In an infamous event from Dyal Singh College, students and teachers were denied entry to their college and subsequently, some were beaten up.
On Monday, 24th September 2018, hundreds of students and some teachers of Dyal Singh College (DDC) were left stranded on Lodhi Road, having been denied entry into their college by private security guards. Amidst chaos and confusion, some students started protesting and a male teacher was beaten up.
This lockdown was the result of a suspension of all classes and administrative work declared by Amitabh Sinha, the Governing Body Chairman of the College. A meeting was scheduled by him to review the nullification of the presidency of the newly elected Students Union President Rohan Awana (allegedly from ABVP) by the Election Committee after it was discovered that he didn’t follow the code of conduct. A firsthand witness and student from DDC said, “The professors who contested the suspension against the Principal’s order were attacked by our college union”.
The request for the aforementioned General Body Meeting was denied by the Principal of the College, Dr. IS Bakshi, who confirmed that he has received several emails from Amitabh Sinha for the same. In one such email, he asked Dr. Bakshi to immediately put up a notice, “To avoid any serious situation, all academic, non-academic, and any other type of activities were instructed to be suspended for both colleges. Unfortunately, I have been told that the order to suspend classes on 24th September has not been put in the public/college domain by you”.
Dr. IS Bakshi, responded, “The decision to nullify the election of President was solely based on documentary evidence of the violation of the code of conduct and not on an ideological basis. The normal functioning of the college cannot be suspended for a GBM meeting,” Following this, he has been accused of serious allegations of administrative and financial irregularities and the Governing Body will be launching an inquiry to the matter.
Later that day, the current college Principal Dr. IS Bakshi was suspended and asked to hand over the keys to Principal of Dyal Singh Evening College, Dr. Pawan Kumar, who would be taking charge of the Dyal Singh Morning College. On the bright side for Dr. Bakshi, a student from Dyal Singh College said “We are all supporting the Principal”, implying the common sentiment amongst students.
Apoliticality is simply a state of being politically neutral, unbiased, non-aligned and free from party politics. It does not mean indifference and ignorance.
If we were to go back to ages past our own, we could easily notice the most pervasive aspect of politics playing through them all. Politics as a subject has excited human intellect for eons; because of its direct correspondence with power. Where once Politics was a means to achieve power for the purpose of practising a change, it has today become the end. Power is sought for the privilege it fulfills, the prerogatives that it promises, and not because it gives a certain grasp on change. It is expected to see the political indifference of a lot of people in our country, for the similar realisation. The truth is in our face, clearer than ever, and while some flee away from the promising vanity of it, some choose to act. So then, what is the best course of action? Is escapism ever a choice? Is escapism synonymous to apoliticality? We can know these answers, for once if we ask ourselves.
In all forms of politics, a diametric opinion is formed. Despite a wide representation, there are only a couple of political parties that stand their ground in public opinion in India. We saw it in the recent DUSU elections – the youth’s response to student politics. After an actively effective campaigning, the results have arrived, and rightly, not to the best of everyone’s interests. This is what politics teaches us, in fact, asserting your ideas with conviction is the true sense of it. Voters cannot be forced into believing in an ideology by the use of force. This decision must form internally. But all of us witnessed the gifts of various political parties this election season to gain favors of students. Why do we need an incentive to vote, an upheaval that reminds us that we must vote? Apoliticality is not about my refusal to vote, it is my conscious choice that I decide the candidate whom I give my vote to, on the basis of his/her merit. My perspective is skewed because I mean to make it so, not because a candidate gave me a movie ticket.
It is mistaken that people who do not indulge directly in politics do not know a lot of it to comment or offer suggestions. It is not true. Politics is increasingly becoming administrative in nature, but in that, we seem to forget that politics is a faculty of the human mind; it mandates human intervention. But most of us do not participate actively in politics because it has been stigmatised. We keep forgetting that it is made up of people, and people at times can be fickle, can be biased and can be disappointing. It is the people who make politics, but sadly, we see the becoming of this statement otherwise.
Our disassociation with politics is a choice. And all choices are not in the best taste. Sometimes, even if you are the most apolitical person, you will be dragged into politics against your choice. Today, we cannot exist in seclusion. Hence, indifference is not a choice. Apoliticality must be. The state of being unbiased, a state that requires you to be yourself. And what’s better than being yourself?
Some candidates of Law Centre I alleged voter malpractice in the college elections held on 12th September. They have submitted an application regarding the same to the University.
On 12th September 2018, elections across University took place. The counting process on 13th September saw allegations of EVM tampering being raised in various places. In a new allegation, Jitender Singh, an ex-Presidential candidate of Law Centre-1 at Campus Law Faculty alleged voter malpractice and misconduct by election officers in holding the LC-1 elections on 12th September. He, along with two other candidates, Mayank Yadav and Sandesh Jha, submitted a formal complaint to the University Grievance Council.
On 12th September, Mr. Singh wrote in the application, that they noticed a case of voter impersonation of a second-year LC-1 student Amit Kumar. They also alleged a discrepancy between the turnout and the final voting figures. The Election Officer of LC-1 was informed about the bogus voting, but he offered a concession of 10 votes to Jitender Singh, which he refused, as per Mr. Singh’s application. In a Facebook post regarding the same, Mr. Singh also said that after complaining to the Election officer S.K. Singh, their cries for holding the election results until a decision was made by the University Grievance Council, were dismissed.
The application also alleged that there was gross violation of the Code of Conduct by the winning panel of Ajay Dahiya (President), Akshay Kumar (Vice President), Digvijay Singh Bisht (General Secretary), Shambhavi Srivastav (Joint Secretary), Aditya Chauhan (Central Councillor) by campaigning through social media on the day of polling. There was also the absence of any kind of camera recording and the compulsory signature of students while opening ballot boxes, which was a violation of the Lyngdoh Committee regulations.
Mr. Singh, when talking to DU Beat, said how he found out that when a member of his core team, Amit Kumar, went to vote found out that his name was already used to cast votes in the evening of 12th September. After he rejected the concession of 10 votes, they went on a protest against such malpractices on 13th September. However they have received no notice from the authorities, Mr. Singh told DU Beat. A hearing regarding the application submitted at the University Grievance Council is scheduled to be held on Monday.
The DRCSU Election 2018-19 presented itself all enveloped in controversies. A new face of politics revealed itself to the students as they fought, protested, won, and lost.
The Daulat Ram College Students’ Union (DRCSU) Election was held on 10th September 2018 and the voting hours were between 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Here are some major and vital highlights of the same:
The Absence of NOTA
“I entered the hall to cast my vote with the above-mentioned prospects of a ‘democracy’ clear in my mind, only to realise that a violation of these prospects was waiting for me in the form of an Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) where there was no option of ‘None of the Above’ (NOTA). I voted only for candidates whom I believed were worthy of voting. As I made my way out of the little space reserved for voting, a teacher told me to cast my vote for all the posts. I told her that I wanted to vote only for two posts. But then, I was informed that voting for each post was a compulsion. Apparently, the vote wouldn’t be recognised if one person from each post was not voted for.”
In a survey conducted by DU Beat, among Daulat Ram College (DRC) students which asked ‘Do you think the option of “None of the Above” (NOTA) should have been there while voting?’ 80.1% marked their opinion as a ‘Yes’, out of the 500 people who participated in the survey. The whole purpose of having NOTA as an option is to provide the voters with a space to express that they do not find any of the candidates contesting the election deserving. NOTA gives us an explicit insight into a picture of the elections. It creates scope for future candidates to improve their ways.
Mismanagement
In the DRCSU Elections, students had to wait for more than 2 hours to cast their vote, in a humid and crowded corridor. A few voters standing in the queue were seen backing out too. “The entire scenario could have been avoided if voting happened in slots. Subject wise, we could all be made into groups and asked to vote. It would have created much less havoc”, a second-year student who chose to stay anonymous suggested when asked how the situation could be improved.
Ill-working of the EVMs
As mentioned before, it was mandatory for the voters to select one person each for every post. The vote would be invalid if not cast for each post. According to this, the number of votes for each post should be equal. However, it was not so. A recent count of the votes says that there is a difference of about 200 votes between the post of General Secretary (GS) and others. Meaning, there are 200 more votes for the post of GS as compared to others. How and why such a discrepancy occurred is unknown but it sure questions the spirit of the voters.
When asked about the working of the EVMs, a few voters were reported saying that some of the buttons on the machine weren’t working when they pressed them. A little here and there is still something that can be understood. But a difference of 200 votes may turn all the tables.
The Controversy: Where it started
The candidates contesting for the prestigious post of college President were in a tussle long before the elections even began. Neha Beniwal, a presidential candidate allegedly claimed that unlike her, none of her opponents (Sonia Sehrawat and Diksha Verma) had the minimum percentage of attendance required to contest for the post. The shortage of attendance was a problem for several other candidates contesting for the posts of Vice-President as well. All the candidates were, just before the declaration of the nominations for DRCSU, made to sign undertakings promising the completion of 75% attendance in the ongoing semester, to be able to be eligible to contest in the elections. The college was, as a result, witness to a lot of protests and counter-protests.
The rivalry soon took an ugly turn. On the evening of 10th September, the results of the elections were declared and, Diksha Verma was elected as the President of the 2018-19 Students’ Union of Daulat Ram College. Out of the total votes cast (1439), she got 40% votes and won with the margin of 71 votes. The victory was celebrated by her supporters but was short-lived. She was questioned by the opponents from the panel, which won a significant majority in the DRCSU, but their presidential candidate, Sonia Sehrawat, had lost.
The most contentious matter however, was the result of the General Secretary post, wherein the total votes did not tally with the other posts, and an increment of 200 votes was seen.
The panel, along with their supporters, alleged that the EVMs were not working properly and demanded the recounting of votes, despite having tested the EVMs on their functionality on morning of the elections themselves. All electoral candidates were invited by the Election Commission to affirm the correct working of the EVMs, post which they signed a document, confirming the same.
They staged aggressive protests outside the Principal’s office on the evening of the elections, wherein things got violent as students banged the doors and the windows of the admin block, demanding an answer from the administration.
The 11th of September was a new day for everyone but it brought with it the putridity of protests. The other two candidates, along with their followers assembled outside the staff room of the college, sat there and shouted slogans. Interestingly, the protests questioned Diksha Verma’s win, rather than questioning the working of EVMs. “Diksha Verma nahi chahiye” (We don’t want Diksha Verma) “Goondaraj nahi chahiye” (We don’t want hooliganism), were some slogans that the students were heard shouting. Most of them, it is believed, belonged to the college hostel.
This protest witnessed around 100 students blocking the corridor of the college, as they were sitting outside Lab 5, the room in which the Students’ Advisory Board (SAB) was deliberating the fate of the elections. The protesters were joined by Debangana Baruah, who was the DRCSU President from 2014-15, and Nandita Nain, who was a presidential candidate in 2017. Both ex-students of the college were seen enticing the students and motivating them to raise such slogans. This practice raised several concerns as it is a clear violation of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations Clause 6.3.1.
Nandita Nain (ex-student, in white, with a black bag), seen with Sonia Sehrawat, the opposing Presidential candidate (standing next to Nandita) during the protest.Debangana Baruah (in a green kurta), the Ex-President of DRC in the college during the protest.
Later, a demand for re-elections was also raised by the protesters. The Election Committee agreed to it and informally announced the scheduling of the re-elections to be held on the 13th of September, 2018. However, no such notice was delivered officially to the students from the administration or the Principal. The protesters rejoiced and dispersed, and the news of the re-elections, which was still not confirmed officially, spread like wild fire.
The evening of 12th September, brought about a message from the convenor of the SAB, calling all electoral candidates to the committee room of the college on 13th of September, at 10 a.m. The SAB along with the Principal of the college addressed all the queries and concerns of the candidates, they were re-assured that the elections have been carried out in a fair manner, with discrepancies in the post of General Secretary, which were caused due to a fault in the buttons of that specific post. The meeting resulted in the official declaration of Diksha Verma as the President of DRCSU 2018-19. The solution for the matter of General Secretary was not that of a re-election, but the inculcation of all three electoral candidates in DRCSU as the General Secretary.
The official notice was uploaded on the DRC website after the meeting.
The Oath Taking Ceremony was held on 14th September, wherein only the President, General Secretary, and ICC member participated. Meanwhile, the opposition continued their protest outside the college building demanding “justice.”
Diksha Verma, during the official oath taking ceremony held today.
Feature Image Credits – Students of Daulat Ram College
Student union elections in the University can be an utterly tricky business. They’re characterised by a volatile aura, where, in a fraction of a second, you might stumble upon an unruly mob at a place that’s otherwise calm and quiet.
In a recent showcase of events staged at Lakshmibai College, things took an unprecedented turn. Earlier this week, news spread like wild-fire that Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) supporters had manhandled National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) supporters, and that had a detrimental effect on the college’s discipline and sanctity.
According to Saimon Farooqi, National Media Secretary, NSUI, “The nomination was supposed to be carried out on a certain day, and the next day was restricted only for their withdrawal and not for accepting any further nominations. However, we found out that the Principal was using her power to accept the nomination for a particular candidate belonging to ABVP on the next day, and hence we called for an agitation against this malefaction. As we did so, ABVP activists charged against us which exposed us to physical penuries. Our National General Secretary, Ms. Karishma, was attacked by a blade in the ruckus.”
The case had not even cooled down yet, when another staggering chain of events came into the lime-light. A recent production at Lakshmibai College led to a clash of ideas between the college management and the political front. In what can be termed as an attempt to maintain decorum inside the college premises, the college principal, Dr. Pratyush Vatsala, allegedly, did away with the practice of declaring the college student union results on the same day as the polling, and dictated that they shall be announced on some other day, for which she hasn’t given the tentative date yet.
When DU Beat contacted the Principal for her take on the matter, she said, “I don’t care what NSUI thinks. I’m not answerable to them. I’m doing the duty that has been assigned to me. The decision to declare the results on a different date has been taken, keeping in mind various other aspects and proceedings that are going on in the background. The results shall be declared as soon as the proceedings are over. I can’t give any tentative dates for this to happen.”
The NSUI, on the other hand, has very different opinion on the matter. The union alleges that there is something fishy in the tabulation process, since the votes are being counted without the absence of any University appointed polling representatives as well as the candidates. There is felt the absence of a legit polling booth. According to the union, this is a dent on the transparency of the student body elections, and hence hampers the spirit of a free-willed student democracy.
On Monday, 10th September 2018, DU Beat conducted an interview with the Presidential candidate of the National Students’ Union of India in context to the Delhi University Student Union Elections to be held on the 12th of September 2018.
Here are some excerpts from the interview.
Question: What is your plan for establishing accountability in the Delhi University Students’ Union?
Sunny: I will do my best to get the tag of ‘Institute of Eminence’ to DU so that we become entitled to get INR 1000 crores from which each college will be entitled to get INR 8 crores, and each student will, in turn,
be entitled to INR 75,000. The second thing on the agenda is a subsidised ‘chattra canteen’, a ten-rupee thali. The third thing on the agenda is to bring back the 62,600 laptops that were issued during the four-year programmes. These laptops should be re-issued to the students. Even if we don’t win the elections, we will continue to work
on these issues.
Question: How do you plan to provide a thali for a mere price of INR 10 to the students?
Sunny: Taking example from Amma Canteen of Tamil Nadu, NSUI has decided to provide the students with a INR 10 thali. The Amma Canteen offers more variety in terms of food than we are planning to. The subsidy will come from the INR 1000 crore budget which we hope to get after getting the tag of Institute of Eminence. A thali at such a low price is required because students from different backgrounds study in DU and it is important to provide them with equal opportunities.
Question: What is your take on the issue of the privatisation of higher educational institutions, especially the University of Delhi?
Sunny: The fee structure in DU is not transparent. I am a student pursuing B.A. (Hons.) Sanskrit from Shivaji College. The fee structure of any two colleges of the University is not similar, there is always some disparity.
For example, the fee structure of Shivaji College and Dyal Singh College for the same course is different. These are some indicators that show that the University is moving towards privatisation but we are making efforts to bring transparency in the fee structure.
Question: How inclusive is your party politics in terms of minority representation?
Sunny: We have ensured representation from the Scheduled Caste category in our panel. Leena is contesting from this category for the post of Vice President. In the coming years, we will be focusing on the representation of the minorities from regions like the Northeastern region of the country. We do not wish to make DUSU all about ‘jaat-gujjar’ elections. We wish to create an environment where each and every community is equally represented and enjoy equal rights.
Question: Which trick enabled you to campaign within a mere budget of INR 5000, the maximum that a candidate is allowed to spend on campaigning as per the Lyngdoh Committee?
Sunny: We are getting help from our family, friends, and relatives. The cars which you see on the road are of our friends, supporters, and family. No extra money is spent on all this. It’s within the budget.
Question: Littering in the campus has become a trend in DUSU elections. Manifestos of political parties and pamphlets are seen everywhere, on the roads, in the college campus and also on the walls.
What would you like to say on this issue?
Sunny: The paper used in printing the pamphlets is recyclable paper. We are controlling the wastage of paper. We are not pasting any posters, hoardings because six democracy goals have been assigned by DU and based on them, we are pasting our posters. It’s just the beginning. By next year, we hope to control all the waste created during the elections.
Question: Since the last three years, the None Of The Above (NOTA) option has gained attraction among DU voters. Why do you think this is happening?
Sunny: The main problem is the fight between the Left and the Right. They are not fighting for the issues of the students. Student issues should be taken care of, but when this doesn’t happen, students prefer the NOTA option.
Question: The tiff between Mahamedhaa Nagar and Kunal Sehrawat on the installation of sanitary pad vending machines was in news recently. What is your take on this?
Sunny: The DUSU office works on the collective decision-making process of the four office bearers. Even if a single person denies or objects to a certain decision, everything is re-worked again. It’s like the Parliament where everyone gets an equal say. The initiative of installing machines was mentioned in our manifesto last year. Mahamedhaa took a certain advantage of this. Though she worked hard for the installation, the credit cannot only be showered on her. Kunal Sehrawat has played a very important role in bringing this change. We fulfilled our promises we had made to the students.
Question: Miranda House saw buses outside the college gate today. On enquiring, we got to know that they have been arranged by NSUI for a movie screening. So don’t you think this is unethical when it comes to campaigning?
Sunny: No, I don’t think it’s unethical. Even as kids, we used to go on school picnics. We are not doing it for votes. This is just like a picnic for the students so that they can get a day off from their busy and hectic schedule. Not only this, we have noticed that the students are also interested in going out to have fun.
Question: What are the achievements of the NSUI led DUSU in the year 2017-18?
Sunny: We completed most of the promises we made to the students like installation of sanitary pad vending machines, and access to the library 24*7. We also put a stop to the metro fare hike till 2020. We also
fought for concessional metro passes for students studying in DU. So, yes, it was a fruitful year.
Question: Which element differentiates you from the other contenders for the post of President?
Sunny: I am not comparing myself with others. I am just focusing on trying to improve myself every day. I am not sure whether I will become the President or not, but one thing I am sure of is that I will work for student welfare and improve myself.
Feature Image Credits: The National Students’ Union of India
For a long time, Hindu College has had the distinction of having its own Parliament, a rare feature in any DU college. So, as the campus gets awakened in the wake of the DUSU elections, Hindu College becomes a political world in its own.
On the eve of the college Students’ Union elections, a major event that takes place in Hindu College is the Annual PM debate. This year, the same took place on the 10th of September 2018. Apart from fiery speeches and questioning, it also felt like a session when the democratic audience of the Hindu College auditorium got to know their candidates in a better manner. There were obviously a few hoots, cheers and naarebaazi. But this year’s edition was pretty different in the sense that there were five contestants for the PM’s chair (one of them being a woman leader which, again, is a rare phenomenon in the Parliament). Each one was from a different course with different aspirations and agendas. After the clock struck twelve, the auditorium started to get jam-packed. Members of the ‘Symposium’, the society involved in hosting this mega event, were trying their best to handle the unruly crowd, cheering for their candidate and finding the spots where the other members of their society were seated. The energy and the whole aura of the setting felt as if a music concert is about to start.
After a few minutes, all the five candidates got up on the stage, each one displaying a mix of confidence and confusion on their faces, their notes clutched tightly in their hands. Round one witnessed each leader presenting his or her vision, his or her arguments, and his or her expectations. Ananya Bhardwaj started out by explaining how the politics in the college has hardly been inclusive for women and the debates and discussions are mostly “concentrated within the boys’ hostel”. She questioned, “If the women of the institution don’t get an adequate space to voice their opinion, then how is this parliament democratic?”
Next in line was Divit Yadav who again highlighted how he too wants to promote gender equality and at the same time, would want to improve the infrastructure of the college. He also mentioned how he and his supporters had successfully conducted ‘Mecca’, the college fest which was hailed as ‘the big daddy of college fests’ in several publications of Delhi. The ‘Mecca achievement’ was again highlighted by the third candidate, Naveen Kumar. He added how he had been disillusioned with the ruling panel of the Parliament the year before and this led to the creation of his own front ‘Team Naveen’. Kumar also took an indirect jab at a few other instigators in the student politics when he said he does not believe in using surname or caste to attract votes. Infrastructure and student welfare issues were also elaborated by Shreyas Mishra. His speech might have sounded dull but it was factually correct and straight to the point. His agenda included strengthening the Wi-Fi signals, setting up a lunch break for the convenience of science students, introducing more books in Braille and so on. The last speech was by Vivek Reddy who seemed very timid and calm while he was seated. But as soon as he got to the podium, he took control of the stage. His was a speech driven by a lot of aggression as he yelled out his thoughts on how the parliament needs to be more equivalent in nature and accommodate people of all social and economic backgrounds. Even though this was mentioned by other candidates too, Reddy’s passion truly seemed unique and personal.
What followed was a session when the candidates could question each other and answer a few questions asked by the audience. In all these rounds of arguing, the main themes that were common to all were student welfare, representation for students of all backgrounds, and of course, ‘Mecca’. Some glorified how Mecca is ‘Hindu College ki Shaan’ (the glory of Hindu College) while a few others said that conducting the college fest is not the only responsibility of a PM and many other issues need to be given more attention.
Some points in the candidates’ agendas seemed like they are much needed to enhance Hindu College while some other points seemed like unrealistic electoral promises which will hardly be realised once the elections get over.
Who will win? Who will lose? The answer to that is totally dependent on the students who make Hindu College what it is. The answer will be revealed on the 12th of September.Till then, the students can ponder over yesterday’s debate and try making the right choice.
Yesterday, the ABVP read out its election manifesto in Miranda House. However, they had to leave soon as they were shamed off the stage by the audience.
In what was a short session for the representatives of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), there was huge uproar in Miranda House today over their manifesto reading for the DUSU elections. The manifesto reading started with a representative of ABVP who initially claimed that he was Ankiv Baisoya, the Presidential candidate of the ABVP. However, when it was found out that he wasn’t Ankiv Baisoya, the Students’ Union of Miranda House admonished the ABVP for lying about their candidate. The representative, whose name we couldn’t find, gave the justification that he was representing Ankiv Baisoya. However, the students refused to listen to him after that, even when he attempted to argue that free speech should be protected especially in Miranda House.
Sudhir Dedha, the ABVP’s candidate for the post of General Secretary, started campaigning by mentioning his ballot numbers, although due to the booing that happened, he was soon cut off. A student asked him about the recent comments made by Shri Niwas, the National Joint Organising Secretary, in a rally about the colleges of Ramjas College, Hindu College, Miranda House, and Kirori Mal College being ’hubs of Naxalism’ to which Mr. Dedha replied, “We won’t tolerate those who say Bharat ke tukde honge, inshallah! (Bharat will be broken up, inshallah)”. This generated even more uproar in the auditorium.
Mr. Dedha was also asked about the recent ban in two books by Nandini Sundar and Archana Prasad on the charges that these had “sympathy towards the Naxalite movement”. He replied, “If any book is claiming that Bhagat Singh is a terrorist, we don’t think such books should be there (in the syllabus).”
Notably, Archana Prasad’s book is called “Against Ecological Romanticism: Verrier Elwin and the Making of an Anti-modern Tribal identity” while Nandini Sundar’s book is called “Subalterns and Sovereigns: An Anthropological History of Bastar”. Neither of the books mention anything about Bhagat Singh.
Sudhir Dedha remained unavailable for comment when DU Beat attempted to contact him.
In a session today, AISA-CYSS and NSUI presented their election manifestoes in Miranda House. The Miranda House Student’s Union elections were also held.
Half an hour after noon today, the Miranda House auditorium was abuzz with students who had come to hear the candidates for various student’s unions making their election speeches. After the Miranda House Student’s Union elections (MHSU) candidates made their election speeches, representatives from AISA-CYSS and NSUI came forward for their campaigns.
Abhigyan, the AISA-CYSS Presidential candidate said in his campaign speech, “There is a narrative which has happened that university-level politics is very self-centred and is used as a stepping stone for advancing a person’s career, we are trying to change this narrative. Why shouldn’t there be a narrative where we can talk about politics? We are trying to build a Union which is not going to dictate the students.” Abhigyan raised several issues like financial autonomy, the use of muscle power and the masculinity that has crept up in politics. He also talked about how AISA had helped in building a girls’ hostel in Hindu College, fought for metro bus passes as well as campaigned against financial autonomy.
Abhigyan was then questioned extensively by the students who asked him on AISA’s stand on gender discrimination committees, why AISA was fielding a male Presidential candidate and so on.
After that, NSUI’s student candidate for the Vice-Presidential post, Leena tried to present her manifesto. However, some of the students of Miranda House opposed her before she could say anything, demanding that she leave the podium and that she was not “fit to be contesting elections.” Amid massive booing, Leena talked about the NSUI’s stance for women empowerment, to make University of Delhi (DU) an Institute of Eminence which would bring in public funds, to launch a thali for students worth 10 rupees, etc. Leena, who is a graduate of Miranda House, claimed that she used to “stand outside the gate of Miranda House regularly and campaign.” However, many students shouted that they hadn’t seen her outside the gate. She was also called out on her claim of not distributing any pamphlets in her name, what she would do on her part to change the politics of the University, and the fact that her name was changed from Leena to “A.A. Leena” in an alleged claim for getting the first ballot. Although Ms Leena tried to defend her position and that of her student union, the students booed her off the stage.
Ambica, a Miranda House student said, “The girl from NSUI didn’t have answers for anything. She just repeated a few things that she had been told to say. But it wasn’t surprising because once your party member has been accused of molestation and rape, there isn’t much that you could say.”
Muskan Dhar, the Vice-president of Women’s Development Cell of Miranda House, when asked if the booing was fair, said, “We heard Abhigyan and he was pretty correct in saying that the ICCs are not functional. As an ICC candidate, I know the kind of resistance we face in having meetings. The candidate from NSUI, however, did not have any proper manifesto. How Miranda reacted to it was two-fold. Some of it was justified since we know of the increasing violence around the campus, but I think we could have channelised our concerns in a better way.”
No official candidate of ABVP showed up and no official reasons were submitted for. Later in a notice released by the Staff Advisors of Miranda House, it was informed that the ABVP candidates would address the students of Miranda House tomorrow at from 12:45 to 1 p.m.
The AISA-CYSS alliance unveiled their candidates today in a rally that started from the Faculty of Arts, North Campus.
In a huge show of strength, the alliance of the All India Students Association (AISA) and Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Samiti (CYSS), declared their candidates for the upcoming Delhi University Students Union (DUSU) elections on 12th September 2018, in a rally that started from the Faculty of Arts at 1 p.m.
Abhigyan, a first-year student pursuing B.A. Programme from Ramjas College would be contesting for the post of President while Anshika Singh, a student from Dayal Singh College would be contesting for Vice President. Both are from the AISA. Chandramani Dev, a student from Law Centre II and Sunny Tanwar, a student of Pannalal Girdharlal Dayanand Anglo Vedic College will be contesting for the posts of Secretary and Joint Secretary respectively. Notably, both candidates are from the CYSS.
In a press release, the joint alliance promised to challenge the politics of hooliganism around the campus and to establish an ‘alternative model’ of DUSU which will be student-friendly. They have based their campaigning on issues like better student transportation and accommodation facilities, ensuring a Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) which would encompass the entire University, better placement facilities for students, student clinics in DU colleges and so on.
The rally of around 300 people moved from the Faculty of Arts in North Campus to Ramjas College, Kirorimal College, Hansraj College, Hindu College, Law Faculty and returned to the Faculty of. When asked why students should vote for AISA-CYSS, Abhigyan told DU Beat, “We’re trying to change the narrative that has been existing around here. We want to change the scenario of people coming with garlands in their necks and trying to portray themselves on a pedestal that is above the students. We’re trying to break that. We’re trying to communicate better with the students and we are fighting every day while understanding that students are also fighting every day.”
Having said that, it was considered ironical that the CYSS panel members started to climb the statue of Swami Vivekananda in the middle of the Faculty of Arts, with garlands in their necks. On the insistence of some AISA members, they descended from the statue and proceeded for the rally on foot.
