Discussing the absolute belief with which we, at times, think we are right, providing no space for any sort of discussion.
As college students, who are always being bombarded with new ideas and often one-sided news on social media and other platforms, we are, at times, too quick to form certain opinions, which we then start treating as absolute truths of the universe. More often than not, we also get influenced by the talks and views of our professors and friends. Some people, on the other hand, enter college with already fixed notions which they then are ready to defend in the face of opposition and at times even reason.
Irrespective of how our believes and opinions are developed, for they are a result of our social and personal environment, most of us very strongly believe that we are situated in the moral and ethical corner at all times. Often, this hampers our understanding of why those who are in opposition to our views are so. Many of us who consider ourselves open-minded make statements like “everyone has a right to their own opinions”, but how often do we believe that or not belittler someone, when they hold, beliefs opposite to ours?
As students of the University for Delhi (DU), many of us consider ourselves as politically and socially conscious beings. We attend political rallies and go for protests and some students even join political organizations like the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) or the National Students’ Union of India (NSUI). However, most of us live in complete denial of even wanting to understand the other side of the argument, leading to a lack of empathy on all sides. Many times we also associate a particular policy with a party. A person who believes in right-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a right-wing political organization are correct and a person who believes in left-wing politics will more often than not believe that all actions of a left-wing political organization are correct, leaving no room for doubt. Incidents of physical and social media bullying or social ostracizing of people because of their political or social believes is a global issue, from which our University corridors are infected as well.
In conclusion, with partial or complete information, opinionated or neutral media platforms and associates, many of us rush into making concrete judgments, completely oblivious to the fact that the other side must have their reason for their views, irrespective of whether we agree or disagree with them. Dismissing the other side of an argument does not make us victorious on an imaginary debating platform. Perhaps then, at times we can agree to disagree, for discussion is not to win, but to understand and perhaps at times even empathize with those we do not agree with, in a patient and peaceful environment.
For instance, you may be inclined to follow my line of personal thought and agree with the beliefs behind this article, or disagree with it very strongly; you have a right to do so. I cannot admit to knowing it all but so can’t any of us.
The National Student’s Union of India (NSUI) held a protest march against the amendments made to the Right to Information Act (RTI) by the Government. Read on to know more.
On 1st August 2019, the NSUI held a protest march in front of the Faculty of Arts, North Campus, showing its strong displeasure towards the move taken by the Government to make amends to the RTI Act. The members of the students’ political party marched from the Faculty of Arts to Kirori Mal College, all the while chanting slogans like “RTI Bachao, Desh Bacho“.
Neeraj Kundan, National President, NSUI said, “Today the RTI is one of the most important laws in the country, it directly affects the people. In 2017, when the BJP Government saw that the RTI could expose high government officials like Smriti Irani, and even Prime Minister Narendra Modi, they started trying to curb its power. The Government is now trying to reduce its autonomy and cage it. NSUI is going to hold protests all over the country until our rights are given back to us.”
Students and associations like The North East Students’ Society, Delhi University (NESSDU) turned up in large numbers to support the NSUI’s protest against the RTI amendments. They marched with bold banners and enthusiastic slogans. The presence of the Delhi Armed Police and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) showed how protests in the DU are feared to turn violent, but this was an extremely peaceful protest.
Surbhi Dwivedi, National General Secretary of NSUI and the RTI Team Convener emphasised on the importance of the RTI for the student community. She said, “The RTI is the most effective tool in student politics. It helps students to find discrepancies in the University. A strong RTI is our right.” Robin Chaudhary, National Secretary of NSUI, said that they were determined to fight for democracy and that if the Government did not heed to their demands, they would go on a hunger strike.
The RTI Act, 2015 is an Act of the Parliament of India “to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens”. It has made the workings of the Government more transparent, helped to reduce corruption and has facilitated in the workings of this democracy. The RTI Commissioners used have fixed five-year tenure and their salaries were equal to certain posts in the Election Commission and the bureaucracy. The recent amendments made to the act by the BJP Government have changed this. According to the new amendments, the central government now has direct control over the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners’ term of office and salaries. The changes made to the RTI are being seen by many as the Government trying to control it, and as a result of this many voices in objection to the RTI amendments are being raised all over the country.
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.
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 nsuifordu@gmail.com, 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.
The ABVP-led DUSU has formally requested the DU Vice Chancellor to not conduct the semester examinations a day prior and after, and on the day of the General Elections.
For the upcoming Lok Sabha elections of 2019, which will be coinciding with the April-May semester exams, the ABVP-led Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) has requested the Vice Chancellor of the University of Delhi, Professor Yogesh Tyagi, to not hold the semester examinations on the same day as that of the elections. They also demanded that the exams should neither be held a day prior, nor a day later than the actual date of casting votes, so as to ensure that the students from other states can exercise their right to vote as well. The external exams, along with the internal assessments, and practicals willl begin from April and are expected to continue till the first week of June.
In a separate letter addressed to the Chief Election Officer (CEO), Mr. Sunil Arora, DUSU requested him to arrange special railway services for the students of major Indian cities for their convenient travel, and to also make the tickets available at compensated rates. They also requested him to issue a directive in the form of an advisory to all the educational institutions in the country, urging them to not conduct the end-semester examinations during the ongoing General Elections.
“As students, a lot of us would be casting our first votes, as citizens of India we really look forward to it. A holiday prior the election and post it, would allow us to act our electoral choices,” says a second-year student of Kamla Nehru College.
These demands were raised, keeping in mind the fundamental right of the youth to vote, and the demand for the special railway services ensures that students from other states can also cast their votes in their respective constituencies. DUSU further appealed to the students to consciously exercise their fundamental right to vote in the upcoming elections.
However, some students have their doubts about this move as well and it, as articulated by another second-year student, “All the services are only available for the major Indian cities. I wouldn’t be able to go back anyway as I come from the remote town of Balangir in Orissa, it is a hectic two-day journey by train.”
The President of DUSU, Shakti Singh, stated in a press release, “The need of the hour is a strengthened democracy which can only be achieved by facilitating the maximum participation of the youths. We shall make every possible endeavour to effectively utilize our resources to meet these ends. We hope to see considerable growth in vote share in these elections.”
Saimon Farooqui, the all-India media and communications manager of NSUI, said, “A certain well thought-out mechanism needs to be established as voting is a layered process and students come from various parts of the country. They should also ensure that studies are not compromised in any way. It is the responsibility of the University of Delhi to ensure that voting process is smooth for students and they are able to exercise their right to vote.”
Services on the busy Yellow Line came to a standstill when several of the members climbed down on metro tracks.
NSUI (National Students’ Union of India), Monday blocked the metro tracks at North Campus’ Vishwavidyalya station, protesting the incessant hike in metro fares. Several members of the Union protested, and the trains were stopped for 30 minutes.
The students raised slogans against Narendra Modi, and Arvind Kejriwal alike, claiming that the government at the State, as well as the Centre, do nothing but pass the blame on each other.
They are also protesting for the introduction for a students’ pass for the metro, as is the case with DTC (Delhi Transport Corporation).
The Delhi Congress then tweeted a video of the same protest and stating that NSUI’s Delhi President, Akshay Lakra led the group, and expressed the party’s support to the cause of their youth-wing. “They (the governments at the Centre and the State) have been a failure in handling the Delhi Metro and now they are inaugurating the Ahmedabad Metro,” Lakra held, “Until the approval is given for metro passes, the NSUI will keep protesting.”
Delhi NSUI in demand of the DU Students Metro Pass protested under the leadership of Delhi President Akshay Lakra in front of Vishvidhyalaya Metro Station & expressed their agitation by jumping in front of the Metro Train,Delhi NSUI has been opposing the increase in Metro Fares pic.twitter.com/DRRwKRwPWQ
Even last year, NSUI had protested in a similar fashion to press for their demands. The members were later removed from the tracks and handed over to the police, and the train services restored.
Thirteen protesters were detained and brought to Kashmere Gate Metro police station. A case was registered against the members of the Congress’ student wing under relevant sections of the DMRC Act, 2002 and the hearing will take place in the Tis Hazari court on March 6, police confirmed.
When asked about the method of the protest, and the inconvenience caused, the NSUI said, “Our protest is peaceful and disciplined and we are waiting for a response from the authority. We have been trying to get in touch with Kailash Gehlot, the transport minister, and his refusal in meeting us forced us to take this step.”
Speaking to DU Beat, NSUI Media Secretary, Saimon Farooqui said that NSUI’s protest against the rising price of metro and demand for metro fare concession passes is a cause that will benefit the Delhi University student community. “We will continue our fight and protest again if the government does not fulfil our demands,” he added.
NSUI claims that ABVP is trying to save face before the high court order comes on 20th November 2018.
On 15th November 2018, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) asked Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) President Ankiv Baisoya to step down from his post and also suspended him from all the responsibilities of the organisation till the enquiry is completed. Ankiv Baisoya was involved in a fake degree row since his election as the President.
On Monday, 12th November 2018, Justice C. Hari Shankar granted time till 20th November 2018 to University of Delhi (DU) to verify the authenticity of Ankiv’s degree from Thiruvalluvar University, Vellore.The court on 30th October 2018 had granted the University time till 12th November 2018 to authenticate the degree and inform it as the two-month period within which re-election could be held would expire on 13th November.
However, ABVP, in a press release stated that Ankiv’s resignation was necessary to maintain the genuineness of the student organisation. Bharat Khatana, State Secretary of ABVP said, “ABVP is an organisation which is always committed to student’s cause. This incident is continuously tarnishing the image of Delhi University Students’ Union and is also raising a question on student’s mandate. So we request DU administration to complete the verification process as soon as possible and produce the result in public domain. We also condemn the delay done by DU in the whole process as it led to false information. If Ankiv is found guilty then he must face all the legal actions which are expected in this case. ”
Ankiv Baisoya announced his resignation in a Facebook post.
NSUI accuses that the move by ABVP is clearly a decision under pressure and not principle given that the High Court order is likely to be announced on 20th November. “This is an attempt to save whatever ABVP can. They waited for two months in an attempt to keep the DUSU President seat with ABVP instead of asking Ankiv to step down when the matter came to light. ABVP also didn’t set up an enquiry committee of its own. So this decision, at this belated hour, is clearly cynical and cowardly.NSUI has already clarified that Lyngdoh Committee guidelines are advisory and the two month period is also only indicative and not binding on DU. It is also to be noted that legally two months period will be counted from when Ankiv’s fake degree first came into light by NSUI, and not when ABVP decided to remove him. NSUI demands fresh elections. If the University continues to show itself to be servile to the interests of ABVP, we will pursue this matter in Court. Finally, we are confident that Ankiv will have a long and successful career in the BJP given that he was only following in the footsteps of PM Modi and former HRD Minister Smriti Irani, whose degree is also under a cloud,” said NSUI in a press release.
NSUI will be holding a Press Conference on 16th November which aims to uncover “how DU and ABVP fixed the whole scene”.
