In response to the abrogation of Article 35A and Article 370, the nation saw countrywide protests being organised by various organisations.
Student leaders, political figures, and dissenting students took to the streets of Mandi House to make their way to Jantar Mantar to protest the abrogation of Article 35A and Article 370 which granted special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The protest was supported by organisations including Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist), and All India Forward Bloc (AIFB).
The move has left people confused and shocked. People have been vocal about their dissent through social media. The varied reactions, some celebratory and some condemning it have made Delhi the hotbed of protests and celebration rallies this week.
“There’s a new way of misogyny in the air after the abrogation. There are memes and posts about men wanting to marry a Kashmiri woman. Does this mean they intend to kill all our boys? There has been excitement over the prospect of buying land. So, it was never about the people, was it? Only the land,” said a Kashmiri woman.”I’ve been here for 10 years. I went to university here, I got my first job here. I’ve never come out for a protest ever before but the latest news forced me out of my house. I need to be seen, I need to be heard.” added another Kashmiri woman on the conditions of anonymity.Amidst placards, posters, and media personnel running around to take interviews, a few protestors drew graffiti and wrote slogans on the road as leaders from the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Lenininst) spoke about the issue.
Shortly, a counter protest by unknown people began outside the barricades. They unfurled the national flag and waved it high while shouting slogans demanding ‘azaadi’ (freedom) from ‘anti-nationals’. Their display of hyper nationalism found itself in slogans praising the nation as the police and CRPF forces formed a tight, protective circle around them. The counter protesters also chanted aggressive slogans like “desh ke gaddaro ko, goli maaron saalon ko” (shoot all the traitors of the nation).
As the valley spends its third day without any communication channels, reports and rumours of protests, stone pelting, and death in the rehion leave the Kashmiri students in Delhi distressed.Students are yet to hear from their families back home. Reports of curfew and increased military presence has only added to their fears and worries.
The abrogation has left Ladakh as a Union Territory without its own legislature. Students from Ladakh spoke against the decision. Mohammad Ali, a student from Jawaharlal Nehru University said,“The MP proudly smiles and boasts his hapoiness on TV, he say the people of Ladakh are happy, but let me tell you that they aren’t. There have been protests because we don’t welcome this move. Bifurcating the state only puts us in a more vulnerable position. Ladakh’s ecology is in danger due to climate change and rising tourism. The abrogation of Article 370 and Article 35A will only damage the ecology further as outsiders will try to set up their companies. Tell me, how do you take such a major decision without asking the people? Is this what Indian democracy stands for?”
Many students chose to cover their faces at the protest or chose to not show up at all. Fear of being recognised and reported grips the Kashmiri diaspora in Delhi. “As a Kashmiri woman, my fears have only increased this year. First it was Pulwama, and now this.” The suddenness of the abrogation has left students torn between the legalities and the emotions it provokes. “It’s unconstitutional and undemocratic, that’s all I can say,” said a university student. “They’ll have to lift the curfew someday, and when they will, there will be bloodshed. I am terrified of that happening.”
Various University of Delhi (DU) Student Organisations gathered to protest against the planned attack on the Unnao rape victim. Read on to know more.
Student organisations of DU held a joint protest in front of the Faculty of Arts, North Campus, on 1st August 2019, to show their dismay over the lack of protection provided to the Unnao rape victim, and the delayed actions taken by the Supreme Court and the Government with respect to this incident. They also condemned the BJP Government, especially Yogi Adityanath, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, for being complicit with the accused.
All India Students’ Association (AISA), All India Students’ Federation (AISF), Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Pinjra Tod, Students’ Federation of India (SFI), etc., were some of the student parties that had joined the protest.
Shreya Singh, a member of the All India Democratic Students’ Organisation (AIDSO) said, “This protest is not only for the Unnao rape victim, but for the lack of safety provided by the Government to girls and women in the country. This protest is against patriarchy. It is for true equality and real freedom for women.”
In the shadow of the Unnao Rape Case, Siddhant Raj, a member of the Progressive Democratic Students’ Federation (PDSF) questioned the Government, the police, and the Supreme Court’s capabilities to protect the girls and women in the country. Many present also condemned the BJP Government’s hypocrisy with respect to the status of women in the country. Harish Gautam, a member of KYS said, “The BJP MLAs go around chanting slogans of ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ and promote themselves by clicking selfies in front of campaigns like this, but when it actually comes to it, they do nothing to protect the girls in the country. Right from the beginning, the Unnao rape survivor was being threatened but the BJP Government failed to provide her with any security.” Shreya Banerjee, a member of AISA agreed to this and said, “Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao has been murdered.”
On 28th July 2019, the Unnao rape survivor and her lawyer were critically injured and the rape victim’s relatives killed in a car accident in Rae Bareli, allegedly planned by the BJP MLA Kuldeep Singh Sengar, the main accused in the rape.
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
Recent proposals for changes in the syllabi of various undergraduate courses have sparked opposition from the teaching staff, and the ABVP.
Controversy over academic matters arose in the University of Delhi (DU), with some members of the Standing Committee and the Academic Council (AC), along with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) taking objections to some of the proposed changes in the syllabi of various undergraduate courses.
The controversy has taken the form of opposition from Academic Council members and protests by the ABVP, which some had alleged to have turned hostile.
The Background
A report in The Hindu stated that 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.
Similar was the case with the English Journalism syllabus. As reported by The New Indian Express on 15th July, objection was raised by some members of the Academic Council over the inclusion of chapters about Muzaffarnagar riots, and instances of lynchings.
On 17th July, The Indian Express reported about the syllabus changes of other courses and the objections that came along with them. These included syllabi of History, Political Science and Sociology, along with English. The report stated that the Academic Council “referred the syllabus of English and History back to the respective departmentsfor reconsideration, thereby refusing to pass it as it is.” The report further read, “On the syllabi for Political Science and Sociology, some AC members said they too had been sent back for modification, while others claimed they were passed with ‘minor modifications’.”
Who objected and why?
Professor Rasal Singh, a member of the Academic Council, had raised objections regarding the syllabus changes. He alleged that in the story Maniben Alias Bibijaan – a background to the 2002 Gujarat riots – RSS and its affiliate organisations like Bajrang Dal were shown in a “very bad manner”, and were portrayed as “looters” and “murderers”.
He further said that in the syllabus proposed by the English department, “Gods Vishnu, Shiv, Kartikeya and Ganesh were depicted as part of the LGBT community. The sources and evidence for these were secondary sources like ‘Same Sex Love in India’ written by Leftists on the basis of foundational texts of Indian culture such as the Bhagavata Purana, Skanda Purana, and Shiva Purana.” He also alleged that “too much Literature was being incorporated in a paper like ‘Communication Skills’. Instead of core courses like ‘Indian Writing in English’, new papers such as ‘Literature and Caste’ and ‘Interrogating Queerness’ were started.”
Regarding the History department, he said that “[topics about] Rajput history, Amir Khusrau, Sher Shah Suri and Babasaheb Ambedkar were removed from the syllabus. In the ‘Democracy on Work’ course, only the history of Naxalism and the Left have been included.”
He also said that the topics related to the Vedic society, the joint family, village swaraj, and “basics of Indian cultural thought such as environmental discussions and nature worship” were removed from the Sociology syllabus. On the Political Science front, according to Mr Singh, Maoism had been included in the course on ‘Indian Social Movements’, while other social movements like the Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, and Khudai Khidmatgar were removed.
Mr Singh also alleged that the English department had not complied with the format and instructions of the Choice-Based Credit System (CBCS) and instead of a 30 percent change in the syllabus, close to a 100 percent change had been done.
The syllabus showed “tremendous predominance of leftist ideology and a ceaseless opposition towards nationalist ideology, Indian culture and the RSS,” Mr Singh said.
The ABVP, the student-wing of the RSS, organised a protest on 15th July, against the “inclusion of false facts relating to Hinduism and nationalist organisations.” The ABVP also demanded for the “inclusion of elected office bearers of Delhi University Students’ Union in the Academic Council,” as per a press release made by the student organisation on 16th July.
While some alleged that the ABVP tried to “barge into” the Vice Chancellor’s office and demanded that the Heads of Department of English and History, and Academic Council member Saikat Ghosh be “handed over to them,” the student organisation maintained that the protest was “peaceful.”
“Following the protest of ABVP yesterday, Delhi University administration has withdrawn the proposed syllabus of Political Science, English, History and Sociology courses for revision and decided to retain 5 students as members in the Academic Council,” said Ashutosh Singh from the ABVP.
Note – Mr Ghosh could not respond to requests for comments by the time of publishing of this report. This report would be updated as and when he does.
Similar instances in the past
In October last year, the ABVP had objected to the appointment of historian Ramachandra Guha as the Shrenik Lalbhai Chair Professor of Humanities and the Director of the Gandhi Winter School at the Ahmedabad University’s School of Arts and Sciences. Pravin Desai, the ABVP Secretary for Ahmedabad city was quoted in The Indian Express as saying,“We said that we want intellectuals in our educational institutes and not anti-nationals, who can also be termed as ‘urban Naxals’. We had quoted anti-national content from his [Guha’s] books to the Registrar. We told him, the person you are calling is a ‘Communist’. If he is invited to Gujarat, there would be a JNU-kind ‘anti-national’ sentiment.”
Following this, Mr Guha announced that he would not be taking up this position due to “circumstances beyond my control.”
Counter-protests
Some student organisations have condemned the ABVP’s protests. Organisations such as the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Association (AISA), Collective, and others had called for a ‘joint protest’ on 17th July at the Arts Faculty, to “save our critical thinking universities and textbooks from communal forces.”
Amarjeet Kumar Singh from AISA said, “We demand that the syllabus should be decided by the Academic Council and not by the ABVP.”
The course fee of BMMMC offered at Indraprastha College for Women was hiked from INR 67,845 to 1,00,845. The sudden hike has left students feeling discontented.
On 3rd July 2019, Indraprastha College for Women issued a notice stating that the fee of the Bachelor’s in Multimedia and Mass Communication (BMMMC) course had been increased from INR 67,845 to INR 1,00,845. In the annual fee breakdown, the course fee was increased from INR 15,000 to INR 44,000.
The sudden move has been met with backlash from the students. “This is unfair to the students from marginalised communities. The University of Delhi (DU) is a public university. We expected the fee to be lower here. The course is an autonomous course but increasing the fee to 1 lakh is absurd,” said a second-year student.
Another student added, “It”s almost a two-fold increase in the fee structure. Last year, the it was around INR 67,000. We understand that the University calls BMMMC a self-financed course, but this sudden hike is exorbitant.”
According to the college prospectus of the academic year 2018-19, the fees for the first-year students was INR 82,000 which included development fee and establishment charges. The fees for the second and third year was set to INR 67,845. The college has now hiked the fee for second and third year students to INR 1,00,845. The fee structure for the first year students is yet to be announced.
The deadline for submitting the college fees is the 25th July 2019.
The college facilities remain poor despite the annual fee hike.The studio fee of INR 15,000 stands underutilized. The equipment and computer systems need to be updated. It is said that the students rarely get to visit the studio.
The clause of the refundable ‘caution money’ of INR 3000 seems unclear. Students are required to pay the sum at the beginning of the semester, if they don’t meet the minimum 66% requirement of attendance, the money is forfeited. If the money is forfeited, students need to pay it once again in the next semester.
The high fee in a public university prevents students from marginalised backgrounds from accessing it. In a public university system where casteism still survives, fee hikes like this only strengthens the elitsm of these spaces.
The college is yet to give a statement on the reasons behind the hike.
The University of Delhi (DU) can be a social laboratory to understand how democratic processes work. But sustaining this laboratory needs effort.
You could have been in any other university in India or even abroad – some arguably better, and some worse than DU.
But now that you have ended up here, just like thousands of others from all corners of the country, you have a chance of understanding how democracy and dissent work. That is not to say that this is something exclusive to DU – indeed, it might not even be the best in equipping you with this understanding – but, this is one highlight of this university.
If you choose to, you can allow yourself to be bombarded by a multitude of varying, often conflicting ideologies and thoughts. The sheer magnitude and diversity of people who study in this University is enough of an indicator of how many different kinds of ideas can flourish in and out of its walls. If you don’t choose to live under a rock, this will invariably challenge many beliefs and biases, predilections and prejudices, opinions and outlooks that you might have. Even though soaking in so many conflicting ideas becomes difficult at first, this kind of internal dissent is absolutely necessary for those who wish to have clearer and truer perspectives about issues and who wish to refine their understandings and solidify their arguments.
This “internal dissent” is a much longer, drawn-out process and is just one part of the whole picture though. The other part is the live physical manifestations of dissent that are not rare in the University by any account. You will see students, teachers and others protesting about issues and problems, the impacts of which on people would have probably never occurred to you before.
When various student organisations came together to support the contractual sanitation workers of the university, who, after years of their job, faced the risk of termination and loss of livelihood, it told you how routine official tasks like a change of contract from one company to another can have human costs. When students and teachers protested against the 13 point roster system of teachers’ appointments or against privatisation, it spoke of a struggle to ensure representation and the presence of diversity on our campuses. When sides clashed over the Virgin Tree pooja controversy at Hindu College, it exemplified not only ideological differences but also how conflicting parties act out those differences in politics. This is by no means an exhaustive list.
The University can be a social laboratory to understand how democratic processes work, but sustaining this laboratory needs effort. It’s disheartening to see very few people showing up to many such protests. Many come and attend classes and go back, without fostering this democratic engagement. Many issues slide by. Unresponsive authorities sometimes make protests ineffective.
In this context, it becomes the prerogative of students to make sure a culture of democratic discussion, questioning and peaceful dissent is fostered and sustained. The most crucial step that authorities take to keep themselves safe is suppression of dissent. Orwell’s 1984 comes to mind.
Thankfully, we are not in Oceania and can hence dissent against the wrongdoings to keep the authorities in check. Question what you are taught and not taught; question the authorities; question ideologues and ideologies. Question the protests, and question the media as well.
Student organisations have organised multiple protests till now, raising various demands related to the admission process and alleged fee hikes. In the series of protests, a one-day hunger strike was called on 20th June.
Following the protests of 11th June, 14th June, and a press conference and dharna on 19th June, the protesting student organisations sat on a hunger strike on 20th June against what they have called a “faulty admission process” and fee hike. The hunger strike went on from 10 am to 10 pm in front of Gate No. Four of the Arts Faculty building, and saw the participation of seven student organisations – All India Students’ Association (AISA), Bhagat Singh Chhatra Ekta Manch (BSCEM), Collective, Krantikari Yuva Sangathan (KYS), Parivartankami Chhatra Sangathan (Pachhas), Pinjra Tod and Students’ Federation of India (SFI).
A total of seven students, one from each organisation, sat on a hunger strike. These included Amarjeet from AISA, Nishant from BSCEM, Udita from Collective, Rohit from KYS, Aman from Pachhas, Diya from Pinjra Tod, and Varkey from SFI.
A press release issued by AISA stated, “The registration fees for OBC category has seen a drastic increase and is placed at INR 750, whereas the EWS category pays INR 300; the criteria for both being an income of below INR 8 lakh per annum.” The press release further mentioned about the previous protests and read, “Seeing disappointment again on the 19th, students decided to take up the method of hunger strike. From today (20th June), Amarjeet from AISA with six other students began the hunger strike and shall continue until the Vice Chancellor comes out and talks to the students.”
A press release had been issued by SFI also on 19th June, which read, “Activists of SFI and other organisations held a press conference and dharna (on 19th June) at gate number four of Arts Faculty, University of Delhi, protesting the fee hike of the OBC registration and faulty admission process. A delegation from the protestors met the Deputy Dean of Students’ Welfare, and submitted a memorandum. He made several verb promises, but nothing concrete came of it. By 4:30 pm the students were attacked by the security guard(s) and removed from gate number four. Later the police also intervened in the matter and attempted to intimidate the students. The protesters have decided to move for a hunger strike from tomorrow.”
Diya Davis from Pinjra Tod, one of the protesters who sat on the hunger strike, told DU Beat, “This (the hunger strike) was after the protest outside the Office gate (of the Dean of Students’ Welfare) was forcefully disrupted by the security personnel the previous day. Protesters were forcefully removed from the protest site on 19th June. There was no response from the admin.” She also said that the students were removed from the protest site “using force by the security guards”, on 19th June.
Another protester, Aman Bhartiya from Pachhas, remarked regarding the strike, “It was hoped that someone will come from (the) administration to discuss the issues, but unfortunately it did not happen. So we are now going to file a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) within 1-2 days. Also a mass protest has been called for, by all student organizations, on 24th June.”
DU Beat had reported about the previous protests and the demands raised. These have majorly centred around the differential fee requirements of students from Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) categories. Other demands include: setting the entrance exam question paper in Hindi as well; providing “proper facilities” at the exam centres; revoking the fee hike in Ramjas College & Bharati College, and other related issues.
Read the previously published reports here for a comprehensive and chronological understanding of the protest:
The protesting organisations are now planning to take the matter to the courts by filing a PIL. A larger protest has also been scheduled for 24th June.
Feature Image Credits: Amarjeet Kumar Singh from AISA
On 17th May, three activists from the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) were allegedly attacked with lathis by unidentified men at the Faculty of Arts after they were protesting along with the St. Stephen’s College Staff Association. They blamed Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) for the attack.
Three SFI activists, who wish to remain anonymous, were allegedly attacked by goons when they were resting after a protest by the St. Stephen’s College Staff Association. One of the activists suffered head injuries.
An activist recalls the ordeal, “It was raining, suddenly almost five people with faces covered with handkerchief came and asked whether we were from SFI. When our answer was affirmative, they first abused us and then attacked us with the lathis they had with them.” He added that one of them tried to attack the female activist, but she was standing far away and started calling for help. “After seeing people coming towards us, the attackers fled.”
In the social media posts, SFI has blamed ABVP for the attack. “Yes, it can’t be proved, but it is obvious,” claims one of the activists. “They first identified us as members of SFI and then attacked us. It is a sheer display of their money and muscle power.”
A police complaint has been filed at the Maurice Nagar Police Station in lieu of the incident, however, the activists don’t have a lot of faith in the authorities either. “We were attacked after the Virgin Tree protests at Hindu College, we have been attacked at the Vishwavidyala metro station, we had photos, videos and even CCTV footage of the incident. Yet, the police failed to take action.”
Refuting allegations, Sidharth Yadav, Delhi State Secretary of ABVP denies allegations. “Time and again they come out with their own thought-out incidents followed by tagging ABVP as goons. It is an old tactic, but whatsoever it may be, it must be thoroughly inquired. The allegations must also be investigated and any perpetrator must also be caught.” He added that a police complaint is a must and if anything comes up in the investigation or any name from ABVP comes up, strict action should be taken. “But I don’t think that would be required, it is just their old style of propagating false news against us. Their previous allegations, too, have failed to furnish any material evidence, despite them beating our members at Hindu College and walking away scot-free.”
Feature Image Credits: Students’ Federation of India
