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

Slider

Browsing
DUB News

Jamia Millia Islamia administration cracks down student-led protests; imposes arbitrary disciplinary proceedings

By

Following the lead of several universities banning student activism on campus, Jamia Millia Islamia has intensified its crackdown on student-led protests. 

 

A circular was issued by the college administration dated 29 November 2024, explicitly banning protests, dharnas, sit-ins and any form of sloganeering against constitutional dignitaries, days after students raised slogans against the current Prime Minister, Narendra Modi. In lieu of these supposedly new guidelines, students requested permission to hold a sit-in protest on 15 December 2024, commemorating five years of the anti-CAA protests held at Jamia, which turned violent when a protesting student, Shadab Najar, was shot. Permission for holding this event was denied, and the college shut down the library and the canteen on the said date, citing “maintenance reasons,” which was allegedly done to suppress dissenting student voices. 

 

Despite this, approximately 300 students participated in the peaceful protest after class hours, so the said demonstration did not disrupt any academic activities. 

– Saurabh, a PhD student at Jamia via EdEx

 

The administration, however, quickly responded by issuing show-cause notices to Saurabh and four others, accusing them of disrupting campus order and pushing certain political agendas. On 6 February, 2025, the administration further issued Disciplinary Committee hearings against the concerned students, stating that their responses to the show-cause notices were unsatisfactory. In response to this, students began a sit-in protest demanding an immediate revocation of these show-cause notices and a withdrawal of Disciplinary Hearings issued against protesting students. Larger demands of the protesting students include a revocation of the guidelines issued on 29 November, 2024 and 29 August, 2022. 

 

When students know that standing up for their rights could cost them their education, it forces self-censorship, making the environment even more repressive. This decision reinforces the ongoing erosion of dissent, making it evident that critical conversations, even within academic spaces, are no longer welcome. 

– Azhar via Youth Ki Awaaz

 

The administration further refused to engage in dialogue with the students and responded by increasing barricading around campus, deploying 20+ security personnel armed with lathis around the protest premises. In a gross violation of the protesting students’ right to privacy, their names along with their addresses and phone numbers have been pasted outside the university’s front gate. 

 

This incident is not an isolated instance but part of a larger pattern of crackdowns on student activism and academic freedom, especially across public universities in India, reflecting the Center’s broader attempt to suppress dissent by directly attacking intellect.

 

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

 

Featured Image Credits: The Observer Post

 

Sakshi Singh

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Features

“I have one less mansion now” – Grammys pay tribute to LA fire relief workers

By

The recent LA fires have led to widespread destruction and loss of houses and heirlooms for the rich, clearly leaving us all heartbroken. 

 

NewYear celebrations in Hollywood were rudely cut short when on 7 January, a series of wildfires destroyed the Los Angeles metropolitan area leaving some of the biggest celebrities homeless. Well, not really, they just relocated from one multi-duplex to another. Adam Brody, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Bella Hadid, and Zooey Deschanel are among the many stars who lost their homes in the ferocious blaze that was reportedly fueled by powerful winds and dry conditions. Since evacuating, many celebrities have expressed anguish, poured tribute and started GoFundMe Campaigns to collect funds for the restoration of the Californian region. 

 

“I can’t hear them cry over the music” 

 

While the public grieved the loss of livelihoods and property, the Recording Academy which hosts the Grammys awards every year decided that it was just the right time to host the 67th Grammys. On 3 February, 2025, celebrities dolled up in statement gowns and perfect smiles, turned up at Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles to applaud outstanding music of the year and to pay tribute to victims of the fire and honour the perseverance of the LA people, of course. The Musical Awards were a sombre affair this time, with performances and commercial breaks broadcasting fundraiser efforts urging attendees and viewers at home to donate for relief. In a bid to temper the celebrations (lest they seem too tone-deaf), the week-long parties that annually mark the Grammys, were cancelled. 

 

Lady Gaga and Bruno Mars performed a duet of California Dreamin’ after an emotional video montage highlighting the severe devastation. In a heartfelt tribute to the relentless service of first responders,  members of the L.A. County fire departments took to the stage to present the coveted Album of the Year award to Beyonce. However, it was the push for public donations that did not sit well with some viewers who called out the irony of celebrities asking commoners—many of whom are reeling with loss, to donate. One X user commented that the mega A-listers in the Grammys could afford to rebuild the entire state of California without feeling a pennyworth’s loss. 

 

Woe is Me: Only the Rich can grieve

 

Grieving, American socialite Khloe Kardashian wrote on Instagram, “My heart breaks for my city.” In 2022, sustainability marketing firm, Yard revealed that Kim Kardashian was among the top 10 celebrities with the worst private jet CO2 emissions. In 2022 alone, Kim’s jet emitted 4268.5 tonnes of carbon emissions over 57 flights: 609.8 times more than the average person emits in a year. So, as an eco-terrorist, Kardashian only cares about the climate when there’s a fire in her backyard, literally. With the fire blazing through Pacific Palisades, even Climate warrior Leonardo Di Caprio who constantly raises awareness about environmental activism, fled to Mexico in a fuel-guzzling private jet and was branded a hypocrite by netizens online. Armchair activism goes a long way, it can get you all the way to Mexico.

 

While losing a home is a painful experience for anyone, the hardships posed to celebrities with multiple safety nets and properties are far removed from the permanent loss of homeland and family borne by the Palestinian people in Gaza for over a year now. Most celebs have conveniently remained tight-lipped about the Palestinian genocide. One wonders why fundraisers and donation drives weren’t initiated during the many awards that have taken place since October 2023. Why weren’t video montages of the systematic slaughter of thousands of Palestinians played, in a desperate plea to wake the conscience of the moneymakers? It is because America only cares for its own. The glam of the red carpet is too blinding for white socialities to pay attention to anything apart from their accolades and appearances. There is privilege in mourning, in grief and celebs are the most privileged of us all. It is heartwrenching to know that pop singer Paris Hilton watched her home burn in the fire, but you don’t feel the same sorrow knowing about the nameless Palestinians who have been reduced to being a statistic in the death toll. That’s the manoeuvring of the media. Reportage only feeds off of and caters to the rich. 20 years from now, they will make a movie about the genocide, paying ‘homage’ to the lives wrecked, give it a lazy title like ‘The Palestinian Pain’ or something and then that movie will be awarded Best Motion Picture – Drama at the Golden Globes. 

 

This might seem like yet another piece bashing the rich, but it’s really not. I am equally saddened by the LA fires too. I was a serial consumer of Architectural Digest’s celeb Home tour videos that have been delayed indefinitely now. I just don’t know what to do with my time anymore. What an unimaginable loss, truly. 

 

Read Also : Writing Off Accountability: How the Literary Industry Forgives Its Own, from Neil Gaiman to Beyond.

 

Featured Image Credits: Los Angeles Times

 

Chetna Rani

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Arts & Culture

Writing Off Accountability: How the Literary Industry Forgives Its Own, from Neil Gaiman to Beyond.

By

Behind the Blue Curtains of Canons and Classics, a dive into the Industry saturated with combined ensnare of Elitism and Misogyny, contextualising the recent accusations against acclaimed author Neil Gaiman and more.

TW: The Article has mentions of Sexual Abuse and Related forms of Violence.

‘On a day like today it’s worth saying, I believe survivors. Men must not close our eyes and minds to what happens to women in this world.’

stood a tweet by erstwhile proclaimed feminist and literary icon Neil Gaiman in September 2018, a solidarity to the MeToo Movement; what remained catastrophically unknown was that half a decade down the road, the author too would face allegations of a heinous degree. 

The accusations trace back to February 2022, when the author, infamous over the internet for breaking the COVID protocols and fleeing to his private island, returned to New York and met Scarlet Pavlovich, a 23-year-old drama student, for the first time. Pavlovich, who by then had become a close confidante to Gaiman’s wife, occasionally also babysat their son. On the 4th of February 2022, Scarlet arrived at the author’s residence for her periodic babysitting requirement; however, the folds of the incidents that day became reflective of what lay behind the apparent charade of the women-rights-activist power couple that Gaiman and his wife portrayed to be.

Fractions of short conversations later, transversed what Pavlovich describes as “a subtle terror,” when the author, in the guise of making her relax at the property, sexually assaulted her. A queer woman with a history of childhood sexual abuse, Scarlet’s attempts to resist proved vain when, despite making Gaiman aware of the same, he refused to stop. 

‘An author who specialises in depicting tales and narratives of those traditionally marginalised in literature.’ was the prima facie that prompted a 15-year-old me to pick up the hardcover edition of Gaiman’s most popular publication, American Gods, at the bookshop; a diverse cast, in relation to ethnicities and sexualities, was a primordial characteristic. For an author who was celebrated for his portrayal of Lucifer as a woman, the allegations reveal a hard-hitting truth about the masquerades of the literary industry.

In July 2024, a British podcast titled Master covered stories of two women accusing Gaiman of sexual misconduct. What followed was several other women accusing the author of coercion, assault, and sexual violence, with the youngest being 18 years old. In due respect and solidarity with the survivors, the article doesn’t delve into graphic details and instances to prevent even an accidental misinterpretation of their ordeals; within the limits of the same, it can be divulged that the author also engaged in non-consensual forms of BDSM, child grooming, and misappropriation. 

Seven years past the MeToo movement that initiated tremors of humanitarian changes within differing industries, the literary industry continues to nurture and foster the sexual predators under its aegis. The phenomenon, however, is not that of modern day; back in the 20th century, the sexual crimes of authors like Roald Dahl and Ernest Hemingway were covered up by publications and largely went unaddressed, while the authors remained celebrated as pioneers in their respective fields. Despite the contemporary presence of the far-reaching internet, while the cinematic industry witnessed the demise of directorial and acting careers of prominent faces, the literary industry continues the practice of whitewashing the crimes. A 1080×1920 pixels PR-Curated Instagram Post Apology ensures that the authors continue to have an ever-expanding success; YA authors like James Dashner and Jay Asher of The Maze Runner and Thirteen Reasons Why continue to enjoy the fame despite the allegations, ironically being celebrated for covering similar topics in their respective books.

Two weeks after MeToo allegations were pressed against celebrated Indian author Chetan Bhagat, his 2018 publication ‘The Girl In Room 105‘ made a bestseller debut upon its release. In an industry and audience that actively propagates to push down female authors for acts measurably minute compared to their male counterparts, the rampant sexism becomes reflective. When the likes of Colleen Hoover, Veronica Roth, et al. get justifiably cancelled, but authors like Junot Diaz continue to enjoy an increased honour and appreciation despite being sexual predators, the industry and our active role in protecting the male elite writers can be realised.

A rampant reasoning towards the continued success of the apparent celebrities despite the sexual assault cases lies in the idea of ‘separating the art from the artist,’ an ideology that inherently feeds into the clutches of patriarchy and elitism. Idol worship and the inherent heroism that propagates, albeit subconsciously, due to the consumption of media, becomes the foremost reason why art cannot be separated from the artist. In more than a few cases, our interpretation of the art prevents us from acknowledging the crimes of the artist, often leading to a counter victim blaming and protection of the culprit. The general public’s lack of support for Tanushree Dutta and Vrinda Nanda when they pressed charges against Nana Patekar and Alok Nath, respectively, on the grounds of the latter being the idealistic heroic characters in the cinematic verses, is reflective of the same tendency. Similar instances were witnessed on a global scale when misconducts came forward against Kevin Spacey and Bill Cosby.

To then consume media often becomes an imperatively challenging aspect, one that involves a deep-rooted understanding of the backgrounds and behaviour of the curator. The aforementioned, in retrospect, becomes a challenging situation. If, as consumers, we fail to undertake the apparent herculean task of the same, a bare minimal approach that largely appears to not be the norm of vocalising dissent against the perpetrators, boycotting and calling out publications that aid them, and solidarizing with the victims is the least proportional change that could be undertaken in the largely misogynistic and elitist status quo that literature presents itself to be. 

 

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

Featured Image Credit: Google

Shikhar Pathak

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
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