Tag

Student Protests

Browsing

At a hastily convened meeting of the Governing Body of St. Stephens College to discuss the issue of autonomous status for the college today, the decision to go ahead with the proposal was agreed to in principle, despite the opposition of four members of the Governing Body. This meeting of the GB was met with a huge silent protest from students, teachers, and the non-teaching staff of the college. Students who demanded that they, and the teachers, should be consulted by the authorities before they decide to go ahead with applying for autonomy, held placards and posters with slogans like ‘Discuss, not Decide,’ and ‘Come, Communicate, Convince’ written on it. This protest by the students was also supported by a protest outside the college gate by members of the Delhi University Teachers Association.

Placards with discuss not decide written on them
Placards with discuss not decide written on them

 

“More than 500 students of St. Stephen’s College gathered in the Senior Combination Room lawns to stand up for their rights, for the entire college community. The students and the faculty stood in protest as a consensus of all stakeholders is necessary before a Governing Body Meeting regarding application for granting of autonomous status to St. Stephen’s College is convened,” says a press release issued on behalf of the students of the college. The students also alleged that one of the GB members, who is a University representative, claimed that he came to know about the meeting from the newspapers and learned that his signature was forged on arriving at the venue. The students demanded that the process of achieving autonomous status be halted until a consensus is reached among all students, teachers and non-teaching staff.

Meanwhile, at the GB meeting, the teacher representatives, including DUTA President Nandita Narain, pointed out that even the UGC Guidelines stipulated prior consultation with students and teachers before applying for autonomy, after which the GB voted in majority to move ahead with autonomy in principle, but follow the procedure laid down for consultation before sending the application to the University. DUTA also staged a protest outside the college and said that this is a move by the government towards privatisation. “We want academic and governance autonomy for the University but not autonomy for the constituent colleges. We will not let anything happen without consensus and will oppose the move,” said AK Bhagi, an Executive Council member.

On the evening of February 26, in another press release on the website of St. Stephen’s College, Prof. John Varghese, the principal of the college said, “Autonomy will deliver higher standards of excellence in academics through new courses that will enhance the employability of the students. It will help the college grow intellectually as well as increase the infrastructure that has seen minimal growth since the 1960s.” The press release confirmed that the GB voted in majority to pass a resolution which will authorise the principal of the college to make all arrangements for getting the college ‘autonomous status.’

Students and Faculty members during the protest
Students and Faculty members during the protest

Earlier this year, after UGC came out with new provisions for granting autonomous status to institutions, St. Stephens decided to apply for autonomy. Other colleges including Hindu, SRCC, Ramjas, Sri Venkateswara College and Hansraj have approached the University for granting them greater autonomy.

Although autonomy will allow colleges the freedom to decide their own syllabus, course and examination patterns, this will also make the college responsible for raising its own funds which may result in a sharp increase in the fees that students pay. This is a prime concern, since many students come from different backgrounds, and may not be able to afford the exorbitant fee hike if the college goes autonomous.

 

Image Credits: Students of St. Stephens College

 

Srivedant Kar

[email protected]

A tempestuous history The Law Faculty, Delhi University, has faced a lot of flak from the BCI, the authority that controls Legal Education in India, in recent years for the lack of proper infrastructure in its three centres and for flouting several of its guidelines. In 2014, in an unprecedented move, the BCI had derecognised DU’s LLB programme after the University had failed to seek fresh affiliation for its centres. According to news reports, it would have had an impact on all Law Faculty graduates post 2011 because that’s when the institution flouted BCI guidelines by increasing the number of seats without the basic infrastructure for it. Provisional affiliation was granted for the session of 2014-15. The Law Faculty currently does not have an affiliation with the BCI. After the declaration of results of the LLB entrance exam this year in July, the University had issued a circular about the delay in the admissions process and the postponement of the session due to “unavoidable circumstances”, which were that the Faculty was still awaiting BCI’s approval before starting the admissions process for the new session. The BCI recommendations arrived in the early days of August and the Law Faculty wasn’t in the clear despite plans to shift to a new, better-built campus. The BCI report approves intake of just 1440 students as opposed to the Law Faculty’s intake of nearly 2200 students in previous years. This scrapping of almost 800 students understandably did not go down well with law aspirants who were confident of making it to the prestigious institution based on its previous intake numbers. The move has left them reeling because admissions were invited at 2200 seats and the decisions to reduce their number came weeks after the declaration of the entrance results and the original date on which counseling was supposed to start.

In conversation with protesters and aspirants

On August 14, 2016, one day into the hunger strike, we spoke to some of the students who were on a hunger strike to give us their account of the situation. Seated on mattresses with table-top fans in the corridor, several accounts of the effect of the last minute cut-down of seats emerged. Binny Chopra, a law aspirant and one of the thirteen students on the hunger strike, resigned from his job at an accounts firm after the declaration of the results of the entrance exam. He also told us about several friends who didn’t pursue admissions in other law colleges despite clearing their entrances because they were counting on the Law Faculty and had made the cut according to the original number of seats offered. They are left with nowhere to go to with the other universities having closed admissions now. Satendar Awana, president of Delhi University’s students’ union, is a law aspirant himself. When asked about the BCI’s point of the lack of infrastructure to support the number of students at the law faculty, he said, “We were expecting a higher number of seats this time with the building of the new campus which has better facilities which are at par with those of private institutions.” There is a consensus amongst the protesting students about the unfairness of the situation where the original number of seats announced in the prospectus and before the entrance exam was 2200 and this number was cut down without any prior information after months of delay in the admissions. Awana informed us that the authorities, including the Dean of the Faculty of Law, were assuring the students of admissions at the original number of seats days before the notification of the cut-down dropped. The students are disappointed by the lack of resolve shown by the authorities.

Recent Developments

According to our sources, on the eve of Independence Day, the protesters were visited by the Maurice Nagar SHO and the Proctor of Delhi University. They told the students that their demands were being worked on and would be taken care of in the next few days. They also requested them to adjourn their strike, to which the students agreed, hopeful about the concern being shown by the authorities. Awana later received a call from the Dean of the Faculty of Law assuring him that the authorities had written a letter to the BCI, asking them for a stay on this case which would allow them to admit students according to the original number of seats. When the student protestors asked to be shown the letter, it turned out to be something that the authorities had written to the BCI in the past. No fresh communication had taken place from the Dean to the BCI post the recent recommendations by the body. The students, who felt that they had been tricked by this move, are now back to protesting and will continue till the final decision in the case between the BCI and the Law Faculty. When asked about the assurances of the Proctor and the SHO, Abhinav Arora, a Law Faculty aspirant said, “I have no expectations from any of their assurances. I have no expectations of any progress to be made before the final hearing in the court which is scheduled for August 22, 2016. I called the Dean when I was on a hunger strike and he assured me that he’d come and show us the letter that he’d sent to the BCI. After what has happened today, I feel cheated and betrayed.” The final decision in this limbo being played by the BCI and the Law Faculty is being awaited by the students in the hope that they weren’t unfairly denied a chance to study at the institution of their choice because of carelessness of the authorities. In a phone conversation with DU Beat, the Dean of the Faculty of Law, SC Raina, denied claims that the aspirants had been tricked and showed an old letter. He said, “There were two documents. One was a letter dated July 23. The other, which was shown to Awana, was an application that was dated August 16.” When the student protesters were informed about this, they denied being shown the letter written on August 16 and said that it’s possible that it was written by the authorities under pressure after interacting with them. With inputs from Abhinav Arora, The Indian Express, The Times of India and Hindustan Times Image credits: tilakmarg.com Shubham Kaushik [email protected]]]>

Ramjas College saw organised protests held by its students on 11th August, 2016. The protest primarily targeted the exorbitant increase in prices in the canteen since the start of this academic year. The canteen staff apparently charged higher prices than those mandated by the college. In what a student called an act of “corruption,” the canteen staff would charge a first-year student INR 50 for an item that actually cost INR 30. Speaking out against this practice, a group of students spread word through social media and organised a protest by inviting the Ramjas community to gather at the college gate and march towards the canteen.

The canteen was accused of not only charging more than what was written in the price list, but also of failing to provide good quality and hygienic food. The staff does not provide receipts or bills and has failed to deliver on the promise of a digital price list. There is also a shortage of staff in the canteen. Students demanded the lowering of prices, failing which they intended to boycott the college canteen.

Rishabh Bajpai, who is also running for this year’s college elections, along with a group of students filed an application. However, when no action was taken, they staged a peaceful protest to grab the attention of the administration. The tagline of the protest was “halla bol,” a sentiment close to the students’ hearts. The protest had no political backing, and the organisers ensured that the student body was fairly represented in terms of their demands and grievances.

sign campaign 2

The hard work of the students was indeed fruitful as the Principal and Vice Principal themselves conducted an examination of the canteen, and invited the students to hold meetings regarding their issues. Some student representatives went on to discuss their requests with the staff advisers and the Student Welfare Committee. Here, they brought up additional concerns regarding the water coolers, hostels, etc.

In an effort to thank the students for showing their solidarity and to inform the college community of the consequences of the protest, the organisers set up a signature campaign. Approximately, a thousand students acknowledged the protest and the steps taken by the administration. The canteen prices have since been lowered and the other issues are on their way to being resolved.

Image Credits: Halla Bol Campaign

Vineeta Rana
[email protected]

Like a last scintillation emerging from the massive political blackout surrounding the students of Bhaskaracharya College of Applied Sciences, the 12th August strike was yet another ‘student-demonstration’ striving for constitution of a  Students’ Union. The protest by 500 students was unruffled, until lathi charge dispersed them. The principal lodged an FIR with respect to vandalism which the students purported false as they were 20 meters away from the college gate. The protestors counterclaimed that they had already taken permission from the DCP to protest for their rights as long as it was a ‘peaceful demonstration’ and they had no idea what made their confidence ebb that they arrested their leader.

Notwithstanding the unanimous filing of memorandum and college ID cards of 300 students, for this proposal to be passed, the principal indignantly declared that all the ‘co-conspirators’ will be awarded a zero in their internal assessments for degrading the esteem values of a science college in pursuit of political activism and furthermore precluded them from college placements as well.

“Two years ago, a referendum was demanded for establishment of a representative body of students but the authorities tackled it deftly by imposing a 75% criteria (which originally had been 67%) and subsequently intimidated the Food Technology department from casting their votes,” said a student. The administration had approved the union in the following year but on being questioned, the principal raised his hand as if to swat the conversation away.

“We tried seeking help from ABVP, NSUI and CYSS but they all seem engaged in pre-election campaigning and had no time for an issue so trivial. We will fight for our right to form the union which shall be accountable to the common mass and give all the students the right to choose their leader, unlike faculty nominations,” said Ashu Bidhuri, leader of the Students’ Reform Group. In spite of objection from students, the college authorities decided to hold a Students’ Advisory Meeting to discuss the dispute further.

 

Featured Image Credits: Ravi Pratap Dubey

Tamanna Goel

[email protected]