Narendra Modi


To mark the closing of the University of Delhi’s centenary celebrations, Prime Minister Narendra Modi virtually laid the foundation of three new buildings. The event was broadcast live throughout all DU campuses via screens installed in staff rooms, auditoriums, and other locations, with some colleges issuing guidelines related to attendance and also imposing dress code restrictions.

 Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the closing ceremony of DU’s centenary celebration as the Chief Guest and virtually laid the foundation of three new buildings: Delhi University’s Computer Centre, Faculty of Technology, and Academic Block. Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan also attended the event as the Chief Guest. The event, which took place from 11 AM to 1 PM, was broadcast live in almost all DU colleges via screens installed in staff rooms, libraries, auditoriums, etc. Several DU colleges released guidelines for their students, including guidelines regarding compulsory attendance, dress code, extra attendance to attendees, etc.

Participation in the event was declared mandatory in a notification issued at BR Ambedkar College, whilst a notification released at Zakir Hussain College said that the signatures of all the attendees will be sent to the university, adding that it’s being done at DU’s behest. Meanwhile, Professors at Hindu College sent students a WhatsApp message promising 5 extra days of attendance as a benefit for their participation in the event.  Additionally, the message aims at encouraging students not to wear black clothes.

Several faculty members and students criticized these guidelines on social media. In an article by The Print, Abhigyan, a student of DU, said “Promising grades and attendance have become a regular event in DU. Similar promises related to extra marks in elective subjects for students who participate in yoga day were made.”

The Zakir Hussain College notification, asking all faculty members to turn up by 9 AM reads, “As per the directions of the University of Delhi all staff members other than the newly appointed teachers who are physically present at the multipurpose hall, University of Delhi, are mandatorily required to remain present in the college library to view the valedictory function of the centenary celebrations.”

Concerning the message, The Print contacted Hindu College Principal Anju Srivastav. She said “The administration’s message had been misunderstood, and there was no restriction on the color of clothes. It is not possible to give students extra attendance. However, we would like to see all students and staff turn up for the screening. We only wanted to send the message across that it is a regular working day and students have to come to college.”

Various student Unions criticized the release of these guidelines. SFI released a statement expressing strong criticism about certain notices released by several colleges about the valedictory ceremony.  The message read “It is absolutely condemnable for any college to be releasing such dictatorial directives. If making the presence of all students mandatory for the live screening of the event was not exasperating enough, the admin has also asked students to not wear any black dress! It is preposterous that the college and university administration will go to any lengths to curb all sorts of dissent in our educational spaces. In addition to it, baiting students with five attendances in such a manner speaks volumes about the ‘serious’ approach adopted by institutions like Delhi University towards imparting sound, meaningful education to its students.


Read Also: DU Offers Scholarships, Laptops for New B. Tech Courses

Featured Image Credits: Devansh Arya for DU Beat


Dhruv Bhati

[email protected]

More than 50 academics from DU, JNU, and other institutions have written to the Delhi University VC, requesting the removal of the punishments meted out to students who were allegedly involved in the screening of the Narendra Modi BBC documentary.

On Thursday, April 6 2023, 59 academics, on behalf of the India Academic Freedom
Network, wrote to the University of Delhi, advocating for the revocation of the punishment
imposed on students for screening the BBC documentary on Prime Minister Narendra Modi
and his alleged involvement in the Gujarat riots. The letter addressed to Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Yogesh Singh, stated that the failure to obtain approval for its screening is “not a serious enough offence” to prevent students from taking examinations.

“We need not tell you that the university is supposed to be a space where students and teachers feel free to get information from any source, decide for themselves and express themselves freely. They are adults and can make decisions for themselves. We, teachers and administrators are not here to police their thoughts or censor their sources of information.” The letter stated.

The documentary, India: The Modi Question, critically explores then Chief Minister Modi’s involvement in the Muslim genocides in Gujarat in 2002. It was screened on-campus by several student groups on 27th January,2023.  The following day, Delhi Police detained 24 students from Delhi University’s Arts Faculty and a disciplinary committee barred 2 PhD students namely Lokesh Chugh and Ravinder Singh from all academic activities, including exams for one year, for allegedly
planning to exhibit the documentary.

In the memorandum issued on March 10, the DU registrar claimed that the BBC documentary is ‘banned’ and requested 6 other students to submit written apologies to the administration for screening the film without permission. The professors response, however, questioned the disciplinary actions’ justifications, arguing that they were out of proportion to the alleged violation.  “The memorandum regarding the punishment, as published in the media, states that they had violated the ban on screening of the said documentary by the government of India,” the letter stated. “We want to bring to your notice that it is known to all that the documentary was never banned and is still not banned by the government.”

The letter then specified that the documentary was “only a critical examination of the present regime in the context of the situation of Muslims.” It was signed by Satish Deshpandeand Nandini Sundar from the Department of Sociology, Ashwini Kumar from DUTA and Sucharita Sen and Avinash Kumar from Jawaharlal Nehru University, among others.

“The only condition we all must follow while exercising this right is that it should not promote hatred and violence. How could it’s screening by some students become a threat to order on the campus, is beyond our understanding.” they added. The signatories stressed the significance of creating a secure environment on campus for students to practice critical thinking. “It is not the job of the university to defend the government or disallow thoughts critical to it. We hope that our concern would be heard and the said punishment order would be withdrawn.”, the letter concluded.

Image Credits: TFI Post

Read Also: Students Detained by Delhi Police after NREGA Discussions

Manvi Goel
[email protected]



This article talks about the political environment and our stake in it.

The 2019 elections are one of the most anticipated and crucial elections for our country. The Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power by making use of the failures of Indian National Congress (INC), and by using the ‘Modi wave’ to raise hopes of growth in a developing country like India. But in its term, the BJP has also hit several lows. As students, the important question to ask remains- what is the position of the youth in such a political scenario?

This will be the first-time some students presently in college will get to vote. With the current political environment and the youth comprising a huge part of our population, of which college students form an important part, it becomes essential for us to become aware of the power we hold. We must make efforts to learn what have been the promises made and the promises kept, to be able to critique the wrong-doings, and to learn from our decisions. The tag of ‘millennials’ stands for several values but it also includes the idea of being liberal, taking one’s own decisions, standing for justice and rights, and challenging the prevalent archaic thinking.  But if we do not act upon these values, they simply remain tokenistic.

Indian polity works more on leaders and the image they create; this election Modi becomes our most obvious contender. With this, the focus should not just be on the achievements of this government but also on the big blunders such as Demonetization and the questionable Rafale deal. The latter is seen to be becoming a rallying point for the INC, but scams on both sides, as it tries to suggest, should not be a metric for Congress to win the elections rather than re-analyse the party’s own policies.  While it has recaptured important states like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Chhattisgarh, a pattern of elections we should break is winning on the blunders of the most popular party. Mistakes by others does not guarantee no mistakes of our own.

Furthermore, unfortunately, what also wins elections is the culture of cult figures. It is for us to decide to not get swayed by charismatic and powerful speeches by any party leader, to try to remove these biases, and to look beyond these to see where “achhe din” truly lie.

In these elections, the regional parties play a major role as well, and can prove to be tough competition to these national parties. It therefore becomes pertinent to not lose sight of Mayawati’s Bahujan Samajwadi Party (BSP), Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party (SP), Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress (TNC), CPI, CPM, Aam Aadmi Party, PDP, JDU, DMK, Asom Gana Parishad among several others.

These past few months, several important judgements have been passed, with regards to the Section 377, Adultery and Aadhar, which have been in sync with the public sentiment and speak volumes about how the Indian society is ready to move forward. We need to no longer restrict our influence on the sidelines but take the center stage. With this, hopefully, at the end of the next term, the scenario will no longer remain in a turmoil.

Image Credits: DU Beat

Shivani Dadhwal

[email protected]

The Court was left frustrated as the University could not file a rejoinder in seven months, citing the ‘lack of time’.

In keeping with the Prime Minister’s efforts to keep himself in the news, the degree controversy refuses to die down, but this one not quite to the liking of the Premier. This Thursday, when the matter came up for hearing at the Delhi High Court, after a gap of nearly seven months when the case was filed, the University came up with newer records in its lethargy in legal proceedings. According to the news report by The Wire which surfaced last night, the University, which in April 2017 was asked to file a rejoinder to a reply by the petitioner Neeraj within four weeks, first tried to get another extension by claiming that the no objection certificate for adjournment had been signed by the petitioner’s lawyer. It then pleaded that it could not find time to file a rejoinder.

The University of Delhi lawyer pleaded before the court for the case to be adjourned since the senior advocate Tushar Mehta, who was leading the case, was not present. Upon being asked why despite being provided with four weeks to file the rejoinder seven months ago it had not been filed yet, the University lawyer began pleading for additional time. The developments left Justice Vibhu Bakhru visibly perturbed and after the court assembled at 10:30 am, he kept insisting that the DU lawyer move ahead with the hearing. The court heard the matter twice after that, first at 12:30 pm and then at 2:30 pm, but each time in the absence of its senior counsel. Finally at 2:30 pm, Justice Bakhru said that he was barring DU from filing a rejoinder in the matter and listed the next hearing for February 28.

In May last year, Union Minister Arun Jaitley and had made public both the Gujarat University and DU documents. Both the Universities had validated the authenticity of the documents. What is unexplainable, however, is the way University, which ideally should have nothing to hide, has since then blocked any further attempts for further information on the subject, now attempting to adjourn the court case.

With inputs from The Wire

Feature Image Credits: PTI

Nikhil Kumar
[email protected]

From the perspective of a college student, the path forward from the landmark verdict of demonetisation was bleak with flickering lights and a hazy future. Here is how students were affected by the remarkable judgment last year.

It has been a year since the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, passed the historic judgment of demonetising INR 500 and INR 1000 notes from circulation. Besides sparking countless memes and attracting criticism from all four corners, the judgment is most infamously known for the disturbance it created in the everyday lives of the Indian denizens. As Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) marks 8th November as the Anti-Black Money Day, we retrospect to determine how demonetisation affected the daily routines of the students of the University of Delhi (DU). The chaos and mayhem it inflicted on the student community can only be suitably answered by the very people who were most affected by it.

Outstation students were adversely hit out of the student lot as they did not have any financial backing like the rest of the day scholars did. Apart from the inconvenience it caused in day-to-day expenses that toppled everyone’s budgets, DU hostellers and PG renters had a harrowing time. Landlords and PG owners demanded rent that time round, and many students were left scaffolding for the newest currency they could get in their hands. Kinjal Pandey, a student of Daulat Ram College, added, “My PG friends and I tried to wake up at 5 a.m. in the morning in the hopes that we would be able to stand ahead in the ATM line. Every day at least 8-9 girls would wake up early and go out at dawn in order to stand in the ATM line.”

Furthermore, since this happened towards the end of the odd semester with end semester exams approaching, many wasted their precious time standing in long queues to no avail. Students were seen standing, studying in lines for hours as the transaction limit was restricted to INR 2,000 per day. That left many to resort to alternative sources like borrowing from home or from unrecognised money lenders. At a time when most transactions were conducted in cash, many students did not have checkbooks and were not as well-equipped to manage one’s finances digitally. Budgets were disrupted and limits were increased manifold to counter the urgency of the situation.

A year since this debacle, the verdict has been mixed. Whether it was a hit or a miss is a completely different lead to follow.


Image Credits: DNA India

Image Caption: The demotisation of INR 500 and 1000 notes last year adversely affected outstation DU students.


Vijeata Balani

[email protected]

The government of Gujarat has been no stranger to controversy. They recently came under heat again when they indicated that they are trying to re-invite the anti-dissent law within the state assembly, despite their previous years of failed attempts.

The role of the judiciary is to hold the government accountable, make sure it is functioning in accordance with the constitution and to interpret the constitution which allows it to limit the powers of some branches of the government. The judiciary is considered to be an independent body. These positive connotations invoke a sense of security and ensure the implementation of rights amongst the citizens of a country. The supreme court protects the fundamental rights of the people. The anti dissent law that the state of Gujarat has been trying to bring about since early 2000’s goes against just that.

If we look at the current political scenario in India, we have two very starkly different ideologies prevalent in terms of electoral representation. The situation in Gujarat, however, has always been quite different than the wider national interest.

The Bharatiya Janata Party has retained control over Gujarat since 2001, under the leadership of Narendra Modi as Chief Minister. In 2002 the state legislative assembly tried to introduce an anti-dissent law, which to provide context, proposes to allow the police to arrest anybody on mere suspicion, who they seem to be a threat to the state’s internal security. However, it was rejected by the then President, APJ Abdul Kalam. It was again passed in the state assembly when Pratibha Patil held office. Both the presidents rejected the bill as they felt it was unconstitutional and violated basic human rights.

Every citizen in India has the right to representation before a court of law of h/she has been accused of a crime. The anti dissent law gives the state full discretion to arrest anybody on suspicion without trial. The only time when mass arrests have taken place in democratic India on ‘suspicion’ without legal backing have been during the emergency period in 1975. If this law becomes legitimate, it will only facilitate exploitation of the citizens by the state.

The Gujarat government has time and again given a very vague reasoning for bringing about such a draconian law, saying that this is increased efficiency in the state’s internal security. The law also proposes to grant immunity from prosecution to the police and the administration for doing so. This move by the government of Gujarat has been widely criticised by human rights activists, saying that they fail to understand why this extra step needs to be taken when laws and provisions like Preventive Detention already exist and have been successfully implemented in India.


Feature Image Credits: NDTV


Bhavya Banerjee

[email protected]


Daddy Dearest has never approved of my reckless instinct of burning his hard-earned money on nonessential internet shopping.  But for once, he was proud (almost to the extent of patting me on the shoulder) when this very addiction helped me dispose off my last 500 rupee note.

The amusing incident unravelled as follows: A day after the 500 and 1000 rupee notes were declared redundant, I received an unexpected phone call from a number which Truecaller refused to identify.  On answering the call the second time around, I learnt that it was from the delivery man carrying my most recent online order for a dress worth rupees 550.  In the course of the conversation, when I asked him about the payment, the man quite blatantly declared that he wouldn’t be accepting cash in the form of multiples of 500 and 1000 rupee notes.  To such unrelenting firmness, I almost gagged.  Clearly, it was too soon for me to be in possession of the new currency denominations and my first impulse was to worry about the cancellation of my order.

Like an idiot, I revealed my anxiety to him. This was a huge mistake on my part, which the clever delivery man decided to instantly exploit. He very calmly tried to placate my fears, and then went on to spring the worst kind of surprise on me. He agreed to accept my 500 rupee note, provided I paid him a premium of rupee 50 (and therefore, a lump sum of rupees 600) for his kind gesture.

Yes, at the time, I was grossly desperate. Because I not just wanted to receive my order, but also get rid of the seemingly cursed note. Yet, my temporary flight from rationality ceased when good sense returned and I flatly refused his beguiling offer. The man, however, was rather perseverant; to the point where he hung up on me when I held my ground.

For about an hour, I moped around the house, blaming my ill-luck and horoscope.  But just when I had reconciled with the situation, I received a phone call from the same number. I took my time in answering, but was delighted to hear the delivery man say (although rather grudgingly) that he would deliver my order in under forty five minutes, and accept the 500 rupee bill too!

I’m not quite sure what changed the man’s iron resolve. Perhaps, he would have been penalised (rebuked, or worse, fired) for late/non-delivery by his superiors. After all, only a serious threat would make a man of his doggedness give in.  But I was extremely happy. I got my dress (which was worth the wait, verbal tussle and mental harassment) and also spent the 500 rupee note. Like The Bard would say, “All’s well that ends well”,eh?

But all humour aside, here’s a sincere request to all those who are still in possession of the obsolete currency: Don’t get bullied by vendors and the like into paying premiums in exchange for accepting your old money. Because this in itself is an unlawful practice, the perpetuation of which defeats the purpose of demonetisation. Go to a bank. Or, spend wisely!

Image Credits: Yahoo India Finance 

Kriti Sharma
[email protected]


After carrying out relentless searches, Union HRD Minister Smriti Irani’s bachelor’s degree seems to have consigned to oblivion by the University of Delhi. Failing to furnish documentary evidence of Irani’s educational qualifications, the Assistant Registrar of School of Open Learning (SOL), DU, Mr. O.P. Tanwar was quoted as saying, “1996 documents related to her BA are yet to be found,” as he addressed the court.

The varsity’s move came in response to the court’s earlier order for summoning the minister’s documents from its School of Open Learning department on the allegation of a discrepancy in the affidavits she filed in 2004 and 2011. While her 2004 affidavit claims that she completed her BA in 1996, another affidavit by her for the 2011 Rajya Sabha poll from Gujarat mentions her highest qualification as B.Com (Part I) from DU.

The case, which came into limelight following a complaint by Ahmer Khan, a freelance writer, Smriti Irani’s educational status has been in question ever since. The complainant had alleged that the HRD minister had deliberately produced false affidavits and thus is liable for punishment under relevant sections of IPC (Indian Penal Code) and under section 125A of Representation of the People Act (RPA). Section 125A of RPA deals with penalty for filing false affidavit and entails a jail term of upto six months or fine or both.

The Assistant Registrar also informed the court that Irani’s Class 12 documents, submitted along with the admission form of B.Com (H) course, were yet to be found. He was however quick to add that “verification must have been done before the admission”, as he was quoted by a national daily.

However, it seems like faking one’s educational degree is the new fad that’s become increasingly popular with our politicians and PM Narendra Modi has become the recent victim of this trend.

Talking about the issue, Teacher Representative of Executive Council, University of Delhi, Ms. Abha Dev Habib told us, “Whether it is the degree of the HRD Minister or the PM, it will be unfortunate if they make claims of having a degree they don’t hold in the first place. And it is strange that the university doesn’t have records. There is definitely pressure but this is nothing less than a blatant excuse. To me, degree doesn’t matter, but the ministers are the role models for the general public and information must be furnished by the varsity on the same.”

Commenting on the current state of the Ministry of Education’s working, she added, “I am not disappointed that she doesn’t have a degree, what I am disappointed with is the continuos interference of the ministry in the education system. The hasty implementation of CBCS system in less than 7 months is the biggest case in point. It is all about rational thinking and a scientific temperament to be able to take decisions, degree doesn’t matter here.” Also talking about the recent controversy surrounding the degree of PM Modi, she further connoted, ” The PM wants to talk to the nation on Mann Ki Baat but what perturbs me is his silence on issues of importance. Whatever the degree may be, it should be truthfully embraced.”

The court also asked SDM of north Delhi to bring documents filed by Irani with the affidavit for contesting 2004 polls from Chandni Chowk constituency here and fixed the matter for further hearing on June 6. The pivotal question here however remains whether power gives an easy escape route to politicians to distort their educational qualifications.

We previously did a report on the suspension of 5 officials of School of Open Learning for leaking documents related to the HRD Minister. You may take a look at the report here. 

Image credits: timesofindia.indiatimes.com 

Riya Chhibber

[email protected] 



Tripura, under a CPI(M) chief minister, Shri Manik Sarkar worked in cooperation with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May 2015, to completely repeal the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. This Article focuses on how two extreme binaries came together to resolve such a huge issue in the state, especially when this intellectual war between the Left and the Right is in continuum.

The North East has often been under reported in the news, throughout the mainland. The racism exerted by the media to reluctantly cover states with a majoritarian ethnic minority population, has enabled the mainland to disassociate itself from the issues of the North East. To integrate the North East into national policies, the NDA Government has specifically focused on implementing a development agenda at all levels of government. From integration drives by student unions much like DUSU to university level programmes like Gyanodaya have facilitated a discussion between the students.

Tripura, one of the gems of the North East has a State Government under the leadership of a left front chief minister, namely, Manik Sarkar. However through cooperation with the Home Minister at the centre, under the leadership of the Prime Minister backed by a BJP led NDA Government, AFSPA was repealed in May 2015. AFSPA, by law, can only be repealed if the Governor agrees to it. And in the case of Tripura, Manik Sarkar closely worked with the intelligence agencies to ensure that militancy was less, and provided a consolidated report to the Governor, who after consulting with the Prime Minister, repealed the controversial act from the state (from one police station to another, gradually).

After repealing the act, Prime Minister Modi, reportedly asked for a report on how Tripura repealed AFSPA from the Chief Minister, Manik Sarkar, who obliged. It is important to state that even political adversaries, who have extremely contrary views came together to relieve the people of Tripura from such a harsh law. 

Let us now take a closer look at AFSPA –

AFSPA has been one of the most controversial policies adopted by the central governments (across party lines) throughout the history of Independent India. With insurgencies fostered by remorse amongst the ethnic minorities, backward classes and people demanding a monopoly for a particular religion, the archaic act of parliament has often led to the protection of the Indian mainland at the cost of rampant human rights violations carried out by a number of army and paramilitary personnel. Although the number of jawans responsible for such acts is minuscule as compared to the full force deployed, the fact remains that the data for the number of prosecutions against the armed forces have also been shocking.

Jammu and Kashmir has been a hotbed, much like Manipur where women have come out in the open to oppose the law, claiming they had been raped and their husbands had been shot dead despite being innocent.
An RTI query made to the Ministry of Defence, Government of India had revealed that only one army man has been prosecuted in Jammu and Kashmir during a tenure of 22 years, against the 44 cases that were received for sanction of prosecution from 1990 to 2011. This meant sanction was not granted in almost 98 per cent of recommended cases (97.73 per cent). In all the cases of rights abuses the controversial AFSPA was invoked to shield the accused. 

This is a major tradeoff that needs to be dealt with. The security agencies need to work in a coalition with the government to ensure that the militancy reduces in these sectors, and only then can such a law be repealed.

If the centre and the states could come together, and gradually repeal the act from one district to another, in states like Jammu and Kashmir, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, and Assam, then we could soon see tremendous reduction in ‘seditious’ activities in these states. It is clearly important for the media to cover these issues extensively. It is also the responsibility of the Left and the Right to come together and work for the betterment of the society through constructive policies and not destructive ones.

Image Credits: www.nelive.in

[email protected]
Ishaan Sengupta

Those in power and those fighting for it have made headlines this year, some for very controversial reasons. With the whole world eagerly anticipating the American Presidential election in 2016, it has been an eventful year for the electorate that’s watching the potential candidates. The elections that have taken place in 2015, both in India as well as abroad, will have long lasting impacts on politics in the years to come.

International Politics

  1. US Presidential Election candidates

As the world watches with bated breath, the potential party candidates for American President have been battling it out, trying to swing public support in their favour. Business tycoon and probable Republican party candidate, Donald Trump, leads with the highest support base, according to public opinion polls. His support base has risen from 27 percent of the Republican voters in October, to a whopping 41 percent in December. In the wake of shootings at San Bernadino in December, Trump courted controversy when he proposed a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States till better security measures are implemented. This suggestion only served to enhance his growing support-Republican voters were seen to be in favour of his idea, though it garnered flak from all quarters globally. A petition on the British Government’s website, seeking to ban Trump from the UK, has gathered over 500,000 signatures.

Political 4
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders | Source: theodysseyonline.com

Meanwhile, former Vermont Senator, Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton are vying for the Democratic party nomination. According to polls, Sanders lags Clinton by close to 25 points. Bernie Sanders and Trump have been on a collision course over their disparate views on economic policies, and other issues of national and international issues, with Sanders holding a more liberal, progressive viewpoint.

  1. UK General Election, May 7

For the first time since 1992, a Conservative Party majority government, with a working majority of 12, was elected in 2015, with David Cameron securing a second term as Prime Minister. The Labour party with Ed Miliband at the helm came a close second in terms of votes. The Liberal Democrats, who had governed in coalition with the Conservatives since 2010, suffered their worst defeat since the 1970 elections.

political 5
David Cameron | Source : www.telegraph.co.uk
  1. Referendum in Greece, July 5

The European Commission, International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank jointly proposed certain bailout conditions on Greece, according to which, certain fiscal reforms would have to be implemented by the debt-ridden country, in consultation with the IMF, EC and ECB. A referendum, the first since 1974, was held to decide if these conditions were to be accepted. The public (over 61 percent) voted a clear no.

  1. Myanmar elections, November 8

The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, secured an absolute majority in the national parliament. The 2015 general elections were the first openly contested elections since 1990. The Union Solidarity and Development Party which has a strong military backing, with Thein Stein as President, had been ruling since 2010. The NLD’s victory marked a complete overthrow of the vestiges of the military rule that Myanmar had previously experienced till 2010.

Political 6
Suu Kyi | Source: www.storypick.com

Though the NLD won the elections, its leader, Suu Kyi is barred from holding the position of President according to the constitution since both her children are British citizens. The President will be chosen indirectly by the NLD dominated Legislature by March 2016.

National Politics

  1. Delhi Assembly Elections, February 7

The underdog, the Aam Aadmi Party, made history when it secured an absolute majority, winning 67 out of 70 seats, trumping the political heavyweights-the Congress and BJP. Arvind Kejriwal assumed office for the second time as Delhi’s CM, having resigned  after 49 days in office in 2014, due to issues over the Jan Lokpal Bill. Kejriwal is currently engaged in a spat with the BJP over allegations that Arun Jaitley was involved in certain irregularities, during his term as DDCA chief.

Political 1
Arvind Kejriwal | Source: www.zeenews.india.com
  1. Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections, October 12-November 5

The Bihar elections were a face off between the ‘Mahagatabandhan’ (an alliance between the JDU, led by Nitish Kumar in Bihar, and RJD, led by Lalu Prasad Yadav, supported by the Indian National Congress) and the BJP led NDA. The RJD won the highest number of seats (80) with the JDU coming a close second with 71. Nitish Kumar secured his third term as CM with the 2015 elections. The elections were a landslide victory for the alliance, as it trumped the NDA and BJP’s victory in the 2014 general elections, indicating that public opinion might have swung against Modi.

Political 2
Nitish Kumar | Source: www.indianexpress.com
  1. Narendra Modi’s foreign visits

During his tenure in office, PM Narendra Modi has made several international trips and met with leaders of various countries, in the interest of foreign policy and bilateral relations. Modi’s visit to the UAE in August was the first by an Indian PM in 34 years. He also became the first Indian PM to visit Mongolia in May. During his international visits, Modi sought the support of the leaders of several countries for India’s permanent membership in the UNSC.

Political 3
Modi with Nawaz Sharif | Source: www.bbc.com

On December 25, Modi made a sudden, impromptu visit to Lahore and met his Pakistani counterpart, Nawaz Sharif. His ‘surprise,’ unannounced visit was seen globally as a sign of good will and improving relations between the two nations which have historically been at loggerheads.