Latest
DU Beat – Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper
Tag

Slider

Browsing
Campus Central

DU Vice Chancellor faces heavy backlash following his endorsement of ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang’

By

Delhi University Vice Chancellor, Yogesh Singh, faced heavy criticism from faculty members on 16 January, 2025, Thursday, after he endorsed Ashok Srivastava’s ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang.’

On 16 January, 2025, Delhi University Vice Chancellor, Yogesh Singh, appeared to endorse the Bharatiya Janata Party ahead of the Delhi election scheduled for February. The endorsement came at a book launch held at the Convention Hall of the Vice Chancellor’s office, organised by the Council of Media and Public Policy and Research along with the Silence Foundation in collaboration with Delhi University. The book titled ‘Modi vs Khan Market Gang’ has been authored by Ashok Shrivastava, a news anchor for the state-sponsored public broadcaster, DD News.

Khan Market Gang was notably a strategic attempt to take digs at the opposition in the lead-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. It was in response to the opposition parading “Chowkidar Chor hai” at the incumbency at the time. Khan Market, a double-storey complex amidst bungalows that pay host to lawmakers and civil servants, is often considered the most expensive retail area in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who doesn’t shy away from letting people know about his humble beginnings, uses this as a political binary against the elites of the Indian socio-political system.

The main objective of the book, according to Srivastava, was to make people in academia aware of the fake narratives that have been thrown around during the incumbent’s tenure. As has been a recurring theme of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) attempts to deal with critics, Prime Minister Narendra Modi once again was talked about synonymously with India at the event. Those who weren’t uncritical of the government, both the journalists and notably institutes abroad, were called out and mocked subsequently.

Sweden, smaller than most Indian states, decided to establish V-Dem several years ago and deemed India undemocratic ahead of both the 2019 and the 2024 elections. A nation as small as that critiquing us makes sense when you look at the people funding it,”

said Yogesh Singh whilst talking about the various anecdotes Srivastava had used in his book to prove how the “Khan Market Gang” transcends borders and nationalities.

Singh didn’t shy away from his allegiances at a time when the model of conduct was placed in the state. He suggested that the Indians enjoy unprecedented freedom and that the global rankings and indexes are all part of a broader narrative against the prime minister and thus India. India curiously ranks 159 out of 189 countries in the latest edition of the Press Freedom Index. His statement comes at a time when central universities have never been more politicised. The changes brought forth by the National Education Policy (NEP), in the curriculums and the regular seminars and events in colleges that align with the ideological tilts of the government, reflect a growing trend of educational spaces turning into arenas for parroting the broader narrative set forth by the ruling party and a slow departure from the intelligentsia.

The event was attended by the members of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad, the youth wing of the BJP, who have themselves been in hot water following the incident where they were seen assaulting students in Ramjas College. Several high-profile BJP leaders were also present at the event where Yogesh Singh was described as the “Chief Organiser” by Ashok Srivastava.

Several Delhi University faculty members condemned the book launch at a time when the model of conduct was in force in Delhi.

Abha Dev Habib, an assistant professor at Miranda House, deemed the event “a political misuse of a publicly funded university” in a conversation with The Print.

I am amazed to find that in a premier public-funded university, where scores of faculty members routinely publish their work on a myriad of issues, including publications in support of the current ruling regime’s policies or critical of the ruling establishment, the university administration has decided to privilege a publication like that of Mr. Ashok Shrivastav, who is an outsider to the university,”

said Maya John, an assistant professor at Jesus and Mary College, in an email to the vice-chancellor.

Prakash Singh, part of both the organisation team and DU’s South campus director, denied that the event was linked to DU and that DU had simply received a “request” for the use of its space for the event, despite Srivastava deeming Singh the “Chief Organiser” of the event.

 

Read also: Student protest in Ramjas College against the sexual harassment charges on Prof. Dhani Ram violently disrupted by ABVP

 

Featured Images Credits: @UnivofDelhi on X

 

Yash Raj

[email protected] 

 

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Student protest in Ramjas College against the sexual harassment charges on Prof. Dhani Ram violently disrupted by ABVP

By

Members allegedly of ABVP disrupt protest in Ramjas College on 8th January against Prof. Dhani Ram’s sexual harassment allegations. The protestors demanded that the college administration suspend the professor officially and reconstitute the ICC. The miscreants severely injured a student from the North East and threatened violence against a professor of English who intervened. Cases of sexual harassment, marking the above, continue to rise, alongside politically charged violence within academic spaces.

Dhani Ram’s history of sexual harassment charges

In December 2024, a minor and a first year undergraduate student of Ramjas College filed a case against Dhani Ram, professor of the commerce department and joint dean of Dean of Students’ Welfare, DU at the Internal Complaints Committee of the college over charges of molestation and sexual harassment. This complaint was the fourth official complaint against the commerce professor filed at the ICC of the college with several other unofficial accusations of harassment that could not be filed officially, including a 2021 letter by M. Com Students of batch 2022 written to the then Secretary of the University Grants Commission (UGC) highlighting his ‘unethical and unprofessional teaching methodology’. The negligence displayed towards the previous complaints highlight the inaction of the college authorities and the ICC regarding his conduct and his abuse of power on multiple occasions. It was only after calls of protest by the student body, AISA and SFI that Prof. Dhani Ram was temporarily suspended from the college on 24th December 2024 pending the ICC enquiry, though an official notice of his suspension has not yet been released by the college. 

ABVP’s violence and disruption of the 8th January protests

Due to the inaction of the college authorities for a duration exceeding 10 days since the filing of the complaint, Stanzin, the Vice-President of the Ramjas College Student Union, issued a call for protest on 8th January 2025. The protest demanded that the victim’s consent be taken into consideration, the reconstitution of the ICC, timely enquiry into and suspension of the accused professor, and transparency during the enquiry, including the publication of an official suspension order on the college website. However, when the students along with the members of SFI and AISA gathered in the Eco Lawns at 12:30 to make posters for the protest against sexual harassment, several students of the college and outsiders, alleged to be members of ABVP by the Left parties and the students, disrupted the protest and tore the posters. They harassed and attacked the student protestors with flower pots and sticks, particularly targeting a third year student from the North East, leading the student to suffer severe bleeding and injuries. Further, when a professor from the English department intervened to put a stop to the violence and request the group to stick to the cause rather than fight among themselves, he too was threatened by the outsider students with violence and later falsely accused of perpetrating violence himself. Despite the disruption of the protest, the student body, along with the Left parties, demanded action against the violence from the administration and issued a call for a protest against sexual harassment and the violence meted out by who they claimed to be ABVP members, outside the college in the evening. 

ABVP’s protest, Prof. Dhani Ram’s supposed resignation and the Left vs Right debate

Meanwhile, the members of ABVP locked the Dean of Students’ Welfare office and conducted a sit-in protest in the office demanding Professor Dhani Ram’s resignation. A notice released by Mitravinda  Karanwal, the secretary of DUSU, and signed by Bhanu Pratap Singh, the Vice President of DUSU, claimed:

 By the orders of the students of Delhi University and ABVP led DUSU, Dhaniram shall not be allowed to enter his office and continue as the Joint Dean of Students’ Welfare, DU, till the enquiry against him is concluded and decision made.

Later, a screenshot of a mail supposedly written by Prof. Dhani Ram was circulated over social media by ABVP Delhi which claimed that Prof. Dhani Ram resigned due to its “persistent efforts”. However, no official confirmation about the accused professor’s resignation as the Joint Dean of DSW has been received. Further, Dhani Ram’s suspension from the post of Joint Dean does not indicate his suspension or termination as a professor in Ramjas College. His suspension and termination as a professor also do not guarantee the prevention of such cases in the future, leading to the necessity of addressing the larger problem of sexual harassment in universities with particular focus on the POCSO Act.

Stanzin, the Vice President of Ramjas College, resolved to continue the movement despite the alleged violence by ABVP:

We wish to ask why the ABVP is protecting sexual harassers and perpetrators. We further ask why the administration is complicit in the organised violence against common students. What occurred in Ramjas during the protest was wholly unconstitutional and barbaric. We condemn it to the fullest terms and demand justice for both the survivor as well as the students. Further, I want to emphasise that they will not silence us and we will continue to fight resiliently. While the ABVP is publicising that Dhani Ram has resigned from the post of Joint Dean of Students’ Welfare, no formal action has been taken against him. The administration is complicit in protecting him and we demand his immediate suspension and the  reconstitution of the ICC. Since our demands have not been fulfilled, our fight continues.

A former student of the college and member of AISA added:

The attack by the goons today—it is amply clear that the people who inflicted the violence today were from ABVP—is the clearest expression of the state of democracy on our campus, in which, students cannot even gather to protest against sexual harassment on their own campus. There is a litany of regulations which is supposed to prevent sexual harrassment on campus, because sexual harassment is so fundamentally antithetical to a healthy teaching-learning environment, but all of these regulations are merely on paper. It is the students’ right to demonstrate and gather in their own college, and whenever the administration is incapable of directly suppressing these movements, it has time and again made use of goons to intimidate student organising, an example of which we also saw last year in the protests in BHU. ABVP and people aligned with it, in attacking the students today have proved that they stand with the perpetrators, the harassers, and all their claims of gender justice is a farce. The students of Ramjas College have bravely resisted all attempts at suppression, have done so today, and will continue to do so.

Rising cases of Harassment by professors and acts of violence in Ramjas; problems within the ICC

The sexual harassment case against Prof. Dhani Ram is not an isolated case in the college or the university as several students have also reported other cases of sexual harassment by professors in Ramjas College in the past few years that have either not been reported due to the influential positions of the accused or not been thoroughly investigated by the ICC. Further, the students of the college have also reported a rise in acts of physical violence during conferences, society events and auditions, and the everyday functioning of the college by students of the college, outsiders, and members of ABVP. The recent attack on student protestors by the members allegedly of the ABVP is a continuation of the acts of violence meted out to students and faculty in 2017 and 2019, and it raises grave concerns about the safety and security of students within the campus space. The college authorities must address the growing cases of sexual harassment by professors, the rise in the cases of violence, and reform and reconstitute the ICC, a body that has been reduced to inaction, complicity, shaming the victims and protecting the culprits, in accordance with the students’ demands for transparency and respect for the survivor’s consent. 

A third year student of the college who had joined the protest remarks:

The recent act of violence during the protest by ABVP members is a shameful and concerning attempt to distract attention from the sexual harassment case. I found that several members of the staff association except for one did not even do the bare minimum. Important as it is for us to condemn violence, we must also ensure that we do not reduce this case to a left vs right battle and bring our focus back to the harassment case. This is sadly not the only case we have seen in the college as professors from the English and history departments regularly harass students sexually and verbally. We have even heard some of them slutshame their own colleagues behind their backs and we see them regularly harass female professors in the department meetings. These cases highlight a growing sense of institutional amnesia in the college and university where a large majority of students and professors no longer address such cases, thereby normalising them. It is important that the survivor in this particular case gets justice, Prof. Dhani Ram is suspended, and the larger problem of sexual harassment within university spaces is addressed, bringing into light other such cases as well.

Aadrit, a former student of the college who had also joined the protest added:

I went there as a common student, not as a part of any political party. I am a part of none anyway. I went there because it was important—not because a North East student was brutally beaten—that happened later and violence of all forms must be condemned—but because, first and foremost, it was a case of sexual harassment and my experience has been one where such cases routinely are brushed under the carpet; be it Hathras, RG Kar, or the previous offenses of Dhani Ram. Against the backdrop of the present situation, as the right and the left continue their war, I urge all students, faculty and others, to come together and stand in one unwavering spirit so that justice is done, ICCs are fixed, the system is corrected, and Dhani Ram and all those like him are held accountable. The focus must not shift. We must remember what we are up against: patriarchy. And we must all stand in solidarity in this arduous struggle for gender liberation which involves the fight against all forms of injustice.

Neha, the Secretary of SFI Ramjas, highlighted a systemic problem with the ICC of the college:

There have been multiple violations of ICC guidelines. The complaint has not got any reply from the admin even after 20 days when they should have released one within 7 days. Those who are a part of this enquiry committee consist of the same people who had protected Dhani Ram 2 years back in another sexual harassment case. While UGC guidelines say that people in enquiry committees should have work on gender, these teachers don’t have that merit either.

Further, a member of the college’s student union claimed in yesterday’s protest that a member of the college’s current ICC, which is investigating the Dhani Ram case, has had an alleged case registered against himself in the ICC, a body he is now a significant part of, on which account no action has been taken by the college authorities, highlighting the supposedly corrupt and complicit nature of the body.

Anonymous

Read Also: Dalit student allegedly harassed and assaulted by Shaheed Bhagat Singh College’s principal

Picture Credits: SFI Delhi Instagram Page

 

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

Dalit student allegedly harassed and assaulted by Shaheed Bhagat Singh College’s principal

By

On Friday, protests took place in the arts faculty led by the Student Federation of India (SFI) and another one staged by the students in Shaheed Bhagat Singh College responding to an alleged case of assault on a Dalit student by the college principal.

On the 18th of September 2024, protests were staged outside the office of Shaheed Bhagat Singh’s principal, Prof. Arun Kumar Attree. These protests, led by a Dalit student, were in response to an alleged incident of blatant casteism and assault on him by the principal. The Dalit student, Sumit, claims that Attree assaulted and hurled casteist slurs at him amidst an attempt for a forced confession for an incident that allegedly took place in September.

On 24 October 2024, several obscene videos were sent to students and teachers alike in the Hindi Department’s WhatsApp group. They were sent through the phone of one of Sumit’s classmates. On suspicion of hacking and frustration of negligence to these issues, the matter was brought to the principal through a letter sent in by Sumit and his classmates.

Recalling the incident at an AISA-led student-teacher convention on Tuesday, he alleges that such incidents were not news and had taken place numerous times before but were swept under the rug.

They took my phone and went through everything they could despite assuring us of our privacy prior. They even went through my chats with my sister and a whole lot of other things that I probably am not aware of.

Following the letter, an investigative committee was formed to look into the matter. They allegedly seized the phones of the suspect and, in Sumit’s case, went through his private photos and even through chats with his family. This was an obvious and absurd breach of one’s right to privacy as laid down in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

We’d get you arrested, taint your character certificate, and make sure your career goes nowhere from here on if you do not confess to having dispersed the videos. If you get away with all that, we still wouldn’t let you in without charging a hefty sum.

These were allegedly the things said to Sumit once he was called to the principal’s office, where, despite the committee admitting to having found nothing against him, Attree pressured and threatened Sumit to confess. He, alongside other professors, tried locking him in to physically assault him further. There were casteist slurs thrown at him and told how he “looked” like someone who would do such a heinous act. Sumit, as he alleges, was made to sit through all of this for 5 hours.

You could tell he is the culprit just by looking at his face.

This was allegedly remarked on by Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, a professor in the Hindi department at Shaheed Bhagat Singh College. Sumit, after the incident, was treated like a convict in college classrooms, and as he put it, it’s almost always people from the SC/ST communities who are singled out and discriminated against.

Disappointed and upset, Sumit and his friends went to file an FIR at Malviya Nagar police station on charges of breach of privacy. This is where the trial of disappointing events, allegedly takes pace. The police, after having heard his complaint, dismissed it initially.

You are no Ambani that your privacy would matter.

The Delhi Police, on several occasions, have dismissed such complaints or handled them poorly. Why should one’s economic or social standing be a determiner of a right to a dignified life? Dr. Rakesh Kumar, a professor at the college and also present at the student-teacher convention, alleges that FIRs aren’t registered against the principal owing to his familial ties to the higher-ranking officials in the Police Force.

Attree has denied any wrongdoing with a statement to Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) saying, “The student has been manipulated by a teacher, who is currently undergoing an inquiry related to false certifications. The student himself faced an inquiry after there were allegations that he had previously hacked people’s phones and sent obscene messages”.

Curiously, it is not the first time Attree has found himself in hot waters, as he infamously detained 1500 students last year on grounds of mandatory attendance criteria. Under his tenure, he has introduced what many view as “anti-democratic” measures into the campus space. He has barred students from hanging out in groups of 4 or more and has installed CCTV cameras everywhere, including the staff rooms, which is seen as an authoritative move in an attempt to curb any sort of opposition he may feel.

Nandita Narain, former President of the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), condemned the incident and expressed her support by saying,

Such incidents of blatant authoritarianism are increasingly more common, as seen by recent incidents in Laxmibai College and Shaheed Bhagat Singh College. I hope strict action is taken against Attree for this crime against humanity. I also hope for greater representation of the SC/ST community in positions of power at the university level shortly as a means to combat this issue.

Read also: Students demanding concessional metro passes led by SFI-Delhi detained by Delhi Police

Featured Images credits: @sbscduofficial on X

Yash Raj

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
Arts & Culture

One Land Grab at a Time: The Philanthropic Tata Legacy

By

Ratan Tata’s legacy, while celebrated as a philanthropist, is tainted by the exploitation and violence against indigenous communities. Despite a public image of philanthropy, the capitalist corporations and their practices reveal a deeper commitment to profit, often at the expense of local populations, reinforcing systemic inequalities.

The billionaire philanthropy, as claimed by most of the elites, is meant to change the world, but a close look at the philanthropic institutions that are growing at a faster pace in the current century showcases the disguise meant to maintain the world as it is. After the death of Ratan Naval Tata, the former chairman of the Tata Group and Tata Sons, on 9th October 2024, condolences flooded the internet, mourning the loss of the philanthropic industrial giant of India. Tributes from the corporate industry, business partners, and international associates were on the horizon; however, the massive outpouring of respect and a sense of personal loss from the working class of the country demonstrates the “naive optimism” of the public and their misled trust in the generosity of the elites.

Tata’s passing gives a good reason to explore the legacy that Ratan Tata inherited and advanced. The legacy of the Tata Group was built on the colonial exploitation of the masses. Nusserwanji Tata, father to Jamsetji Tata, a small merchant, started trading opium to China. Opium was India’s largest export for much of the 1800s—and the “backbone of the British imperial economy.” The opium trade heaped misery on China by shoving the addiction down their throats and forcing the farmers in Bihar to grow the profitless poppies. Millions died in the Bengal famine of 1770, as once productive agricultural land was forcibly converted to poppy production. While the Tatas did engage in the opium trade, they were not dominant players in this industry. They built their wealth by contracting with the British Army to supply troops during wars, notably the Anglo-Persian War of 1856–57. These contracts, linked to colonial military efforts, were profitable and positioned the Tatas within the imperial power structure. The Tata Iron and Steel Company was set up with the main job to supply the British military during World War I. As reward, the Tatas also received the land—which today is called Jamshedpur in honor of Jamsetji, which led to the displacement of Adivasi communities, who were often forcibly evicted from their lands.

 

The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 facilitated compulsory dispossession in favor of private companies if they served a ‘public purpose’. Over the years, Tisco was a landowner, landlord, and municipal authority in Jamshedpur, buying up entire villages, charging rents at a profit, and providing patchy services.”

Thus the local capitalists, the Tatas, profited by provisioning British campaigns as it expanded its exploitation and ransacked places like modern-day Ethiopia.

When Tatas were handed over the land for its mining operations in Noamundi and for the Jamshedpur township in 1907, the company removed Kusumgaj trees, vital to the Adivasi communities for livelihood and sustenance as they initially refused to work in the mines. Thus, in a desperate attempt for livelihood, Adivasis started working in the mines for Tatas. The forced employment generation that continues to be applauded poses a threat to the tribals and their financial security. Furthermore, in 2000, Tata Steel allegedly destroyed a crucial water spring in Agaria Tola, near its coal mines, the only water source for a local tribal community. This act disrupted the local community’s access to essential resources, worsening their displacement and undermining their way of life.

The Gua Massacre of September 1980 or the Kalinganagar Massacre of January 2006 are the glaring realities of state-sanctioned violence against tribals to protect and further the interests of the profiteering capitalist. The tribal villagers in Noamundi protested against the use of their lands for a Tata aerodrome. Tatas urged the state to take stringent actions against the tribal activism. The next day, state forces opened fire on unarmed tribals in Gua, killing eight, including those seeking medical treatment, to quell the growing tribal movement in Jharkhand.

In Kalinganagar, police opened fire on Adivasi villagers protesting Tata Steel’s construction on their ancestral lands. This crackdown occurred soon after the discussion between Tata Steel and Odisha’s Chief Minister, signaling an aim to secure land for a steel plant despite local opposition. The violence led to killing, and the dead bodies returned after the post-mortem were mutilated. Tata Steel called the incident unfortunate and still continued its plans for the plant at Kalinganagar, intensifying tensions over land rights and corporate expansion. In 2006, Tata Motors acquired 900 acres of land for their car manufacturing project in Singur, West Bengal, by forcibly taking the land from local farmers. The state, backed by Tata, deployed armed police to secure the project site, turning the area into a heavily policed zone to suppress the opposition.

Tata and the deep-seated desire to exploit the tribals do not limit to India only. In 1997, while many companies exited Myanmar to protest its military regime’s human rights abuses, Tata Motors continued business with the Myanmar Military Junta, supplying hardware and vehicles. Despite allegations of severe human rights violations, including forced labor and violence against tribal groups, Tata maintained ties with the regime. The Land Rover Defender, owned by Tata Motors, is the most operational patrol vehicle in the Israeli military, which, with its oppressive onslaught, has killed more than 43,000 Palestinians in Gaza since October 7, 2023.

The Tata Group also has a history of strong anti-labor policies and developed a reputation for union-busting, often through violent means. Since liberalization, Tata Steel’s workforce has sharply declined from 78,000 in 1994 to 38,000 by 2006. It’s alleged that the company’s voluntary retirement scheme pressured employees into leaving, with many reporting they were placed under emotional strain to accept the offer. Since Ratan Tata’s leadership began in 1991, aggressive downsizing has led to tragic incidents, including two contract workers who self-immolated in 2003 in protest of their illegal termination. Tata is also accused of violating the Contract Labor and Regulation Act by assigning contract workers the work of permanent staff as a tactic to reduce costs.

With the profound history of exploitation and oppression, Tata Group continues to maintain the spectacle of an altruistic corporation in India and globally. Apparently, Tata Trusts contribute 66% of the earnings made by the Tata firms under the holding company Tata Sons towards charitable causes. However, people tend to forget that these charitable acts serve as a path for tax deduction, as stated under Section 80G of the Indian Income Tax Act. It also acts as a public relations tool to obscure the fact that the capitalists are hoarding an unregulated amount of wealth. Interestingly, we as taxpayers also subsidize these donations in the form of lost tax revenue. Reduced tax revenue could mean that the government has less to allocate to public spending. In theory, this shortfall might be compensated by public funds through other forms of taxation or adjustments in budget allocations to maintain services and infrastructure.

 

“In reality, the amount [billionaires] donate is a fraction of what they would pay if their tax rates were in line with the working class. I think billionaires donate for various reasons, but it’s clear that giving away the equivalent of what’s in their couch cushions helps them avoid having to face steeper bills that would actually make a difference in solving systemic problems.”

Says Gravity Payments CEO, Dan Price

 

“If the rich do not take on this responsibility, they risk provoking the public into a political backlash against the economic system that allowed them to become so wealthy,”

says Matthew Bishop in his work Philanthrocapitalism: How the Rich Can Save the World.

The “benevolent” corporations and their executives, regardless of the personal “moral virtues” they may hold, act with minimal ethical consideration for the public by deploying enough resources that shape the public perception in their favor and sustain their class interest. It’s also astounding to note that in the meantime, their wealth grows by more than what they give. The philanthropic institutions present an altruistic image of the corporations while simultaneously manufacturing the public consent so as to shield the elites from public scrutiny and criticism. These institutions play as a public relations strategy to guise the hyper-profit-driven practices and maintain a deception of capitalist generosity. This helps the capitalist to thrive in their class, exploiting agendas, manipulating the social narratives, and obscure the broader reality behind the social welfare pursuits.

Read Also: Mohanchand to Mahatma: haunting ghosts of Gandhi

Featured Image Credits: Reuters

 

Reeba Khan

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

Looking back on the CJI’s Legacy

By

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, who retired on November 10, 2024, recently reflected on his legacy and the impact of his tenure; the tenure which has been irrevocably sad and painfully disappointing as one sees him lead with a weak stature. 

 

Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s tenure has been a free fall coupled with multiple comebacks. However, the more radically the CJI tries to be a liberally impactful judge with his put-on image of constitutionalism, it only lands him the titular trope of being a classic big mouthed MUN kid—all talks, no show.

The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was appointed and has been serving since November 2022. It is to be recognized here that his appraisal came at a very astute timing. The nation was convalescing with the aftermath of COVID pandemic, the Agnipath scheme had divided the youth’s job security, rampant political arrests had been ensuing with most political prisoners languishing in jails without proper trials and pending verdicts, right-wing extremism and communal clashes had grown manifold, minority rights were under scrutiny, state governments continued being unstable with the arrests of ministers and fall of coalition governments, the UCC, Article 370, and the Citizenship Amendment Act faced an undecided legal fate. The CJI, however, leaves office with a new unblinded saree-clad lady justice and folded hands that ask for forgiveness in case he hurt anyone.

Any criticism of D.Y. Chandrachud comes mostly from the fact of his identifying with morally high, progressive ideas but failing to deliver on any affirmative action that would strengthen them further. It has become a pattern of deceit. Famously, during the Marriage Equality proceedings, the Chief Justice earned his bytes of fame across social media when he corrected the Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, saying, “There is no absolute concept of a man or an absolute concept of a woman at all. Biological definition is not what your genitals are. It’s far more complex; that’s the point.”  What came from the hearing was a judgment against the legalisation of same-sex marriages under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 

The bench also unanimously decided that the right to marriage is not a fundamental right; this sounds contradictory to other guaranteed rights such as the rights to equality, dignity, and liberty. A review petition was later filed as the court’s decision has been criticized for violating fundamental rights, ignoring lived realities, undermining constitutional morality, and contradicting international human rights standards.

Interestingly, the more the CJI edges towards his retirement, the more he finds it imperative to testify for a clean character certificate from the public. He recently said, “I have always granted bail from A to Z, from Arnab to Zubair.” The statement sadly comes at a time when the movement and agitation towards Professor G.N. Saibaba’s institutional death is at its peak. The ignorance extended towards political prisoners’ plight is apparent. D.Y. Chandrachud’s judgment on the Bhima Koregaon Arrests under the UAPA is reflective of the larger judicial sentiment harbored towards those wrongly persecuted by the state. The court, in its judgment, ruled over the arrests of five human rights activists under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) by the Maharashtra Police and allowed the investigation to continue. The police had accused the activists of involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence and sedition. There are several human rights activists and student leaders who continue to be politically incarcerated and framed while legal and political freedom withers. 

Delhi University Professor Nandini Sundar, while addressing a crowd gathered for the memorial meet of Dr. G.N. Saibaba, said,

For a judge to say that he has given bail to some and not the others, sounds akin to a teacher saying I have failed some students but passed the others.”

There had also been large public concern and criticism of the CJI when he openly hosted the Prime Minister for a Ganesh Chaturthi event at his residence. The opposition and citizens raised concern in the matters of division of powers, arguing that it was a display of negation of judicial independence, propriety, and protocol. The CJI, however, dismissed the backlash as he considers there being “absolutely nothing wrong.” 

Furthermore, adding to the populist religious sentiment around the Ram Janmabhoomi case, the CJI is said to have prayed to the “lords” to guide him through the judgment. Such statements disintegrate the secular core of public institutions. The judiciary does not in any capacity have a religion, but what one sees during the tenure of CJI Chandrachud is various judges openly endorsing religion and politics, as we see former Justices Rohit Arya and Abhijit Gangopadhyay joining the BJP.

There have also been judgments from the now former CJI that have effectively been pro-citizens and have sought to ensure and maintain the rule of law, but in a broader observation of phenomena, the CJI has delivered less of the more expected from him. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud’s legacy is a curious case of accepting the unexpected.

 

Read Also: DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba.

 

Featured image credit: The Hindu

 

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

Trump 2.0: Decoding the US Presidential Elections 2024

By

Trump, a man who has been indicted 91 times, convicted more than 30 times, impeached twice, has multiple allegations of sexual assault, and is accused of inciting insurrection, is effectively one of the most powerful men in the world. While the outcome is the same as in 2016, the man is different this time around. His supporters, more radicalised, are expecting hardcore changes, and he intends to deliver them.

 

With the world’s eyes on them, over 140 million Americans went to the polls on the 5th of November, 2024. In a high-stakes race to elect the 47th President of the United States, the Republican Party was represented by the infamous Donald Trump for President and JD Vance as Vice President, while the Democratic Party’s ticket was Kamala Harris and Tim Walz as President and Vice President, respectively. 

 

The incumbent president, Joe Biden from the Democratic Party, initially ran for re-election, but widespread calls for a younger candidate, along with his poor performance at the June 2024 presidential debate, led to his withdrawal and Harris’ nomination a month later. Trump, the 45th President of the USA, who had lost to Biden in 2020, ran for re-election for a non-consecutive term along with his running mate Vance. 

 

What was at stake?

This was a critical election for many reasons and the main electoral issues according to the polls were the economy, immigration, democracy, abortion rights, foreign policy (particularly concerning Israel), and climate change.

 

Perhaps one of the key concerns of this election was abortion rights. This was the first presidential election that was held after the American Supreme Court’s controversial decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022. This saw widespread polarisation within American society, with the right-leaning population supporting a complete ban on abortions in all cases and the left-leaning population protesting the attack on women’s bodily autonomy. 

 

Immigration and border control also were one of the most widely debated issues by the voters. While Trump’s administration and policy have always been anti-immigration, this campaign saw more overt and conspicuous rhetoric. While the Democrat narrative may have seemed comparatively subtle, at its core it was also opposed to immigration.

 

Voters cited the economy as their top issue across many polls. Harris proposed raising taxes on corporations and high-earners to fund services for the lower and middle classes and reduce the deficit, while Trump’s economic policies can be described as protectionist and Neo-mercantilist.

 

Another crucial issue this year was America’s foreign policy, particularly in regard to Israel and Russia. Following the Israeli offensive,  a wave of protests rocked the United States, particularly on its college campuses, urging the administration to withdraw support from Israel. Thus, Palestine formed a central focus for a lot of voters.

 

Harris aligned herself with Biden’s foreign policy on supporting Ukraine and while she condemned Israel’s invasion of Rafah, she maintained Israel’s ‘right to defend itself.’ Trump also declared complete support for Israel while maintaining an isolationist ‘America First’ foreign policy, vowing to impose tariffs on even trade partners. He promises to cut military spending on foreign affairs. 

 

Democratic and republican campaigning strategy

 

Harris framed her campaign as “a choice between freedom and chaos” and based it around the ideals of “freedom” and “the future”. She aligned many of her policies to Biden’s appearing as more moderate in a bid to appeal to the more moderate conservatives. Her campaign became tethered to Biden’s crumbling legacy. 

 

Her campaign maintained a more optimistic and joyful approach while they failed to connect with the voters. While her candidacy was historic owing to her being a woman of colour running for President, it failed to translate into votes as her appeal seemed more abstract than grounded in the realities of voters’ everyday lives. 

 

Trump, on the other hand, heavily focused on dark and apocalyptic rhetoric about the state of the country and predicting doom if he did not win, making numerous false and misleading statements, and harnessing the tactics of fear mongering, all in his attempt to “make America great again”.

 

In the online world, which has a huge impact on the voting patterns of younger voters, Trump was able to mobilise support, particularly from younger men. His appearance on the Joe Rogan podcast as well as frequent endorsements by Elon Musk, led to an increase in his already huge popularity within the ‘manosphere,’ or the side of the internet dominated by men, while democrats reveled in the brat summer and the ‘bratification’ of Kamala Harris.

 

However, one of the most striking elements of the republican strategy was their unprecedented precision in targeted digital advertising. They were able to successfully harness the power of data analytics, tailoring ads to specific voter demographics based on nuanced local issues and cultural divides, while the democratic campaign stuck with more traditional approaches. For instance, in Michigan the Jewish communities received ads raising doubts about Harris’s stance on Israel, while in Pennsylvania, Muslim voters were shown ads criticising Harris’s perceived reluctance to advocate for a ceasefire in the Israel-Palestine conflict, allowing Republicans to pander directly to voter anxieties on a microscopic level.

 

Democrats, on the other hand, took the route of advertising to voters who they identified as moderate Republicans, spending as much as a billion dollars in digital ads. However, this strategy backfired as they did not see an increase in republican votes and failed to use that revenue to secure their democratic voter base. 

 

Voting demographics

While the opinion polls showed a very close fight between both candidates, almost split to 50-50, the results showed a clear tilt toward the Republicans.

 

There was an apparent increase of support towards Trump from the Black community with 16% of Black voters voting for him as compared to 8% in 2020, while 91% of black voters had supported Biden and 83% voted for Harris. 

 

Democrats also lost ground among Latino voters, with 56 percent voting for Harris in 2024 compared to 63 percent for Biden in 2020. Trump’s support grew from 35 percent in 2020 to 42 percent in 2024. Interestingly, 24% of Black men and 9% of Black women voted for Trump, clearly hinting at a gender divide among voters. This was also reflected among white voters, with 60% of white men voting for Trump as compared to 53% of white women. Younger voters from 18-44 years preferred Harris while those above 45 preferred Trump. Thus, Trump emerged as the most popular among older white males.

 

Indian-Americans, too, broke away from Democrats this year. From 2020 to 2024, the percentage of Indian-Americans identifying as Democrats dropped from 56% to just 47%, while support for Trump surged from 22% to 31%. This shift is particularly pronounced among younger Indian-American men

 

Result

The preliminary result with about 95% of the votes counted shows a clear victory for Donald Trump. Trump also had a clear sweep in the seven swing states with Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin all flipping to Republican from Democratic.

 

Trump has gained 50.5% of the votes and 312 of the 538 electoral votes and Harris, 47.92% as per the latest counting. Republicans have won a bigger share of votes in every state in 2024 compared to 2020. They lead the popular vote by about 4 million. 

 

What lies ahead 

Following the declaration of Trump’s apparent victory, Black Americans across many states received a text message asking them to ‘report for slavery.’ On Twitter harassment towards women surged, with the phrase ‘your body, my choice’, referring to the ban on abortion, being used as a catchphrase by many men. People, not only in America but across the world, are concerned over what Trump’s victory could mean. 

 

Experts believe that a federal abortion ban seems unlikely. Instead, the Trump administration may seek to reinstate the Comstock Act, which bans anything related to abortion from being sent by mail—effectively banning abortion nationwide. 

 

Trump in his campaign has also promised the ‘largest deportation’ hinting at a shift in his focus from immigrants at the border to those within the country, ones who have lived in the States for years. Trump’s re-election is also concerning news on the Gaza front, for he has declared unequivocal support for Israel.

 

On the economic front, economists theorise a possible increase in prices for Americans as Trump may seek to import a 10% tariff on all foreign goods. This could also have ramifications for America’s trade partners, including India.

 

How votes are counted and how it benefited the Republican Party

The victor is declared not based on who has the most number of votes, instead, both candidates compete to win contests held across the 50 individual states. In the United States, each state has a certain number of electoral college votes, partly based on population. Thus, when people vote for the president, they’re not voting directly for the candidate. Instead, they’re choosing electors in their state who will then vote for the president. There are 538 total votes in the electoral votes and a candidate requires 270 of those to win.

 

Most states use a rule where the candidate who gets the most votes in that state wins all of its electoral votes. This means if Candidate A wins by just one vote in a big state like Florida, they get all of Florida’s electoral votes. Some states usually vote for the same party every time, so candidates don’t spend a lot of resources on campaigning there. They instead chose to focus on a few key states, the swing states, where either party could win.

 

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this system is that a candidate can get more total votes from people across the whole country, the popular vote, but still lose the election if they don’t get enough electoral votes. This happened in 2016 when Hillary Clinton had more total votes from people but Donald Trump got more electoral votes and won the presidency. As of 11th November, 2024, Trump has long crossed the 270 mark, making him the undeclared winner, while the votes are still being counted. 

 

Trump, a man who has been indicted 91 times, convicted more than 30 times, impeached twice, has multiple allegations of sexual assault, and is accused of inciting insurrection, is effectively one of the most powerful men in the world. While the outcome is the same as in 2016, the man is different this time around. His supporters, more radicalised, are expecting hardcore changes, and he intends to deliver them. 

 

Read also: US Elections and impact on India

 

Featured Image Credits: NPR

 

Disha Bharti

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
DUB News

Hindu College Queer Collective returns with a campus-wide Pride Parade after 2 years.

By

On the 9th of November, 2024, a North Campus-wide Pride Parade was organized by the Hindu College Queer Collective. The parade was joined by students and activists of various universities, queer collectives, gender cells, and other organizations. It also included several poetic, dance, theatrical, and music performances as a part of the event.

The Pride Parade of the Hindu College Queer Collective (HCQC) was, unlike several sponsored events organized in DU, a completely crowdfunded event that sought to keep the parade “community-funded” and to avoid rainbow capitalism. The event kicked off with several cultural performances in the Sanganeria Auditorium of the college by guest student performers as well as performances by societies and cells of Hindu College that included poems by students on the queer love, music performances by students of Alankaar: The Classical Music Society and Aria: The Western Music Society, dance performances by the members of the North East Cell, Adhrita: The Indian Dance Society, and a play titled “Dear Closet” by Masque: The English Theatre Society of Hindu College revolving around transphobia. The cultural programme also sought to reach out to queer students and allies beyond Hindu College and hence the HCQC pride parade, for the first time, also featured more than 15 guest performers.

The final ‘surprise performance’ was not revealed to the audience via the official schedule and was only revealed at the moment of the performance to be a dance by the members of HCQC. The energetic productions throughout the day reflected upon the audience, who also twirled to the beats from their respective seats

The Pride Parade event also featured several stalls set up outside the auditorium. These stalls ranged from Camera Commune, a film club’s stall on prints, books, and keffiyeh on queer movements and Palestinian struggle to raise funds for Trans Community Kitchen, to Bhagat Singh Study Circle’s stall of multilingual progressive books, The Azadi Project’s stall of crocheted and handmade items made by displaced women, a stall of jewelry, mehendi painting, candles by queer folk, and a stall of prints, live sketching, and face painting by college students. The stalls were allotted either to queer or queer-led organizations or to individuals and/or organizations that worked for marginalised communities.

The Pride Parade formally began at 4:30 pm after all the cultural performances, and it started from Gate 4 of Hindu College. The parade covered almost the entire North Campus as it went from Hindu College, following the route through the Delhi School of Economics, Kirori Mal College, Chhatra Marg, Ramjas College, Daulat Ram College, and Shri Ram College of Commerce, and finally culminated at the Gate 4 of Arts Faculty, North Campus. 

As the parade turned to Ramjas College and a huge crowd of students from the college stared at the crowd, a student from the parade stated:

“Sab hume aise dekh rahe hai par accha lag raha hai. Hum lad rahe hai apne liye. It feels good that everyone is looking at us. We are only fighting for ourselves.)”

Powerful slogans of resilience and support echoed through the course of the parade. 

“Homophobia Down Down!

Transphobia Down Down!

Teri Mukti, Meri Mukti, Queer Mukti Zindabad (Your Freedom, My Freedom, Queer Freedom Long Live!)

Jai Bhim-Lal Salaam

Rape Culture Ka ek Jawab-Inquilab Zindabad

Hum Nafrat Hatane Nikle Hai, Aao Humare Saath Chalo (We have come out to remove hatred; come join us!)

Student Unity Long Live”

As the parade was being closely monitored by the Delhi Police, whose permission was sought and granted for the same, several slogans and chants raised during the parade were censored. The azadi chant, for instance, was censored by the police authorities, and they requested the organizers not to raise such chants.

Aishwarya, the president of the HCQC concluded the parade with a small address to the crowd and remarked:

We give a lot of importance to ensure that the pride parade is 100% crowdfunded and that it is preceded by a cultural event everytime because that’s our effort to tap into multiple forms of expression and portray how queer is in everything and everything can be queered. There is no specific space where queers can express queerness, such as, the pride parade. Queerness can be present in every form and expression, and is a way of life. The way academia operates in the current status quo and how it can be inaccessible for so many people is the reason why we preceded the pride parade with the cultural program.”

Aishwarya further added:

“We also believe in a politics of collaboration and tried to collaborate with different societies and cells that might not engage with issues or queerness otherwise. In several colleges, performance societies are given more importance than queer and gender based collectives so our idea of doing a pride parade in collaboration with these societies helps us reverse and restructure the hierarchy structure within the college space and reach out to larger audiences, including the ECA societies, that engage with and learn about queerness in the process. We feel that we have succeeded in creating a non-judgemental space with our pride parade event.”

Some students did mention that while organising the Pride Parade at a formal level by one of the very few formally recognised Queer Collectives in DU is in itself a huge achievement by the HCQC, they felt that several issues such as transphobia, gender dysphoria, and institutional deaths of queer students in our own campuses, did not get enough platform as much as they should have.

 

Read Also: SFI Delhi organized the annual Pride Parade; chants of Azadi echoed throughout.

Featured Image Credits: Sharanya Dayal for DU Beat

 

Vedant Nagrani

 [email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

From Killing Ideas to Killing Intellectuals: The Institutional Murder of G.N. Saibaba

By

Prof. G.N. Saibaba did not ‘pass away’ on 12th October 2024. He was gradually and brutally murdered by the state, the Indian academia, and our collective silence. The Indian university has become a graveyard, with students and academics being executed for voicing their opinions. Is staying silent the best that we are capable of?

 

The first time I came across G.N. Saibaba was in a social media post from 2022 that dealt with his ongoing case and featured the poem ‘I Refuse to Die’ from the collection of his prison poetry and letters, Why Do You Fear My Ways So Much? The poem and his case prompted me to buy the book and read more about him. G.N. Saibaba was the first poet I read after getting admitted to the literature program at the University of Delhi in 2022, and I carried the text with me to my first lecture in college only in the hope that someone would recognise it. The text became my first introduction to the oppression that the DU administration and the state are capable of meting out to a 90% disabled professor, even before I physically reached my college. It was only a matter of a few months before I would witness academic precarity firsthand in my department when my professors would be displaced, and later, Prof. Samarveer Singh of Hindu College would be forced to take his life. 

 

G.N. Saibaba’s death is simultaneously, both a rare case of UAPA in which each institution of the state and even the university administration worked in tandem with each other but led to Saibaba’s eventual bail and also another case of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) imposed on the academic-activist on no solid grounds, except for his alleged “links with the banned Maoist party.” 

 

Though the BJP-led government has made significant amendments to the UAPA and excessively imposed it on students, academics, and activists to curb any criticism of the state in the last decade, it is important to note that the draconian law was imposed on Saibaba by the Congress-led UPA government in 2012. The misuse of the colonial era law by the UPA government, a part of which today stands as an alternative and the opposition to the NDA alliance, allowed the exploitation of the law and for it to be made arbitrary by the latter, to the extent that the law was amended to shift the burden of proof from the accuser, usually the state, to the accused, making bails in such cases extremely rare.

 

Though Saibaba was granted bail, he was not even allowed to visit his mother’s funeral and was physically tortured by the prison authorities during his abduction-cum-arrest from DU campus and in jail that led to the paralysis of his left arm, denied basic healthcare facilities, and even contracted the coronavirus twice while he was in jail. Despite all of these grave concerns, Saibaba was continuously denied bail, even though several high profile individuals were given bail during the pandemic. When he was finally acquitted in October 2022 by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the Maharashtra government filed a petition and challenged the HC’s order at the Supreme Court, and on the very next day, Saturday 15th October 2022, a special bench of the SC comprising Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice M.R. Shah stayed the HC’s acquittal order, citing how the “brain is the most dangerous and integral part of committing terrorism-related offences”. 

 

The profiling of progressive academics, activists, and intellectuals as ‘terrorists’ has been made into a common practice by the state and the university administrations have also been actively complicit in this. It is alleged that a colleague of Saibaba at the Ram Lal Anand College was responsible for helping the state frame him in the case. Prof. Saibaba was also unfairly terminated from his job as an assistant professor at Ram Lal Anand College, DU even before he was proved guilty in the case. 

 

This atmosphere of fear and surveillance in the saffronised university space has not only been responsible for the death of several intellectuals but has also been actively used by the state to break networks of solidarity—in the case of Prof. Hany Babu who was a part of the defence committee for Saibaba and has also been incarcerated under UAPA. Even the lawyer Surendra Gadling who fought the case for Saibaba’s release was charged with UAPA and the judges who had acquitted Saibaba have faced consequences for the same. 

 

In conversation with DU Beat at a memorial organised for Saibaba, Professor Jenny Rowena, wife of Hany Babu, said,

We always talk about issues when somebody dies, then it becomes a viral thing. We saw Rohith Vemula when he was alive. How much attention do we give to these people? Even now, people who are in jail because they campaigned for Saibaba, like Hany Babu, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, who was their lawyer, are still in jail. These people also have a lot of health problems, so are we waiting for the same to happen to them? We all should really protest against UAPA. All condolence meetings that we have should also be against UAPA. There should be a mass movement against it, because they [the state] are using it ruthlessly now to crush any kind of opposition and dissent.”

 

The law has been reduced to a tool of state repression and is being increasingly used to arrest students, young activists, academics and other intellectuals who criticise the state under the garb of ‘national security’ and by labelling them as terrorists. Not only is it absurd that young students and 90% disabled professors are labelled as ‘terrorists’ and potential ‘threat to the nation’ but it is against the constitutional values that promote critical and free thinking. In fact the very structured and systematic manner in which each institution of the state and each public institution including the universities and the media is working in complicity with the state to corner dissenters is in itself a symptom of a regime of terror that the UAPA supposedly seeks to counter. 

 

It is also important to take into cognizance the notions of ‘terrorism’ that UAPA seems to be against. Is fighting for the rights of Adivasis and against their killings terrorism? Is peacefully opposing state operations such as Operation Green Hunt and Operation Samadhan an act of terrorism?

 

Is mere ‘links with Maoist organisations’, as Saibaba was accused of, or ‘possession of Marxist literature’ terrorism? If yes, do students of the humanities and social sciences, particularly literature and history, who study Marxism as a compulsory part of their course, pose a threat to the nation and are terrorists? Does mere engagement with or belief in a particular ideology that may or may not be critical of the state’s beliefs, constitute as terrorism? Today, even asking these questions can lead to the imposition of a UAPA case. In fact, academics who have worked on such topics for their PhDs are often harassed by prestigious academics and labelled as anti-national in job interviews. 

 

The law is being increasingly used to destroy public universities by imprisoning students such as Umar Khalid, Gulfisha Fatima, and Sharjeel Imam, among hundreds of other students for peacefully protesting against divisive laws, an undeniable law of each citizen. The incarceration of these students under UAPA have also been orchestrated so as to ‘set an example’ for dissenting students and to silence them, developing a disquiet culture of suppression and destroying the culture of resistance that India’s public universities have been known for. 

 

The constant ‘red-flagging’ of individuals who identify with the Left or are in opposition to the state policy and may or may not identify with the Left, in conjunction with the profiling of individuals as “urban naxals” by state authorities, including the Prime Minister, not only qualifies as discrimination on the basis of ideas and leads to connotations of anti-state and anti-national individuals, but also leads to anti-intellectualism that has been identified as one of the most important factors behind the development of a fascist state.

 

Though the judges at the Supreme Court have been citing how “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, it does not seem to apply to UAPA cases, more than half of which are not being investigated, as per the National Crime Records Bureau. In Saibaba’s murder and the human right violations as a part of it, the state did not merely attempt, though unsuccessfully, to kill his ideas but also take away his life, as it did with Father Stan Swamy, Pandu Narote, and SAR Geelani. By unfairly terminating his contract with the university, it was ensured that Saibaba does not get to teach his students ever again and one of his most heartfelt desires to teach students after being released from prison, was left unfulfilled. As Saibaba remarked in one of his letters to his students and colleagues from the prison:

I hope none of you should feel sympathetic to my condition. I don’t believe in sympathy; I only believe in solidarity. I intended to tell you my story only because I believe that it is also your story. Also because I believe my freedom is your freedom.”

 

Even in solitary confinement, his desire for freedom was not restricted to himself. The campaign against him was not only unfair to him but also his family and also his students, who were not allowed to be taught by a brilliant scholar, teacher, and translator whose translations of Kabir have been the most significant and timely in English so far. 

 

Though we have been reduced to observing birthdays, death anniversaries, and anniversaries of arrests of activists and students as they remain incarcerated without trials and more than a handful of unsuccessful hearings, the outrage at the murder of Prof. G.N. Saibaba is both a culmination of our complicity in his murder and simultaneously a rupture in the amnesia surrounding state repression under UAPA. That should pave the way for a movement against UAPA and the larger culture of saffronisation-infused anti-intellectualism. For the message should be clear: the state should not and cannot kill ideas, let alone individuals. As Saibaba himself claimed and rightly so, he and his ideas and struggles refuse to be forgotten and to die..

 

Read Also: DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba

 

Featured Image Credits: Shahid Tantray’s Instagram 

 

Vedant Nagrani

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
Features

Diddy, Beyoncé, and a whole lot of Conspiracy Theories

By

The music industry giant Sean “Diddy” Combs faces serious allegations of sex trafficking and abuse. Lawsuits reveal disturbing accounts of exploitation, while societal desensitisation and memes undermine the gravity of these issues and the plight of victims.

 

Trigger Warning: Mention of sexual assault and rape

The hip-hop music industry, which started off as a cultural rebellion born under the influence of Black Panthers, has become politically hollow and morally degenerate. Unchecked power and incalculable influence permeate the music record labels, shaping the sounds we hear and the faces we idolise today. The most prominent faces in the music industry, even our favourite celebrities, too imprudent and decadent in their greed for power and money, are often complicit in the toxic power structures that perpetuate the endless cycle of exploitation and corruption.

Sean “Diddy” Combs, a rapper and music magnate credited with helping launch the careers of some of the biggest stars through his record label ‘Bad Boy Records’ and creating a monopolist empire of his own in the music industry, was arrested in September on sex trafficking and racketeering charges with federal prosecutors alleging that Combs and his associates threatened, abused, and coerced women, minors, and others around him “to fulfil his sexual desires.” It also included forcing victims into engaging in recorded sexual activity, which he referred to as “Freak Offs.” On October 1, The Los Angeles Times reported, more than 100 people have planned to file lawsuits against Combs, alleging that he sexually abused and exploited them.

 

However, by 14th October, six more lawsuits were filed, mostly by victims who were sexually assaulted by Combs when they were minors. Combs, throughout his career, has been linked to a number of conspiracy theories and accused of numerous charges. In 2003, his clothing brand, Sean John, was accused of violating Honduran labour laws as the factories were based in Honduras. The National Labour Committee said that the employees were forced to work overtime and were paid sweatshop wages. In 2017, he was sued for sexual harassment by his chef, and the suit was settled out of court. However, since Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, singer and Diddy’s ex-girlfriend, filed a lawsuit against him in November 2023, a multitude of allegations have come out against him.

After years of silence and darkness, I am finally ready to tell my story and to speak up. On behalf of myself and for the benefit of other women who face violence and abuse in their relationships,” states Casandra.

 

Casandra met Combs in 2005 when she was 19 years old and was signed under his label. The lawsuit also states that Diddy used his position of power to “set the groundwork” for a “manipulative and coercive romantic and sexual relationship.” She also accused the musician of sexual abuse and rape and claimed that many of these incidents were witnessed by his “tremendously loyal network,” who “were not willing to do anything meaningful” to stop the violence.

 

They settled the case for an undisclosed amount a day after it was filed in New York. However, the chain of sexual assault lawsuits that followed after dates back to 1991. An anonymous lawsuit was filed by a woman who alleged that Diddy, along with another man, coerced her into engaging in sexual activities. In a separate case, Joi Dickerson-Neal accused the artist of drugging and sexually assaulting her when she was a college student in 1991. She further claimed that he filmed the incident and later shared the footage with others without her consent. In a third lawsuit, Liza Gardner alleged that Diddy and another individual sexually assaulted both her and a friend over three decades ago, when she was 16 years old. All of these lawsuits came forward shortly before the expiration of the New York Adult Survivors Act. The act gave the victims the ability to file civil lawsuits, even after the statutes of limitations have expired.

 

The prosecutors in the indictment claim that Combs and his associates allegedly transported sex workers across state lines—which constitutes sex trafficking and transportation—to engage in prostitution and allegedly drugged women to keep them “obedient and compliant.” USA attorney Damien Williams said Sean Combs led and participated in a racketeering conspiracy that used the business empire he controlled to carry out criminal activity including sex trafficking, forced labour, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and the obstruction of justice. He further implied that there are three main charges that Diddy is currently facing: racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. During a search of Combs’ residences in March, investigators reportedly recovered over 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant, along with other items referred to as “Freak Off supplies,” according to the indictment. Additionally, firearms and ammunition were discovered, including “three AR-15 rifles with defaced serial numbers.”

 

The internet has restored “Thanking Beyoncé” as a meme following her alleged close relationship with Combs. In a spiral of various conspiracy theories that are being spinned, a theory linking Beyoncé and Jay-Z to the deaths of several prominent artists is gaining traction online. It is being alleged that the couple may be connected to the untimely deaths of figures such as Aaliyah, Lisa “Left Eye” Lopes, and Michael Jackson, implying they were targeted for not aligning with the interests of a powerful trio, including Combs. Video clips presenting the intriguing frequency with which celebrities express gratitude towards Beyoncé and Jay-Z during award ceremonies, even without direct connections to the event, are also being highlighted. Adele’s acknowledgement of Beyoncé during her 2017 Grammy acceptance speech and Britney Spears’ tribute to the couple at the 2023 People’s Choice Awards have led fans to speculate about the couple’s influence within the entertainment industry.

 

Further, past videos of Combs with Justin Bieber, shot when the latter was still a minor, have resurfaced. In one of the videos, Sean Diddy mentioned spending 48 hours with Justin, which he referred to as a ’15-year-old’s dream’.

 

All of these charges against Combs are repulsive and excruciatingly horrific. The information regarding the 1,000 bottles of baby oil took social media by storm and entirely for different reasons. Too many memes related to the incident obscured the gravity of the situation. The collective moral apathy towards the victims exposes a deep-seated moral decay of our society. We are so beaten down by the endless cycle of exploitation and desensitised by the constant stream of media that we have resorted to humour as a coping mechanism. By turning a heinous crime into mere internet fodder, we allow the real predator to slip through the cracks, much like what happened with the Epstein Island case, all forgotten.

 

Read Also: Coldplay, Concerts, and Cash Cows

Image Credits: AFP via Getty Images

Reeba Khan

[email protected] 

Keep Reading
By
Campus Central

DU Collective comes together in solidarity and remembrance of Professor G.N. Saibaba

By

On 15th October, 2024, a tribute was paid to Professor G.N. Saibaba at Arts Faculty Gate, University of Delhi, posthumously. A public meeting and a candlelight vigil were observed by students’ and teachers’ organizations, which were joined by civil society members, colleagues, and activists who worked alongside Saibaba. 

G. N. Saibaba, former Assistant Professor at Delhi University, passed away on October 12 at the Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences in Hyderabad due to postoperative complications after a surgery to remove gallbladder stones. Saibaba was arrested in 2014 under the “draconian” UAPA for charges of working alongside members of the banned CPI (Maoist) and its alleged frontal organization, the Revolutionary Democratic Front. In 2021, Delhi University terminated his employment following the UAPA case against him. However, he was not reinstated after his acquittal in March 2024. It was claimed by many that Saibaba, a 90% disabled academic and human rights activist, was “wrongfully incarcerated” for a decade and “tortured” by the state during court trials and also during the period of jail time where he was forced to live in solitary confinement, declined proper medical care, and even prohibited from meeting his mother after her passing away. Sai’s death was received as an institutional murder by fellow academics, students and others.

The solidarity and remembrance event at Arts Faculty included speakers who highlighted Sai’s resilience, his revolutionary spirit, and his long struggle against exploitation and oppression. The speakers included Professors Karen Gabriel, N Sachin, Abha Dev Habib, Vikas Gupta, Jitendra Meena, and Saroj Giri. Kamal Singh from PUCL, Jagdish from DGMF, and representatives of student groups also shared their memories and thoughts.

Addressing the people, Professor Karen Gabriel said,

The term Urban Naxal has been structured against those who have understood the logic of the system and move through it and destroy it…UAPA not only destroys individuals but also families and communities.

Professor N. Sachin urged the masses to rise in “remembrance and rage” for Saibaba “against a system of induced apathy.”

Professor Vikas Gupta held that,

It is in Saibaba that we see a commitment to social justice” and also that “it is not possible to fight against one kind of inequality; the struggle is against all violations of social justice.

In conversation with DU Beat, Professor Abha Dev Habib said,

Sai’s death is an institutional murder because his minimum needs such as medical care were not provided. The state could not prove anything against Saibaba even after 10 years. He was denied bail every time he approached the court, and even when the high court was to set him free, the state would go against it; he couldn’t get justice from the state. All those who are opinion-builders, those who can speak for a more equal society and democratic rights, are being put behind bars. Sai Baba has been taken away too early from us. The University also did not give him justice. Even before it was proved he was guilty or not guilty, the university terminated his employment. By terminating his employment, his right to livelihood was also taken away. The state, the society, and we as people have wronged him by not speaking up.

The cause of all other political prisoners facing, what the participants maintained to be, “wrongful incarceration” was put forward, and it was demanded that they be released. They foregrounded the cases of activists such as Hany Babu, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam, Gulshifa Fatima, and Rona Wilson who continue “languishing” in jails, undergoing extended trial periods, and face “terror litigation”.

Further, instances of “state-structured violence” and “physiological torture” of political prisoners jailed under UAPA was recounted, where people like tribal rights activists Stan Swamy and Pandu Narote, passed away in jail after their bails were denied on several counts.

Speaking to DU Beat, Professor Jenny Rowena, wife of Hany Babu, said,

We always talk about issues when somebody dies, then it becomes a viral thing. We saw Rohith Vemula when he was alive. How much attention do we give to these people? Even now, people who are in jail because they campaigned for Saibaba, like Hany Babu, Rona Wilson, and Surendra Gadling, who was their lawyer, are still in jail. These people also have a lot of health problems, so are we waiting for the same to happen to them? We all should really protest against UAPA. All condolence meetings that we have should also be against UAPA. There should be a mass movement against it, because they [the state] are using it ruthlessly now to crush any kind of opposition and dissent.

Further, slogans against the “genocidal” Operation Kagar and Surajkund Scheme were raised. The public meeting was followed by a candlelight vigil in which all friends, comrades, and students of the revolutionary Saibaba paid a tribute to him.

 

Read also: Of Separation, Solidarity, and Sustenance

 

Featured image credit: Shahid Tantray’s Instagram

 

Bhavana Bhaskar

[email protected]   

Keep Reading
By