JNUSU (Jawahar Lal Nehru University Students’ Union) results have finally been announced hours after Delhi High Court permitted them to do so.
The results of JNU Student’s Union were announced on 17th September when the Delhi High Court permitted the varsity to declare the results following the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Community. All the four central panel posts have been won by the United Front of Left students group.
The vote-share of United Front of Left student groups All India Students’ Association (AISA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF) and All India Students’ Federation (AISF) increased to 50.4 percent from 4 percent in the previous year.
Aishe Ghosh of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) won the post of the president by securing 2,313 votes. Manish Jangid from the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) secured 1,128 votes. Ghosh belonging to SFI contested under the broader united Left panel. SFI got the post of the President after 13 years.
The post of Vice President has been won by United Left panel’s Saket Moon who secured 3,365 votes, while Shruti Agnihotri from ABVP came second with 1,335 votes. Satish Yadav from the United Left panel emerged as the winner for the post of General Secretary with 2,518 votes while the post of the Joint Secretary has been won by United Left panel’s Mohammad Danish who secured 3,295 votes.
In the previous year also, all the fours central panel positions were won by candidates of the united Left panel. A victory march was conducted within the University campus by the supporters of the United Left panel after the declaration of results.
JNU Student’s Union polls were conducted on September 6, 2019, with a voter turnout of 67.9 percent which was believed to be the highest in last 7 years. The results were to be declared on September 8, 2019, but were delayed till September 17 after petitions were filed in the Delhi High Court by two students alleging their nominations for the election of councillor in the JNUSU were illegally rejected.
Screaming claims of the space for dissent in the University of Delhi (DU) inspire political actions in the young students. But all that is political is about power, and power is corruptible. Or is it?
Places are political, period. George
Orwell believed that the very claims
which state art should not be political
are themselves political in nature.
In light of such factual pervasiveness
of politics, institutions dedicated to
free thinking- from schools to colleges-
inspire ideologies that divide people
into disjoint groups. These groups
are very easily identifiable when it
comes to college politics. Colleges,
no doubt, invite the voice of dissent,
and to some extent, dialogue, but the
objectivity is blurred by the division
and distance between ideologies.
The problems are there, and they are
amplified when inevitably, the personal
and the political mould into one.
What happens to friendships when
they are based on politics? Or, are they
simply alliances?
Every year, thousands of students
are added to the vast network of
thinkers in the DU. With this injection,
there is a surge of social demand
for validation and the need for a
definition. College politics gives an
ideal view of a pedestal to actualising
these aspirations for the new members
of the varsity. The problem, however,
swoops in not-so-subtly, in the likeness
of that third-year hunk at the college
orientation programme. It begins
with a chai at Sudama Tea Stall, and
sometimes even extends, to AMA
Cafe. It presents itself in the form of
trips to Kamla Nagar, to Satya Niketan,
to Ridge, and so on and so forth. It is
all very charming as long as you are
with seniors, because “you do not pay
for food when you are out with your
seniors,” and it gives one the idea of a
having a ‘friend’.
The first two months are spent in
extravagance because that is how we
‘sustain bonds’. But soon, elections
come into play, and all the laugh
is submerged in the cries of corny
sloganeering and pointlessly furious
campaigning. Questions like “Oh, but
what about the time we spent till 7
p.m, doing nothing and sitting in the
sports ground in a huge group of 17
people?” inculcate guilt and pressure
at the same time. The “too bad” in
response to this question hits for real,
and yet, it is never heard.
The substance to maintain a political
relevance extends dramatically for a
first-year student in the varsity. Almost
all DU students witness a working
democracy for the first time in their
first year of college. This working
model, however, is obsessed with
winning personal favours to sustain
its structure. For a lot of unsuspecting
first-year students, the induction into
the political circuit is as great as their
inevitable disillusionment of it is.
Diplomatic conversations, insinuations,
and indirect implications against the
‘opposition’ create an exclusive bond
between two people. But it is sad
how youngsters who look forward to
spending time with their seniors and
friends become a mere projection for
the latter. They become a crop to be
harvested in election season and it all
reeks of betrayal.
Politically, there are usually two kinds
of groups preaching the same thing:
advising caution against the other.
In this mental rift, it cannot be
expected for the subject of this
sermon to make a wise choice
instantly- which would be different
according to both (or more than two)
groups, as per their ideologies. In
the transitional phase, and in most
cases, far from home, first-year
idealists fall for the subtle shams and
promises of fantasies of the seniors.
There is no foolproof way to avoid
these interventions, and if anything,
these disillusionments serve only
to make you cynical. But it is in this
mental time, that experience enables
visibility of the organic from the
facade. Rush into the polling booths,
because a world of the organic awaits
you outside.
National Students Union of India (NSUI) issued an official complaint against the candidates of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for visiting the Jhandewalan Mandir on Sunday, 8th September 2019 and posting about the same on social media.
The National Students Union of India (NSUI) recently condemned its opponent, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for adopting the practice of religion and religious symbols for the purpose of political campaigning which stands in direct violation of the Lyngdoh guidelines which all students contesting the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) elections are supposed to abide by, in order to not encounter direct disqualification.
In 2005, the Supreme Court decided to set up a committee to ensure measures that would hamper disruption caused by college elections. Following the order of the Supreme Court, a panel was set up by the ministry of Human Resource Development headed by the then Chief Election Commissioner, J.N Lyngdoh for the same, limiting the democratic functioning of the Student Unions and was called The Lyngdoh Committee.
The Lyngdoh guidelines clearly state that:
“No candidate shall indulge in, nor shall abet, any activity, which may aggravate existing differences or create mutual hatred or cause tension between different castes and communities, religious or linguistic, or between any group(s) of students.”
According to the allegations made by NSUI, the following four candidates of Akhil Bhartiya Vidya Parishad (ABVP), Akshit Dahiya (President nominee), Pradeep Tanwar (Vice President nominee), Yogit Rathee (Secretary Nominee) and Shivangi Kharwal (Joint Secretary Nominee) along with Professor Manu Kataria of Bhaskaracharya College of Applied Science (State President of ABVP Delhi) were sighted using religious symbols for their campaigning. Later, a Facebook post was uploaded by the Presidential candidate Akshit Dahiya in which they visited a famous temple in Delhi wearing religious garments while making an appeal to vote for them, which disregards the Lyngdoh guidelines for social media campaigning as well.
Apart from this, under the Delhi University Act, any Professor under the paid role of Central Government is not allowed to display their political affiliation in public but sources have also proclaimed that Mr. Manu Kataria endorsed candidates for the DUSU election, hence violating the Delhi University Service Rules.
As per sources, NSUI has registered a formal complaint on the issue and made a request to the Election Officer to constitute a Grievance Redressal Hearing against the violators under the Lyngdoh guidelines and withdraw their nomination at the earliest as it is against the norms of free and fair elections.
Shri Akshay Lakhra, NSUI Delhi State President stated, “NSUI will ensure no polarisation of University takes place. ABVP already used cheap rhetoric this election by illegally putting up the statue of a highly controversial figure Damodardas Savarkar. When the move failed, they retorted to further downgrade cheap theatrics of using religion as a tool to safeguard their defeated campaign. Delhi University students are not going to be fooled by such rhetoric of ABVP again after the fake degree issue, and would give a sounding reply to them in upcoming student union elections.”
Following this news, the students of University of Delhi didn’t take it as a surprise that candidates do not follow the guidelines established for running a campaign, they believe that the Lyngdoh Committee is not a solution to strengthen or improve the prevailing conditions of student politics and DU stands as a classic example of its failure in limiting money and muscle power politics.
Daulat Ram College’s students raised their voice against wrongful cancellation of nomination of candidates, scrapping of the post of General Secretary, and undemocratic election procedure.
On Monday, September 9th, 2019, the students of Daulat Ram College located in North Campus, University of Delhi, organised a sit-in protest and sloganeering rally against the decisions regarding the DRC Student Union (DRCSU) student polls 2019-20 that had been taken by the Student Advisory Board (SAB) of the institution. The students sat in the corridor leading to the Principal’s office for the entire day and shouted slogans of “We Want Justice” across the entire campus. They also chanted their demands in the staff room corridor.
According to the students, the SAB wrongfully cancelled the nominations of the candidates to five posts of the Student Union – Joint Secretary, Vice President, Cultural Secretary, Treasurer and Proctor. Allegedly, the SAB also declared that the post of General Secretary to the Union would be scrapped for this session since no eligible candidate for the post had filled their nomination as per their notification. As a result, candidates were selected, declared ‘unopposed’ by the SAB for the aforementioned five posts, and elections for these posts stood cancelled. The latest notification of the SAB listed the selected candidates for these posts and only called for elections to take place for the post of President, where two candidates were allowed to contest. The protesting students have demanded this unfair notice to be called-off and the candidature of other nominees to be considered as well.
As per Paavni, a third year Economics Honours students of Daulat Ram College, this arbitrary decision of the Board was undemocratic and “…essentially took away the students’ right to elect their representatives.”
Supposedly, when the students approached the Grievance Board through the SAB, they were notified of the reasons of the cancellation of the nominations, which were in accordance with the new rules of the SAB. But according to the students, these rules were imposed in an unjust manner. The SAB had not considered sports attendance for the sports quota students, which had been submitted to the respective teachers of their subjects and on these grounds, the nominations had been cancelled. Moreover, four out of the five unopposed candidates are in favour of fair elections and had written an application to the SAB that they were against the unfair cancellation of the nominations and wanted free and fair elections, yet the Grievance Board did not engage in any conversation with either the candidates or the protestors.
As a result, the student body has decided to take this matter up with the Principal as well as other administrative body, until their demands are fulfilled and a truly fair election allowed.
Feature Image Credits: Bhavya Pandey for DU Beat
Feature Image Caption: Notice issued by the SAB of DRC
In July, 2019, the Allahabad University replaced the 96-year-old Student Union with a Student Council. Running on the same track, in October 2018, the Odisha Government notified that the Students’ Union polls will not be held in five major universities and 35 colleges due to violence . On June 7, 2017, the West Bengal government issued an order that replaced the term student union by student council . Although the Lyngdoh guidelines are mandatory for all colleges and universities and its first clause says that elections must be held in the institutes, but many universities like the Banaras Hindu University and Osmania University do not have a student body and elections have not been held since long. Out of the total 789 universities, only 50 or 60 universities are properly conducting student election . The mandatory elections norm continues to be violated by several
universities across the country.
However, student elections will take place this year in Maharashtra’s 11 state universities and affiliated colleges more than a quarter century after they were banned in 1993 by the then Congress government of M Sudhakar Rao Naik. The decks have been cleared for holding the student union
elections in Bihar universities after a gap of almost three decades in August ,2012.
The states and universities authorities take all the decision arbitrarily on the serious issue of students politics .The authority gives two grounds – first violence and second violation of Lyngdoh Committee. There are violence and hooliganism in the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha Elections as well. If Election Commission can conduct free and fair election in Baster and Kashmir then why
authorities are failing to conduct it in campuses.
So on the ground of violence, administration can’t deny electoral right. Actually, student politics need to be systemized with the law and order . Even, Indian parliament has failed to address and readdress student election problem. In spite of the fact that most of the famous and established
leaders come from student politics.
Presently, student election is being regulated in India by the judicial order not by any executive or legislative order . After the Supreme Court in University of Kerala v. Council, Principal’s Colleges, Kerala & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 304, (referred to as “University of Kerala 1”) case , Lyngdoh Committee
was formed in 2006 by the HRD ministry to suggest reforms in the student union elections at the college/university levels. It was argued that these were becoming places of political tensions escalating into violent encounters between students. Under the leadership of J.M. Lyngdoh, it submitted its report to the Supreme Court of India on May 26, 2006. The Supreme Court on
September 22nd of the same year issued an order directing the college/university to follow and implement the committee’s recommendations. Lyngdoh Committee aimed at making elections cleaner, non-violent, and curbing the use of money and muscle power in the elections. In the
committee ,there were . Mr. J.M.Lyngdoh, Retd. Chief Election Commissioner (Chairman), Dr. Zoya Hassan, Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Dr.Daya Nand Dongaonkar (Secretary General of the
Association of Indian Universities). Justice Markandey Katju and Ashok Kumar Ganguly held the order of Lyngdoh committee report as legislative order.
Lyngdoh Committee aimed at making elections cleaner, non-violent, and curbing the use of money and muscle power in the elections but it has failed on all fronts. There is a long list of recommendations, which are flouted in every elections, like the Committee explains that (6.6.1) the maximum permitted expenditure per candidate shall be ?5000, clause 6.7.5: No candidate shall be
permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets and 6.7.9: clause says that during the election period the candidates may hold processions and/or public meetings, provided that they do not, in any manner, disturb classes and other academic and co-curricular activities of the
college/university. Lyngdoh prohibited political parties from contest election and said that only
independent candidates can contest. The Lyngdoh also confused student council and student union.
Sections 6.1.2 and 6.2.1 of the Lyngdoh committee reports that only universities with a small
campus and fewer students, like JNU and Hyderabad University, should be allowed to form their
student unions via direct elections. The Allahabad university administration’s scrapped the Union
into council on this basis. The model Student Union differ from student counselling on fundamental
structures. Various positions of this council including President and Treasurer will not be elected by
students but nominated by the head of that specific institute. The Class Representatives will vote
and choose it’s General Secretary instead of direct elections. Basically, this body would be stripped
of its political voice or ability to reconcile under a banner to raise demands of the students. It would
be limited to organize cultural events and other such activities.
In reality Lyngdoh has failed and students politics needs major intervention by the Parliament.
Students politics needs a valuable legislation to scrap the Lyngdoh like National Student Union Act.
Instead an idea of one nation one election should be implemented in all the university. Election Commission of India should conduct elections instead of the university authority.
In reality, students politics is not only important for students but it is in national interest. Without the strong students politics Indian democracy can not run energetically. The democracy needs aware citizens , movement , intuitional awareness and those who can resists for their right .The students politics has all these character.
The youth is largest stake holder in Indian politics .The largest identity has its own challenges .
Without the integration of youth, Indian democracy can’t survive .The Indian parliament is one of the oldest parliament(in terms average age of parliamentarians) in a young country like India. The present day politics has excludes youth from politics as they think it to be highly nepotistic and filled
with unnecessary money-muscle power. This can be corrected through student politics . It is one of the easiest way through which a marginalised can become a leader. The philosopher likes of Plato as well as contemporary thinkers including American philosopher Martha Nussbaum have emphasised the need for political consciousness among the youth, which student politics create. Nussbaum has
written in her work, Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education, “It would be catastrophic to become a nation of technically competent people who have lost the ability
to think critically, to examine themselves, and to respect the humanity and diversity of others .”
The Indian youth have the capacities to take democracy in their hands .He has capacity to
revolutionise the people like international students movement . The Vietnam War Protests – 1966-1969 , Anti-Apartheid – 1976 and Tiananmen Square Protest – 1989 ,these three student protests that changed history of the world. Even, Indian student movements have had some successful movements like, indian freedom struggle ,1977 Sampoorn kranti JP movement and 2011 Anti
corruption movement .
In the first week and second week of September,2019 ,Asia’s biggest Students Union election would be happening in the Jawahar Lal Nehru University and University of Delhi. Let’s celebrate youth democracy and demand to regulate the law of National students union election and open the door
of youth into politics .
Raja Choudhary
(Former DUSU Presidential candidate and student of Faculty of Law , University Of Delhi . He is also the author of a book titled ‘Ayodhya’)
The University of Delhi (DU) saw controversy unfold over Savarkar, from demands to rename the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) Office after V.D. Savarkar, to the installation of a pillar with his bust, along with those of Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh in the campus. The ideological warfare about his thoughts continues to be controversial.
As the DUSU elections approach, the University is grappling with the Savarkar Statue Controversy. The illegal installation of the bust, followed by its removal, reveals the ideological tussle between the different schools of thought.
An extremist in his thoughts, Savarkar was an Indian Independence activist who rebelled against the British rule through revolutionary means, and was imprisoned due to his anti-coloniser activities. Following a failed attempt to escape while being transported from Marseilles in France, he was sentenced to two life terms of imprisonment, and eventually landed in the cellular jail or Kala Pani. Savarkar has been always been at the eye of the storm, for being viewed as a “coward” since he wrote letters to the British, pleading to be released from the torture of the cellular jail.
Being an atheist, he believed that Hinduism was a political identity having a powerful moral force. While in prison, Savarkar wrote the work describing Hindutva in which he defined that all people descended from Hindu culture as being a part of Hindutva, including Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. The noted journalist, Manu Joseph, recently opined, “The erasure of Savarkar by intellectuals 1.0 was so complete that at the end of it all, he was not even a villain. He was not mentioned in textbooks even as one of the accused in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Savarkar’s insight was that Hinduism was a powerful political identity that does not require gods, or even the cow actually, whom he did not love very much, and that Hinduism is a fundamental genetic force in all Indians. In this way, he invented Hindutva.”
The very fact that the revolutionary ideas of Savarkar remain to be missing from our mainstream reading and textbooks, does not allow the discussion on his extreme views in the freedom struggle movement through Hindutva. Vaibhav Purandare, in his book The True Story of the Father of Hindutva reveals Savarkar’s professed hatred for Muslims. In his early years as a revolutionary, Savarkar asked Hindus and Muslims to get along, but eventually, he wished to subdue Muslims.
Earlier this month, on 12th August, the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) demanded the DUSU Office be named after Veer Savarkar. Following this, the ABVP and DUSU installed the busts of
V.D. Savarkar, Subhas Chandra Bose, and Bhagat Singh outside the Faculty of Arts in the North Campus and faced criticism, followed by the attack on the statue and smearing black colour on the bust by the National Students’ Union of India.
Shakti Singh, the outgoing President of DUSU, said, “Since the beginning of my term, I was requesting the DU administration for establishing the statues but never got a reply from them. The left-wing forces and the Congress party have always defamed Veer Savarkar. So, I wanted that this issue should be debated so that the youth can know about his contribution to the freedom struggle of the country.”
Madhu Prasad, former Professor of Philosophy, Zakir Hussain College said, “Bhagat Singh believed that the country won’t get freedom unless there is equality. However, the current scenario in this country does not allow debate, discussion, and dissent, and idolising Savarkar is against the essence of freedom.”
While he worked upon reforming and revolting the colonial rule, his extreme positions on Gandhi, Hindu Rashtra, and Muslims bestows him with political exclusion.
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.
Sacred Games season two came out on the eve of Independence Day and Raksha Bandhan, a strategically positioned release date, or fate? (Only Guru Ji knows)
Our Web Editor, Shaurya Thapa commented that if Season 1 of Sacred Games was set in Kashyap’s Wasseypur world then Season 2 took inspiration from his No Smoking cinematic universe. This review begins on a comparative note because this whole show does the same. It is a comparison within itself, contradicting its characters, creating parallels with the previous season, mirroring the outer world, reflecting on the World’s political climate, driving on India’s history and dramatising on the didactic dilemma of this decade: Is this world worth saving?
Season two is packed with a lot of brand new information, twists and turns wrapped up in the eight hour long cinephile’s dream. It comes full circle with completing almost all the strands left loose in the first season. It is the story of a chase against time, personal conflicts, greater good and men in white tripping over red pills and drinks.
Guru Ji and his ashram, which was barely touched upon in season one, takes the centre stage this season. Kalki has less to do as Batya, but it is ominous, arbitrary and satisfactory. The angle of the third baap and Gaitonde’s Freudian obsession with his baaps make way more sense now.
At its heart, despite all its nuclear bomb threat to Mumbai and Sartaj Singh’s race against time to prove his masculine heroism, Sacred Games is the story of Ganesh Gaitonde. His rise, his fall, his obsessions, his pre-occupations, his business, his enemies, his love, his life, and Mumbai is what makes the revolutionary plot. He has the best lines, direction, writing, acting and side characters. Season one’s ferocious Kantabai and frivolous Kuku take a back seat as compared to the new characters- RAW agent Yadav Sahab, and conflicted JoJo.
Characters in this show don’t pop up out of no-where; they rise out of a connection and become important eventually. Parulkar, Trivedi, and Bhonsle all make appearances in Gaitonde’s formative years to become an integral part of the Sartaj Singh plot. Dilbagh Singh’s involvement in the annihilation plans is ambiguous yet it connects all the dots. Zoya or Jamila’s involvement becomes a full circle and even a minor mention of Anjali Mathur’s father’s death gets an explanation.
The traje(dy)ctory of Inspector Majid Khan is the most surprising of all. With chilling dialogues like “Musalman ko uthaane ka police ko kya bahaana chahiye” and “Majid Khan hone se Parulkar ka banda hona behtar hai” and an equally disturbing scene of a young Muslim boy being forced to “Say It” and eventually being brutally lynched, the show takes a much-needed stand in today’s time. What is even more tantalizing is that among that mob we know one character, a devastated boy who is finding his peace in the brutality of a religious war.
On the other end of this spectrum stands, the almost comical parodies of real-life people. We can easily see the inspiration behind them and how easily the writer’s incorporated them into the story. Ram Gopal Verma and Osho are the influences woven strongly into the story with brilliant writing.
The end is a rollercoaster. The viewers have to scratch the reality away from the imagination. They are stuck together side by side, one striving on the other’s existence, one is real and the other is the influencer. The red pill and tripping play a major part in the culmination, Sartaj is still running on them, making hasty decisions, delayed realisations and maybe even mistakes.
The takeaway from this open end is that the detonation of the bomb doesn’t even matter. The world is killing itself, it is moving towards mass destruction with corruption steeped into its being. The use of a real-life footage in the background during Guru Ji’s convincing ‘let’s kill everyone and bring about Satyug’ speech fuels my conclusion that even without such Guru Ji’s involvement in our real life, American mass shootings are on a rise, Palestine-Israel conflicts is still alive, the Middle-East war seems never-ending and India-Pakistan are still on the Colonial crossroads. Adding to this, without Guru Ji we still have Rohingya annihilation, Sri Lankan bombings, New Zealand mass killings, and climate change. So that bomb, really doesn’t matter, we will get to the end of the world even without it.
The first-semester syllabi of four subjects have been accepted by the panel of the University of Delhi (DU).
The University of Delhi has approved the syllabus of English, History, Political Science, and Sociology for first-semester. The syllabi of other subjects have been sent back for revision, and for a final overlook, to their respective Departments, who have been provided with the time of a month to do the same..
The long-drawn-out controversy over University of Delhi’s syllabus of certain subjects has come to a step closer to its conclusion with this action. However, many academic and ethical debates over this dispute are still taking place.
This controversy began with right-wing organisations objecting to the inclusion of certain course materials, like the role of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the depiction of Hindu deities in Queer literature in the English syllabus.The situation soon escalated with the ABVP protesting against the course material of certain subjects, which according to them were anti-national and non-Indian in aesthetics. Dr. Rasal Singh of the Academic Council said, “The syllabi have to be cleansed and Indianised, it should be free from Colonial and Communist clutches.”
Counter-protests for academic freedom by organizations like the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Pinjra Tod soon followed, leading to a University-wide altercation.
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.”
