of being the president of Maithry at Delhi University was passed on from last year’s president, Darsana R, to the newly elected president, Najm Paleri. Other candidates who came to be elected were Emil Jose as the General Secretary, Salih as the Treasurer, Krishnendu as the General category Vice President, Stephy J Sam as the Vice President under Women, South Reserved category, Ribin Pary as the PRO, Sandra S as the Working Secretary (Women), Govind Unnikrishnan as the Working Secretary (South Reserved), Haris Pattalam as the Joint Secretary (General), Fathima Bathool as the Joint Secretary (Women), Asif Muhammed as the Joint Secretary (South), and Samra P C as the Joint Secretary (Women, South Reserved).
The new cabinet, sworn for the welfare and reassurance of students, will deepen structural reforms and focus on better academic and co-curricular activities this year,” said Stephy J Sam, The Vice president of Maithry, in conversation with DU Beat.
In the past year, the Maithry cabinet has focused on being able to bring the Malayali students under one student fraternity body, providing a feeling of comfort and a home away from home. The testimony to the working of last year’s cabinet lies in the role it played in the transition of students from online to offline mode, catering to their needs at a time when the sudden notification by the DU administration left the far away outstation students in a state of confusion and problem.
The declaration of Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) results on 13th September ended a month of hooliganism, ruckus, and violation of rules in the name of campaigning.
Every year, the months of August and September witness frenzy and chaos. The roads are littered with flyers and posters, a number of posters with misspelt names of the candidates are pasted on the walls in the Campus area, and rallies pave way for traffic jam. This year too, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) won three seats out of four, establishing their majority in the
DUSU.
The voter turnout was recorded at 39.9 percent this year, over four notches down from the last year voter turnout. One of the key points highlighted in this year’s manifestoes of various student political organisations was less wastage of paper. However, candidates contesting DUSU elections clearly violated this rule. The shocking thing here is, that even though the University has a regulatory authority to check these violations, no one comes forward to point these; not even the administration. It is easy to notice all the enthusiasm of the newly elected office bearers slowly fade away as we inch closer to the end of the year.
I remember, during an interview with Sunny Chillar, the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) Presidential candidate for DUSU elections, 2018, the demand of a subsidised INR 10 thali (platter) was discussed. The students of the University were assured that no matter what the election results would be, the thali will be provided to them, since, over 70 percent of students are from the economically weaker sections of the society. A common agenda discussed by both the ABVP and the NSUI almost every year is concessional Metro and Delhi Transport Corporation bus passes for the students of the University of Delhi (DU). However, we, as students, are only able to see a few protest marches and letters written to different ministers and the Administration. On questioning about the same to our student leaders, they reply, “It will happen soon.” Will it be soon enough, for the next set of candidates, to put forward the same demand in next year’s manifesto?
In the race of winning the elections, what the student leaders forget is the reason they are running for the position. Is it for fame? Or, is it for representing and working for the student community? Attacks on opponents are not something new in the election season. The sad part here is, that most of the students of the University equate DUSU election season to violence in and around Campus. The manifestoes talk about the safety of students but, in reality, election season makes us, the student community, feel more unsafe than ever.
Did you know that the DUSU also has a constitution of its own? Yes, most of you do not. The official website of the University has a link to the Constitution. It is a 16-page document which roughly has eight chapters that broadly discuss the functioning, funding, and objectives of the Union. The Vice Chancellor of the University is the Patron, and takes all the necessary steps for the smooth functioningof DUSU in accordance with the DUSU Constitution. The underlying fact is that, even though all this has been defined in the Constitution, our very own elected student leaders fail to abide by it. Or rather, they forget the ideals upon which the Constitution was established. It is sad to see them absent from the important student-related issues but they are present when a Bollywood celebrity visits a college.
Concluding in the words of Srivedant Kar, former Associate Editor of DU Beat, “It’s high time these elections stop referring to things that the Union cannot do and instead start becoming a fight about what the Union can, and should, do.”
In the second part of the ‘DU Mandate’ analysis series, DU Beat examines the opinions of the students regarding the opposition – strengths, weaknesses, leaders and more.
The opposition parties have tried coming together using various permutations and combinations. The Samajwadi Party (SP) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) have formed an alliance along with the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD) to contest the crucial UP polls. Other leaders like Mamata Banerjee, Chandrababu Naidu and H.D. Kumaraswamy, among others, have shared the political stage and given the call to “save democracy”. There seems to be an understanding within the opposition parties that defeating the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won’t be easy without some form of an alliance.
The BJP has targeted the coming together of parties who have previously been hostile towards each other and has questioned the “mahamilawat” (great adulteration) for having no clear indication of a possible prime ministerial candidate.
A majority of respondents felt that lack of a clear prime ministerial candidate from the opposition would do it average to fairly high degree of harm.
The narrative of the BJP seems to be resonating with the people. On a scale of 1 to 5, corresponding to the degree of harm, 29.6 percent respondents were of the view that lack of a single prime ministerial candidate from the opposition will do average harm to them, while an almost equal percentage (29.3) said the harm would be of a “fairly high degree”.
Perhaps this idea of a single face being a crucial factor for winnability could have been tempered by a coherent agenda, which could have been seen as a major selling point. However, as per the survey, when asked to select three biggest strengths of the opposition, ‘visionary agenda and programme’ drew the second lowest percentage of votes (12.3 per cent) (This was before launch of the Congress’ manifesto). The biggest strength was considered to be ‘consolidation of non-NDA votes’ with 61.19 per cent votes. ‘Dissatisfaction with the current government’ was voted by 49.3 percent respondents as one of the three biggest strengths, while ‘strong voter bases of individual parties’ stood third. Hence, while the opposition may not have been able to offer a constructive alternate agenda, the government’s disappointing performance could make people turn to it, especially because of the popularity of the regional parties. However, with the recent release of the Congress manifesto, a largely welfare-based document, this shortcoming might be mitigated to an extent.
A similar sentiment was seen in the results for the biggest weaknesses of the opposition. ‘Incapable leaders/unclear leadership’ drew 54.7 percent votes while ‘lack of a strong agenda and programme’ and ‘possibility of forming an “unstable” government’ were selected among the three biggest weaknesses by 51 percent and 44.8 percent respondents.
Opinion was evenly split up on nature of the opposition alliances.
One issue perhaps lying at the root of these alliance complications was the nature of the coalitions. Since each party would try to cater to its own interest, it won’t be willing to ally with every party everywhere. Hence, a single nation-wide coalition hasn’t come about.
The survey result on this question illustrates this complexity. While 35.2 percent respondents believed multiple state-wise alliances would be better than a single national coalition (29.1 per cent), the supporters of the latter aren’t few either. More interestingly, the ‘can’t say’ option, in fact, drew the maximum vote share of 35.7 percent – indicating a general lack of consensus on the matter.
Rahul Gandhi was voted the leading face of the opposition.
When asked to select a maximum of three leading faces of the opposition, 78.1 percent selected Rahul Gandhi, while Mamata Banerjee pulled in 52.7 percent. Akhilesh Yadav stood third with 38.2 percent respondents selecting him as one of the three leading faces of the opposition. Some respondents even came up with some creative responses.
The opposition drew a majority of 3 or less rating points out of 5.
Another question asked the respondents to rate the opposition parties and leaders on a scale of 1 to 5, the latter being the highest. Like the rating for the government, the opposition too peaked at a rating of 3, with 30.5 percent votes. A 2-point rating was nearly neck to neck with 29.8 percent votes. However, the contrast between the ratings for the opposition and the government seemed to be on the extremes. While the government had been rated 1 and 5 by 14.3 and 13.3 percent voters respectively, the opposition drew a higher percentage (24.1) of votes at the lowest extreme; only 4.4 percent respondents gave it a 5-point rating.
In a nutshell, 84.4 percent voters gave the opposition a ‘very low’ to ‘average’ rating. In this same range, the government drew 62.1 percent votes. Conversely, 65 percent respondents had given the government a rating of 3 or more, that is, ‘average’ to ‘very good’; the opposition got 46 percent cumulative votes in the same categories.
Conclusion
The government with its largely mediocre performance, some major detrimental decisions and failures resulting in deteriorating conditions in various spheres, still seems to be slightly more popular than the opposition. The narrative about the opposition as comprising “corrupt” and “opportunist” parties that could form an “unstable” government if in power, as publicized by the BJP and its allies, seems to be resonating with the people. The loss of credibility that the opposition parties have suffered since before the 2014 elections and after, despite some state election victories, perhaps makes them a worse option in the eyes of people. So, even if voters are disappointed with the current government, some of them might still lean towards voting it back to power due to a perceived lack of alternatives.
Where the opposition can get its game right, is by forming strong regional alliances to challenge the BJP. Consolidating non-NDA votes can happen by tapping into the strong voter bases of individual parties. Breakthroughs in states where these parties are powerful can help sway the election results at the national level.
Image credits –
(Feature image) HuffPost India
Graphs – ‘DU Mandate’ by DU Beat
DU Beat looks at the results of its exclusive election survey, ‘DU Mandate: The 2019 General Elections’. The results are out and the first part explores the students’ views on the Prime Minister, his Cabinet and the Government performance.
With a little over 85 per cent DU students hoping to vote for the first-time, this election holds greater significance for the students. While over 72 per cent said they would be voting, the remaining who didn’t plan to vote or weren’t certain about it, mostly explained that their voter ID cards belonged to a different state than Delhi; some others said that they hadn’t had theirs made.
Asked to select the three biggest achievements of the government, there seemed to be a considerable consensus that the government performed best in the field of ‘Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy’ with 69 per cent respondents choosing it as one of their three preferences. Accounting for the overlapping preferences, ‘Defence and National Security’ and ‘Welfare Policies’ followed with 52.7 and 51 per cent votes respectively.
Understandably so, the Government had been able to create its image of being a tough and determined one. The post-Uri and post-Balakot strikes, the Rafale deal despite its controversies, had turned the tide in the government’s favour in terms of defence and national security. The support that India received from the international community after the Pulwama attacks and in its bid to have the Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar designated as a global terrorist also served well. Making schemes like ‘Swachh Bharat’, ‘Ujjwala Yojana’ and ‘Jan Dhan Yojana’ some of its hallmark policies, the government seems to have drawn support for attempting to bring grassroot change.
Conversely, in the fields of ‘Economy’, ‘Delivering on Electoral Promises’ and ‘Ensuring Press Freedom’, the government performed worst with 52.7, 36.7 and 32.3 per cent people respectively naming these as one of the three biggest failures of the government. A close fourth was ‘ensuring civil liberties and rights of citizens’.
These failures can be understood in light of the demonetisation exercise along with a faulty GST, which adversely affected the economy, especially in the informal sector. A sharp fall in employment, which reports claimed has hit a 49-year low, was a far cry from the BJP’s promise of providing 2.5 crore jobs per year. Moreover, death threats to and killings of journalists by people considered to be close to the ruling party and its affiliates, the imposition of seditious charges and severe laws like the National Security Act (NSA) on students, activists and journalists and branding many as ‘anti-national’ had been widely criticised. The multiple lynchings severely damaged the status of fundamental rights.
The Prime Minister seems to have attracted diverse opinions on a personal level. Mr. Modi was described by 34 per cent respondents as being ‘strong, bold’, while another 30.5 per cent felt that ‘nation first’ was one of the three best descriptive terms for him. ‘Manipulative and shrewd’ emerged as the third best adjective for the Prime Minister.
Terms that describe Mr. Modi the best.
This falls in line with the achievements and failures of the government. A reasonable correlation can be drawn between the voted successes in national security and diplomacy and the description of Mr. Modi as being a strong leader who puts the nation first. On the other hand, a similar correlation perhaps exist between high percentage of being ‘communal, divisive’ and the failures in ensuring civil liberties in the light of lynchings, and so does between low pragmatism and failures in the economic sphere.
The Prime Minister’s performance rated on a scale of 1-5
When asked to select a maximum of three of the best performing ministers of the union government, a considerable majority of 65.6 per cent chose Sushma Swaraj, the Minister of External Affairs, as one among the three. Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and the Minister of Road Transport and Highways, Nitin Gadkari, were each selected by 34.7 per cent of the voters. This again substantiates the consensus on defence and foreign affairs being two biggest achievements of the government, as per the survey. Mr. Gadkari had also been hailed as one of the best performing ministers of the government especially because of his work with road-building. He also came to the fore due to speculation that he might emerge as a possible prime ministerial candidate in case of a hung assembly.
The performance of the Council of Ministers.
While the rating for the Council of Ministers seems similar to that of the Prime Minister, with both being rated highest at 3 out of 5, the rating for the former tended to concentrate more around the Centre. However, the rating for the Prime Minister drew 13.5 and 16.3 per cent votes at the two extremes of 1 and 5 out of 5 respectively – indicating a much more polarised and divided opinion over Mr. Modi’s personal performance as compared to that of his Council of Ministers who drew less than 10 per cent votes at either extremes of the scale.
The ratings for the overall performance of the government from 1 to 5
Keeping in line with the performance rating of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers, the overall performance of the government also was largely considered average, with 27.1 per cent respondents voting it 3 out of 5. However, at a more general level, the ratings of the government tended to be nearer to those of the Prime Minister – for instance, both drew over 12 per cent votes at the extremes.
Conclusions
The general consensus seems to be that the government’s performance was largely mediocre. Marked by gains in spheres of defence, national security and foreign affairs along with fiascos in terms of employment, delivering on poll promises and ensuring press freedom and civil liberties, the government stands at an interesting position. If it managed its external affairs well, the same cannot be said for matters home.
These achievements and failures are being seen in the run-up to the elections as well. The BJP has raised its national security and Pakistan rhetoric to a fever pitch. “Modiji ki sena” (Modi’s army) has come to the fore at the expense of jobs and vikaas. The picture being painted of Mr. Modi isn’t one of a harbinger of change, but that of the only true patriot in a sea of sharks.
Image Credits-
(Feature image) – Hindustan Times
(Graph sources) ‘DU Mandate: The 2019 General Elections’ by DU Beat.
The student union elections were finally held in Daulat Ram College (DRC) after being delayed by a month due to protests and renovations. On 26th October, 2016, thousands of DRC students went on to cast their votes to elect the Student Union for the year 2016-17. Most posts saw close competition between the contenders, especially for the posts of general secretary and cultural secretary. The option of NOTA (none of the above) was also a popular choice, with a count of 103 for the post of treasurer.
The results were announced around three hours after the voting ended. The newly elected union celebrated their victory with music and dancing in the college premises. The Student Union for the year 2016-17 is:
