Search Results

Taking dissent online is not a new phenomenon. It has been used by activists in countries where governments are ‘repressitarian’- meaning both repressive in humanitarian practices and authoritarian in governance. With most countries forced to go into lockdown, humanitarian crises and human rights violations have erupted across the world. The pandemic has resulted in the shutting down of all channels of physical expression due to which, the cyberspace has now become a melting pot of dissent and dissatisfaction. The Indian government took the lockdown as an opportunity to erase artworks at the protest sites of Jamia Millia Islamia, dismantle structures at Shaheen Bagh and to arrest many student leaders and political activists with false charges. There have also been many instances of human rights violations, police brutality and wrongful treatment of migrant workers. Along with these developments, the government’s flagrant dismissal of parliamentary procedure and due process can be seen through the introduction of repressive laws such as the EIA and NEP, government notifications regarding disability, internet regulation, UAPA and several others. The Monsoon Session of the Parliament passing 25 bills in 10 sittings, even with loud protesting from the Opposition, is a new record, but nothing to be proud of. The attempt to dismantle existing structures of democracy is a direct attempt to change the nature of the Indian Constitution and the Indian state. The need to shift agitation to virtual spaces is necessary to make sure that these issues, among others, stay alive in the public domain. Physical protests usually survive on a momentum that is developed by a strong community backing it and a parallel is now found online with an unseen community providing allyship from different parts of the world. The demand for the abrogation of CAA and NRC as well as the demand for the release of all political prisoners found a space in international media and in several protests that erupted across the world in 2020. The Fourth Estate, or the media has been restrained as well as transformed to such an extent that many of these issues and criticisms get hidden from the limelight. It has become a space where TV anchors yell at each other and play to the rhetoric of the government. Real-time news reaches much of the public through various Internet outlets such as blogs, indie reporting websites, Instagram accounts and Twitter posts. For the public to take notice, Twitter storms and organized campaigns online have proven to be effective, #BlackLivesMatter and #DalitLivesMatter is a testimony to this. India has seen a similar campaign demanding the release of political prisoners, with the case of Safoora Zargar making the headlines. However, this space is still dominated by and accessible only to the privileged classes and to make such issues become a part of every day, national conversation, we need to amplify the voices of the marginalized and the wronged. We need to promote the cyberspace as an effective tool for those in charge to look up and notice the pulse of the society. We have yet to see monumental change, but with the clout of social distancing over us, we have no option but to exhaust the virtual space. Therefore, the importance of cyber dissent movements, their impacts and the best ways of organizing them and its disadvantages need to be looked at in-depth as it becomes extremely relevant in a world that is predicted to be affected by many more global pandemics. Being politically aware and active on social media is a hefty task to undertake. It requires a lot of reading, learning and unlearning. I have personally struggled a lot to come to terms with what is actually happening around me and realized the countless ways in which I have been complicit in facilitating oppression. Interacting with people from various backgrounds in college along with listening to countless social media activists has greatly helped and alerted me to the intersectional dimension of each issue. The excuse of calling oneself apolitical is no longer an option in a country where the government is actively trying to change historical political narratives and backtrack democratic laws and institutions. While voicing our political opinions online and joining cyber protest movements are necessary, we must also remember to not take up the space that belongs to the very communities we are allying with. Let us acknowledge the 2020 version of dissent and contribute to what will go down in history as a new era of activism and protests. Featured image credits : Mariam George

All in all it’s just another misshapen brick in the tattered wall. The biography of education in India foretells a constant state of flux in the medium of teaching. From the slate-chalk, the blackboard-chalk, the whiteboard-marker, and the smartboard-stylus, the covid-19 pandemic has heralded a transition to virtual platforms. To assume that the tap-dance of education in virtual classrooms is ubiquitous would be false, and vehemently so. As is the condition during even the best of times, those in the last mile still sit in the Waiting Room. Beyond the 23.8 percent of India households with working internet connections (National Sample Survey, 2017-18), a panoply of the population has been rendered offline. The psychological transition of the students to the virtual world has rollercoastered, varying due to their capabilities and riches. The haphazard Zoom-ification of classroom teaching and lack of digital upskillment of teachers has proven to be a recipe for disaster. Indian curricula is also condemned to be archaic and rigid, and the pandemic motivated slapdash changes to it have left out vital topics in the name of “reducing the burden on students and teachers alike”. The sanctified teacher-student symbiotic relationship has hence turned into a moral hazard laden minefield. Toddlers who have begun to take their first steps -into the schooling system, that is- have had their gateway to develop necessary cognitive abilities and imbibe moral values shuttered. They risk postponing their education by a year or paying mountainous fees for online classes. On the other side of the education ladder, the Class of 2020 graduates has witnessed unsatisfactory quality of online classes; a motley of contradictions in the name of government and judicial directions for terminal examinations; the rescinding of final-year placement offers; and concurrent mental trauma. The postponement and makeshift marking schemes of Board Examinations and competitive exams have left the destinies of a large number of students in the pipeline. Those venturing to study beyond India’s borders have seen cascading dreams (and, well, money) due to the closing of international travel and inept handling of the virus in some nations. Massively Open Online Courses (MOOCs), free government online literature repositories, subsidized data and desktops, and other state funded innovations have tried to patch the holes in the sinking boat of education, and have offered some respite. While the learning continuity has been handled well by various higher education institutions, students in colleges are missing out on the bubbling intellectual campus life, the professor-student nexus vital for enterprising research, extracurricular freedoms and practical education. And the pathshalas of India are not solely mechanised junctions of pedagogical advancement. Schools in India are superstructures of extended governance, sites of vital social intercourse and economic upskillment. With the covid-19 coup de grâce, governmental paternal libertarianism with the schooling system such as mid-day meals through the breadth of the nation, vital civic education, monthly provision of sanitary pads for girls and sex education has dwindled; the latter two are especially pertinent for underprivileged households where incidents of sexual transgression happen aplenty, and are now stolen from these values. The implementation of the Right to Education Scheme during this time too remains in tatters, disenfranchising those who already live on alms. Vocational education, a subsector which has its curriculum modeled on learning-by-doing have been replaced by inadequate YouTube videos. As is quite evident, Gross Enrollment Rates, Eligibility Enrollment Ratios and other yardsticks to measure educational outcomes have taken a beating- more so in the marginalised sections of the society. Some sections of the society are hurt more unequally than others: students with disabilities do not have access to the in-person interaction required; children with additional household responsibilities of ailing family members and bread-earning cannot possibly be expected to juggle their priorities; the majority bereft of tech infrastructure are left helpless; and female students in conservative areas may drop-out entirely. Some of the systemic implosions in teaching are novel to the coronavirus, while others are totems of pre-existing comorbidities in the system. There is nothing new that the biographers of Indian education haven't been to privy to. It takes a village to raise a child, they say. The village itself needs raised basic standards, they don’t say. Featured image credits : Mariam George

It was just another day when First Years were rushing to make it to the Morning Assembly on time, birds were chirping and 8;30 a.m. classes were going on when the students (one by one) got to know that their very own ‘Cafe’ has got a new look altogether. Painted chairs, new sitting arrangements and not to mention a very fancy (and pricey!) menu. The Cafe staff was in black uniforms and bits of music could have been heard amongst the chit-chatting of students. These recent changes in the Cafe by the administration in Stephen’s are the talking point of the whole college. Some found the Cafe to be a bit more vibrant while some found the aesthetics to be just not on point. In this article, we look at how these changes are viewed through different lens by different people in Stephen’s. We also talked to the new manager Mr. Mohit Gandhi, regarding his vision for the Cafe. Cafe means the most to its students and hence we also conducted a poll to gauge the overall sentiment of Stephanians regarding these changes. The Cafe has been an integral part of Stephen’s since decades. The Professors of the College who spent their student years here often get nostalgic about the Cafe in their times. Those were the times when the Cafe used to have a limited menu of mince cutlet, Maggie and some general beverages. Over the years, Cafe saw new introductions in its menu, much to the delight of the students. The Cafe, before the changes was very much affordable and had common dishes to offer. The Cafe earlier was just like a common meeting and eating place. Now the Cafe has gone fancier and pricier for the pockets of the students. The general notices on the walls are now surrounded by French statements, reminding students to eat well and healthy. Needless to say, the earlier Cafe had less colours and was more traditional. The new Cafe is representative of energy, vigour and a will to evolve from the old. The Cafe has a set image for generations of Stephanians. Be it the archetypal chairs or the exclusive chicken patty and mince cutlet, an alumni’s visit to college is incomplete without sitting in the Cafe. In order to understand the impact of these sudden changes on our super-seniors we reached out to Manvika Kumari of the Batch of 2018. In her words, “We come to college and the rush of nostalgia kicks in whenever we visit the Cafe that has been a constant through years of St. Stephen’s College. However, coming back now and looking at all these changes, it is shocking! All these new coloured chairs are very surprising and not a lot of people are happy about this change since the Cafe now loses out on its old charm and memories. Although, I am extremely happy with the new menu. There are a lot of options now and it’s especially more accommodating for vegetarians like me. Nonetheless, it is still good to come back and no change can take back our memories from the Cafe!” Any change is not welcome to someone who has spent countless hours in this Cafe and made the chairs, the walls and everything else part of it home. Still there is respite as the general sentiment is jubilant with the new menu that offers way more variety as compared to the last one. However, this marks a new generation of Stephanians who shall remember this place not by it’s khaki chairs and chicken patty but by the colours, options and sunshine of the new Cafe. The Cafe staff was perhaps the most affected by the multidimensional changes to the Cafe. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that we take their views and opinions into consideration. We approached Mr. Iftkhar Ahmed who is one of the main servers’ and is a part of the cooking staff. While he feels that the staff didn’t face any major problems in coping with the changes in the Cafe, there were certain initial hiccups that they had to overcome. With several new dishes being introduced to the menu, preparing them was a real task since they had to familiarize themselves with the new recipe. However, he took it in a good spirited manner since he considers it to be his work and feels that overtime, the staff will get a hang of it. He also feels that the footfall in the Cafe increased but mostly due to a change in the timings and not necessarily the menu. When asked about the change in the staff’s uniform, Mr. Ahmed felt that while the new uniform is comfortable during the winter time, it might be difficult to wear it during summer time especially because it’s black in colour. As for the changes in the aesthetics of the Cafe, Mr. Ahmed was determined in his opinion when he stated, “The Cafe looked good earlier and looks good now too. There’s no change in that.” When asked whether the college administration asked for the opinions of the Cafe staff before making these changes, he simply said that the staff was informed about the changes after the mid-semester break and that they were never asked for suggestions. In an informal conversation with JPji regarding the changes in the Cafe, a new issue surfaced. This was regarding the timings of the Cafe. Since the Cafe now closes at 10, the staff faces an issue since it gets very late and due to winters, cycling back home also becomes a herculean task. We approached Raman Mohora, President, of the Students’ Union Society for his comments. He is of the opinion that changes are necessary to keep pace with the changing times. He sees hope for the college washrooms and other facilities in light of the changes in the Cafe. He told us that the SUS also submitted an extensive Cafe report to the Administration out of which they implemented some suggestions. He is of the opinion that uniforms of the Cafe staff are fine as long as they do not cause any discomfort for them. When asked about the ability of Cafe staff to execute the new menu, he said, “I have full faith in the ability of staff. We need to be patient.” He spoke about the suggestions that SUS has for the Cafe management. SUS suggests a disposal table where students can deposit their plates after eating. He told us that Cafe Manager has assured of getting one soon. SUS also thinks that prices can get reduced. Teres Sajeev Vatolly, Deputy General Secretary, Students’ Union Society finds the change to be good. When asked about the uniforms introduced for the Café staff, she said, “Regarding the uniform, the opinion of the karamcharis matter the most. For summers, we will ensure that the Cafe manager takes steps to ensure their comfort.” All in all, Teres does not think that ‘going back to before is a good option’, reiterating at the same time that a lot of things need to be improved in the present Cafe. We also spoke to Taha Firdous Shah, Treasurer, and Student Union Society. She applauded the administration for readily approving changes for the College. She finds the change to be good, especially the quality and ingredients. On prices, she said “We are working on getting the prices reduced but overall yes, they seem good.” We approached our faculty members as well, many of those who share a special relationship with the College Cafe. “The Cafe has been the same for over the years so it takes a while to get used to the changes. But changes should take place, so it is okay. The prices of certain items have been considerably increased which should not happen because it has to be affordable in the Cafe. Also, the new menu should not affect the previous menu because some of the alumni, who passed out 25-30 years back come to the college to have the previous items.” Moreover in a recent post on the Facebook group titled Stephanians, that functions as an unofficial group for alumni and current students alike, the menu of the new Cafe was revealed that has faced a lot of backlash from the Alumni of the college. There is extreme discontent over the omission of ‘Mince Cutlet’ and ‘Scrambled Egg’ from the menu and members claim that the new mince cutlet is worse than the old version that purportedly had significantly more meat content. The discontent is magnified as the narrative of the Cafe losing its traditional identity is gaining more momentum since this post was published. Many alumni have expressed their displeasure including the likes of Barkha Dutt who comments on the post, “This (the new menu) seems like an imposter.” Yet, there can be found one or two comments of appreciation regarding the change in the interiors of the Cafe but the new menu evidently does not sit well with the old guards of St. Stephen’s College. The new Cafe Manager says, “In terms of health, I am definitely working towards elevating the standards of the Cafe” When asked about his vision of the Cafe, he replied with a spark that this ultimate aim is to take the Cafe to the level that the college should be known by the Cafe too. St. Stephen’s college is widely known, but the Cafe is not as widely known. He wants the Cafe to be one of the reasons why the college becomes famous. We carried out a survey to introspect into the general beliefs of Stephanians about these changes. Out of the 224 responses received, we have found that only 78.6% of our sample visits the Cafe daily. The rest of the sample has visited the Cafe weekly or monthly. Out of those who have visited the Cafe, 98.7 % of our sample is aware of the recent administration change in our Cafe. At least 42.4 % of respondents are satisfied with the aesthetic renovation that was done to our Cafe. The renovation in our Cafe includes the addition of tables and chairs not only in the Cafe but outside around the Cafe tree. From our survey, we have found out that at least 85.3% of our sample is happy with the new seating arrangements in our Cafe. The irony here is that three-fourth of the sample refuses to pay the increased expenditure incurred by our Cafe. The Cafe renovation is not only limited to seating arrangements, we have got new additions to our Cafe menu. There have been mixed responses regarding the new additions of our Cafe. Some feel that the quality has improved or not. But the astonishing fact here is, 61.2% of the sample feels that these new additions are not healthier alternatives to what was being served earlier in the Cafe. Some people find it infeasible to have a meal in the Cafe due to the increased cost of food items. This has been observed as one of the primary reasons why our respondents search for an alternative to our Cafe. It has been observed that these alternatives are DSE Canteen and Hindu Canteen owing to their low cost and a large variety of food items available. Also on popular demand, our respondents want “Lemon Juice” to be included in the menu. Overall, the Cafe has done a great job in the renovation according to the reports from our sample. Thus, we would like to give the new Cafe a 6.2 out of 10 on average.

The Stephanian Forum delves into the significance of protests through a cogitative analysis of history. It is a widely held belief that one of the strongest catalysts of change in a society is one that challenges its mainstream beliefs and norms and shakes them to the core. Thus in order to leave an indelible mark on society and surmount, what might perhaps be categorised by many as insurmountable, actors of change often rely on protests and demonstrations as vehicles of change. However, often has the debate of the entire requirement and necessity of protests been surfaced and sparked several other debates in relation to the exact motive and result of these demonstrations. Presently, when the entire world is taken by a storm of demonstrations and protests against the status quo, it is important to understand the character of the protests in terms of fruition and to investigate into the necessity of having them. Throughout history, protests have come to be as social movements made by small groups who are loosely connected but have a common purpose to be united. In these movements, protests have played an important role, highlighting the ability of ordinary citizens to dissent. However, critics often question the very basis of such demonstrations, if the very motive of a protest is not realised, and see them as a waste or unrequited acts. The fact that a protest ‘failed’ is in itself very subjective. One way of interpreting it would be that the protest failed to mobilize enough people to exert pressure on the concerned authorities and thus, failed to bring about a change. Another would be that the protest mobilized the people on a large scale but was suppressed by the authorities (the government in most cases) who would unleash the wrath of their powerful machinery on the public. While the former is an instance of public passivity, the latter hints at a rather compounded situation. This instance is ironic. In a democracy, the government derives its authority from the will and consent of the people. yet here, protests which signify the people’s dissent have failed to manifest the public’s sovereign power over the government. Such a scenario is rather precarious since it highlights the fact that the will of the people is no longer the basis of the authority of government, thus, indicating the death of sovereignty, one of the fundamental principles on which any democratic nation is established. We must not undermine the very basis of a protest, and most importantly not forget that it was solely because of such demonstrations that India today stands as an independent nation free from any kind of foreign oppression. With recent protests around the country, coming on the roads is once again seen to be a common way for people to voice their grievances to the concerned ‘authority’. The success of a protest does not always lie in achieving something concrete and tangible. A protest can be successful if it moves the conscience of people towards grievances of their brethren. A protest can be successful if it leaves the authorities ‘shaken’. The sheer realization of the fact that the common man can come down on the streets and lend a voice to their concerns has helped history keep a check on people in power. However, it will be unfair to say that protests have always been successful in nature and one must direct itself to its full capacity by partaking in such activities. For instance, Salman Rushdie’s book, The Satanic Verses, earned the ire of the Islamic clergy across the world. The Government of India, led by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, banned the book soon after it was published in 1988, coming under pressure from the Islamic fundamentalists in India. In 1989, a fatwa was issued against Rushdie by the Supreme Leader of Iran, a figure revered by Shia Muslims- Ayatollah Khomeini. The fatwa called upon the faithful Muslims to execute Rushdie for his ‘sin’, which led to a number of attempts on Rushdie’s life and several riots, leading to the deaths of many people. The fatwa stands to this date, but the Iranian government’s stand against Rushdie has softened and it has, over the years, decided against the implementation of the fatwa. This protest against the book can be seen as a failure in the long run because, firstly, the book continued to be sold in various countries and it is often pointed out that the issuance of the fatwa is believed to have actually increased the sales of the book in the UK, making it one of the Vintage’s all-time bestsellers. On April 15, 1989, protesters gathered in Tienanmen Square, Beijing, to demonstrate against the lack of state mourning for Communist Party of China General Secretary Hu Yaobang, a man known to be tolerant of dissenting voices within the party. Along with other protesters from various political groups and of differing allegiances, the crowd reached around 100,000 strong. While uprisings against communist states across Eastern Europe were rolling back the power of authoritarian states, the Chinese authorities decided to act. The state reaction was severe, and when the army was sent in to clear the square, around 500 to 1,000 people were killed, though many more may have been quietly murdered afterward. At the same time, it is important to remind ourselves that it was only because of these demonstrations that the world came free from oppression, orthodox fanatics and fantasies, unjust and immutable attitudes, violence and slavery. Outside India, popular movements for democracy cascaded across the Middle East and North Africa. These were not Marxist or Islamist movements, and while there was great diversity in the expectations for what democracy could look like, there was shared fatigue with the authoritarian rule. In this protest, the participants were not the urban poor, unionized labour, existing opposition members or any minorities with problems. They were middle-class, educated and powerless youths. There was no discrimination against gender in this protest. Hence this is how the protest got its name “Arab Spring”, which was a series of anti-government protests, uprisings, and armed rebellions that spread across much of the Islamic world in the early 2010s. It began in response to oppressive regimes and a low standard of living, starting with protests in Tunisia. Each newsflash is a visual of streets gone riverine with masses that march against the suppression of dissent. Every headline paints protests in numbers and figures. Such has been the face of Indian media as of late. In the dawning winter of 2019, India took to the streets in response to the Citizenship Amendment Act. Democracy’s inherent notion of power with the people came into play- and it did so with full throttle on the socio-political theatre. Civil Disobedience, in the words of Gandhi,  becomes a sacred duty when the State becomes lawless and corrupt. Folk politics assumes importance then. Similarly, America’s civil rights movement impeccably elucidates upon the relationship that power, people and the institution of protest share. The monumental Montgomery Bus Boycott was organised to protest segregated seating on buses. The protest spanned over a year, from the 5th of December, 1955 to the 20th of December, 1956. Recent suppression by the authorities to stop these protests have not only raised safety concerns but also shaken the very spirit of activists all across the globe. Thus events in the past and present analysis have raised questions on the overarching strategy and effectiveness of crowd-control measures—issues which are not new, but remain relevant to this day. Primary example of such instances can be related to the situations in Kashmir, protesting crowds have primarily involved agitated citizens that weaponize stones against security officials. Police and security force personnel’s use of “non-lethal” pellet guns in response has been indiscriminate and excessive. Conservative estimates show that in 2016 alone, over 90 civilians were killed by injuries caused by pellets and over 8,000 people were admitted in hospital with other injuries including permanent blindness. Such has been the long history and reality of protests all across the world. Where, on the one hand, activists claimed protests as their freedom of speech and standing up for the very essence of democracy and secularism, and on the other hand, authorities and critics upheld the view that protests were nothing but a reaction of the oppositions shielded by the masses. Hence, clashes between the protestors and organisations have been a long lived battle. One thing that has always remained constant is people have made their opinions and voices heard one way or another.

By Debanjan Das, 1st History. The recently concluded parliamentary session was indeed an eventful one. It was for the first time that the 17th Lok Sabha met after the ruling BJP stormed back to power securing 303 seats in the general election and along with NDA allies won 353 seats. The opposition strength was depleted to a large extent. Fireworks had begun to erupt right from the day of the oath taking when the treasury and the opposition benches tried to outdo each other by shouting slogans, forgetting all parliamentary etiquette and decorum. This was indeed inevitable given the political acrimony that exists between the ruling party and the opposition at the moment. In terms of productivity, this was one of the most successful parliamentary sessions in the past two decades according to a report in The Times of India. The Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha were in session for 281 and 195 hours respectively. While about 35 bills have been introduced, 21 have been passed by both the houses of Parliament while 7 have been passed only in the house where they originated, as per the PRS Legislative Research. While many in the government are hailing this ‘achievement’, it however,also sets a disturbing precedent. The Budget Session lasted from 17th June 2019 to 7th August 2019, i.e. a little over a month. From the figures given above it can be concluded that on an average, each day, a new bill was introduced and passed by either of the Houses. Therefore, very little time was allotted for debate and discussion over the bills and in this session a number of contentious bills were passed like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill, the Muslim Women ( Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, which has led to severe repercussion in the national politics. In fact, the J&K Reorganisation Bill was passed on the same day it was introduced in the respective houses giving very little time for discussing the provisions of a bill as significant as this one. Furthermore, not a single bill was sent for review to a Parliamentary Committee, which shows how the government is aggressively pushing its legislative agenda, not allowing much scope for debate or deliberation and is not even willing to take suggestions from others,sparing very little thought on the dangerous precedent it sets for the world’s largest democracy, which should essentially tolerate debate, discussions and dissent and allow suggestions from various stakeholders. The forum for such debate has shrunk because of the landslide majority the ruling coalition has in the Lok Sabha, where it can easily push through contentious Constitutional Amendment bills, with the help of its allies and other friendly parties. Though for the time being, in Rajya Sabha the coalition falls short of the majority and the void has to be filled up by friendly non-NDA parties, it is expected to cross the halfway mark there by 2022. Therefore, the government can easily pass bills without much trouble from the opposition. This is precisely the reason why it is all the more necessary to allow for a far more extensive scrutiny of legislation and allow voicing of dissent.However, this government does not have a very clean track record when it comes to tolerating dissent and hearing the opposition out. The opposition has routinely accused it of trying to curb dissent and criticism. For instance, the government has been accused of diluting the provisions of the RTI Act by bringing in an amendment which seeks to control the tenure and salaries of the Information Commissioners, which many have argued is a step against transparency and reasonableness. A healthy democratic environment allows for voicing of dissent and allows debate and deliberation and takes into consideration the views of various stakeholders to an issue. Unfortunately, such an environment cannot be found in India today, as the supporters of the ruling party have been routinely accused of abusing its detractors, specially on the social media, where those not conforming to the line of the ruling party have been routinely labelled as anti-national and traitors. Notwithstanding the nature of the legislation,if the government also takes along with it the opposition, listen to its objections- it would indeed do our democracy a lot of good.As first time MP Mahua Moitra said in her inaugural speech that, “The house belongs to the opposition”, she couldn’t have been more correct, given the lack of checks and balances this government has to face due to the depleted strength the opposition has in both houses of the parliament. There is no scope of dissent from within the ruling party or the ruling alliance as well. It is therefore for the sake of the world’s largest democracy that the government must be more inclusive in its approach, allow debate and discussion in the parliament and not bulldoze bills through it, for it faces little hurdle, but allowing greater deliberations over bills and other issues in the Parliament, with the opposition being given greater opportunity to present its stance bodes well for our democracy, which we have been preserving well since 1947, in spite of many ups and downs.

By Abhishri Swarup, I History Dear Ammu, I will meet you soon. I set my letters afloat as paper boats for you to find wherever you are. Unlike humans, oceans are not hindered by borders. Ammu, I will meet you soon. I know. I have set sail over the agitated waves of particularly infamous waters, chasing a destiny uncertain – and it is not unknown to me that these unforgiving currents are charted by the likes of me too often and too much to carry anecdotes, and not tragedies. Literal drowning, however, happens to be the least of my fears. Nautical misfortune does not daunt me, Ammu, as does the idea of plunging headfirst – blindsided and blindfolded- into the mysterious. In the dark, my fears assume more gravity. Come nightfall, my backbone seems to dilute in these unfounded terrors. On-board, in each eye that stares blankly and wordlessly into the horizon, I see the same apprehensions, the same hesitations, the same yearnings and longings. I also see the identical, timid hopefulness – in each, it is subtle, but it is there. This boat, Ammu, is teeming with people – so much that it ought to tip over – but it is also teeming with hope, so I know it will stay afloat, come what may. Such times compel me to greedily clutch at the occasional straw that drifts my way. Brown tendrils of hair are blown out of the sanctuary of my hijab by these brutal Mediterranean winds, and regardless of the effort I invest in taming it, Ammu, some part of the scarf always seems to wrinkle, and then defiantly flap and dance in these saline gusts. My hijab seems to be the only thing I own in the realest sense of the word – I can call it mine without the apprehension of losing it to the unpredictable dispositions of fate, as has been the unfortunate case with a myriad of things in my life previously. It is, thus, only natural for me to panic when my hijab, too, seems to be slipping away. Ammu, isn’t it uncanny how distressed human beings discover a sense of belonging in the feeling of ownership? The cloth truly feels like a breathing, living part of my being. On a variety of levels, it breathes courage into me, even if it is in minute amounts. It shields me – preserves my sanity, more so, by ebbing my omnipresent paranoia. Where will I go? I have no home. What will I eat? I have no bread. Will we meet again? I hope we do, Ammu. I hope we do. Abbu named me Kayanaat. The universe. He wanted me to be as limitless, as borderless as this splendid universe. Yet, here we are, with our fickle kismets. Borders have drained me, and the universe – the ultimate trickster – seems to be taunting its namesake. My hijab’s defiance seems to be the universe’s attempt at mocking the little things providing me refuge, for this scarf is a straw I am clutching at with all my strength. When all hope seems to slip, straws must suffice. But what are humans supposed to do if the last straw slips as well? Survival is privilege. Will I live to see another day? This wondering reverberates in my mind too often now to be considered an odd, poorly placed thought. I am aware that the frequency of these ponderings should ideally alarm me. However, I have been rattled too often and too deep to be wary of the forbidden places my thoughts visit these days. Ammu, I carry little but my dreams. Oh yes, the baggage is heavy, and my shoulders are frail. Surprisingly, contrary to what one would expect on a voyage as arduous as the one I undertake, it is not burdensome. It does not weigh me down. The baggage of my dreams helps me rise. It helps me rise, and I know that in such miserable times, wistful imaginings can be fatal, but Thought is notorious for defiance. Bitter-sweet imaginings spiral my feeble heart back home. Sleep serves as a wanted, but sporadic escape. The instant I rest my eyes, rather mercilessly am I flung at what simultaneously are the most heart-wrenching and heart-warming of my nostalgic recollections. Suddenly, I discover my young self, perched in Abbu’s lap by the Euphrates as he soothingly whispers words from Rumi in my ear, to lull my tired eyes to sweet sleep. His careful fingers relaxingly cascade down my tangled hair, grazing my scalp only slightly. In keeping with this nonchalant, daring irony of slumber and peace, secrets of the soul are revealed to me in poetic Persian as the panorama of dreams springs life into my subconscious. Flashes later, the sun is a brilliant, blinding white, explicitly cruel to us in a most wonderful manner. The Euphrates is still lapping nearby; rippling in its characteristic carefree manner; but Abbu is gone. For a terrible moment, the lines between illusion and reality blur increasingly, and I know I’d rather stay trapped forever in the former. The ghastly Truth saunters its way over – penetrates my subconscious and in its usual brazenness, haunts my senses even in these brittle, momentary escapes. Like a welcome bolt from the blue, little Yaasir’s infantile laughter resonates in the distance and consumes my hauntings. I am more awake than ever; more alive than ever. Yielding to his incessant demands, my fingers unskilfully illustrate Abbu’s former mystic whispers for Yaasir, in the fragrant and moist Euphratic soils of our Syria. Just like that, we play childish games in the sludge, before washing our soiled clothes in the sparkling water that is innate only to the lifeline of our land. Stealthily, almost like a clever pickpocket, Night falls, and replicates the gentle flapping of a raven’s wings. It burns purple and red. The sky is translucent and smoky, as the clouds shroud the waxing crescent. Ammu, you and I spot non-existent shapes in these clouds. With our backs rested against the tin roof, we talk of nothing and everything. Our almost-muted voices are jargon to my ears. My mind ensnares a few words – at different points of time – as they inconsistently fly by. Every individually nonsensical word makes sense in its own peculiar way. The seemingly endless conversations rush back to me in one emotional tide of unrivalled magnitude and uninhibited power – the words drown me, making it difficult to breathe. Like a fish out of water, I pathetically gasp my way back to reality. I question my sanity. On cloudless nights, till either of us fell asleep, we’d quietly stare at the blazing stars. I remember, Ammu. I remember. I couldn’t forget even if I tried. I don’t want to. I think of you. I think of Abbu and Yaasir. I think of my homeland. I think of the perfumed air of Syria, abuzz with life. Raqqa, and its modest, yet mesmerising existence. The rich soils, which housed many a caravan as one of their own. The gurgling Euphrates – the crescent of civilisation. The stoney buildings, flaunting arabesque architecture of the most superior quality. I can almost smell the aromatic winds nourish first my body, and then my soul. I can almost see masses of traders from the caravan, accepting my soil as their own, as a reciprocation of my land’s previous, similar kindness. This very two-way acceptance, with the attached feeling of homecoming, is exemplary of the warmth of our people. I can feel the silver waters of my Euphrates envelope my fingers like liquid muslin, as I lay on the damp bank with my hair sprawled all over. The coarse touch of stone walls, scratching my forearm lightly. The tender pressure of Syrian blood flowing in my veins. I can almost experience all of this, but not quite. That is how my Syria remains ingrained forever in the memory. The sensations are almost tangible, but then I open my eyes. Wistful thinking gets the best of me, because Ammu, I anticipate meeting you. I anticipate meeting you in the homeland of your dreams and mine – in another place, and in a different time – somewhere far away from this mass exodus. Miles from dead doves and crushed olive branches, away from warheads and gunned men, and across barbed wires, there is a place. Lifetimes away, yet just within mortal grasp, this place is like a distant reverie; like a long-forgotten dream; like a bygone musing. It is like the Syria of your dreams and mine. I will meet you there. Ammu, I will meet you soon. Love always, Kayanaat . . . . Concentric circles seemed to absorb Yasmeen’s fatigued being, as brackish water rippled around her throbbing ankles buried in the sand. With gentle, but demanding undertones, something afloat brushed against her aching, grimy calves. White. Perfectly buoyant. Oddly intact. A paper boat? Arabic. Cautious strokes and well-rounded curves, garnished with careless dots – a familiar hand. All too familiar. A letter from Kayanaat.

This study was conducted by our First Year contributors, namely Abhinandan Kaul (I BAP), Debanjan Das (I History), Shagun Tyagi (I Economics) and Abhishri Swarup (I History), with the assistance of our editors Devak Namdhari (II BAP) and Caroline Shepherd (II History). Today, as Stephen’s stands nestled in all its glory in its lush green peaceful campus, away from the pandemonium of DUSU Elections, with a Students’ Union that is constantly regarded as caught under the shackles of the administration, a resounding 77.2% of Stephanians feel that there is a dearth of political participation in college. The report presented below is a commentary on the nature of political participation in St. Stephen’s, shadowing a culture that detaches the student body from the participatory nature of college elections and grassroots student politics, all essential learning of academic life. We have outlined the history of the origin of the SUS, linking it to the continued fixation on administrative power that demotivates people to freely participate and vote in elections. Excessive control by the authorities can be seen reflected in the lack of awareness among students around the political happenings in and outside of college. A Brief History of the SUS The criterion was the operational executive branch of the Union and was largely maintained by some third year junior members of the college. It consisted of twenty-two fellows, eight of whom constituted the President’s Cabinet, holding the following posts: Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretaries for Internal, External and Social Affairs, speaker, Deputy Speaker, Sergeant-At-Arms and Clerk of the House. Initially, the purpose of the Club was to advance literary and social discourse. For instance, under the initiative of its founder-president, G.C. Chatterji, it tried to overcome caste and religious prejudices by promoting inter-dining among its members. However, it soon shifted primarily to organising debates. The society seemed to stay away from the murky politics of the outside world from the very early days. Even during the turbulent 1940s, the society remained politically inert and failed to provide effective leadership. While the Society remained politically inert, to assume that the members of the college stayed away from politics would not be correct. Charles Freer Andrews, a faculty member of the college was believed to have been sent by the then Principal, Sushil Kumar Rudra, in 1914, to convince Gandhi to come back to India to fight for its independence. In fact the draft of the Non-Cooperation Movement was authored by Gandhiji at Principal Rudra’s house. Another faculty member, CB Young had written a column condemning the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre, which was quite a bold move for a professor at that time. The President of the Society was directly elected, 1951 onwards. In 1974, Shashi Tharoor was elected as President of the Society and he was engaged in a feud with the Principal over the name of the society. While he and other students wanted to call it a Union, the then Principal was opposed to it, and as a compromise, the society came to be called Students’ Union Society. Year-wise elections to the Council were also started around the same time. There have only been two women presidents of the SUS who served a complete term: Maya John ( 2005-06) and Aina Singh (2015-16). Earlier, in 1940, Usha Rani Malik was tied for Presidentship, but was not allowed to function effectively. In 1945-46, Krishna Sharma was elected President, but her budget was defeated and she had to resign. Hence, it can be safely said that student’s politics in St. Stephen’s College was largely male dominated, with minimal representation of women. The SUS, today The Student’s Union Society, as it exists today, is the general representative body of the students of the college, and it includes all students as its members automatically. The main activities include holding debates, organising lectures and various other events and functions, including the college fest ‘Harmony’. Along with this, it meets from time to time to discuss and make representations in matters concerning the general interest of the college. While the Principal of the college is the Patron of the society, there is also a tribunal, consisting of three faculty members. The President of the society, directly elected by all the students of the college, heads a Cabinet whose members will be chosen by him/her. The Student’s Council, an important component of the society, includes twenty-two elected members- eighteen undergraduate students with six members from each year, and four postgraduate students. In spite of the wide-ranging powers mentioned in the Constitution of the society, they merely remain on paper, as the final authority with regard to all decisions taken by the Society rests with the Patron. Successive councils over the years have been accused of being quite inert and ineffective. Political Participation in College Democracy exists, but the ‘of’, ‘for’ and ‘by’ aspects of it are non-existent. This peculiar, but not altogether unusual, form of politics here can be aptly named ‘Notice-Board Politics.’ Neither is this a mere judgement: a case of prejudice born of the need to have an opinion, nor is this baseless in nature. Recent developments make the same crystal clear- the new President of the Students’ Union Society contested this year’s elections unopposed, and by default, now holds the position. While provisions for democratic processes exist on paper, why is it that St. Stephen’s College remains an island of political apathy in a University Space otherwise so rich in politics and political activity? Our collective detachment from intra-college politics is both disheartening and surprising because whether be it a National Farmers March in Delhi to Pinjra Tod protest at Arts Faculty, Stephanians do engage in political conversation. They have opinions, well-informed ones, at that. They also engage in political activity outside the college space. They follow national and international politics. A lot of them aspire for a career in politics. They are critical of college issues and they face these issues everyday in the college space. However, the lack of political participation was evident in the Students’ Council elections as well. As previously mentioned, the Council provides for twenty-two directly elected members. This year, for the Students’ Council Elections, the freshmen saw seven candidates contesting for a total of six seats, three contested from second year, four contested from third year and only one postgraduate student contested in all. The Staff Advisor for the SUS, Mr. Sanjay Rao Ayde, said on record, “There has been no substantial change in response of students to the Council elections. I have observed a similar trend over the past few years wherein, the number of candidates fielded is less than the number of seats up for election. Regardless, the college administration has been following due process for elections every year.” The question remains, What is it that renders Stephanians dormant in college politics? It must be noted here that the popular perception is that the SUS is, for all practical purposes, an event-management body. A lot of people claim that it is a mere extension of the College Administration, a channel of communication between the Administration and the Student Fraternity, and not actually an agency for bringing about change. St. Stephen’s College also remains aloof from the DUSU. College remains functional during DUTA elections. The Stephanian Forum interviewed a few students to know their opinion about this issue- A second year student, who prefers to remain anonymous, says—“Constant disciplinary procedures, along with the morning assembly, the farcical structure of the SUS constitute an attempt to inculcate deliberately an ideal of apoliticism in the minds of students.” Nabila Khadija Ansari, another second year student who vehemently participates in politics outside college says—“Anything that sends a strong political message, is radical in nature, challenges the status quo, challenges and questions the state is actively discouraged by the administration.” When asked why she wasn’t active in college politics, Nabila said— “I have no idea when that happens! In first year, as soon as I got information, I realised that the elections had already happened, people were already elected and the council already existed. This year, too, I didn’t come to know when the nominations happened. I would honestly love to be part of the SUS, because I genuinely believe that if the SUS changes certain manners of its operation, it can really make a change.” To gain more clarity on these matters, The Stephanian Forum, undertook a survey across college over the past two weeks. The forms were circulated over online platforms and got over 171 responses from students from various courses and years. Life in St. Stephen’s College is known to be far apart from the chaos of DUSU (Delhi University’s Student Union) elections. As road outside the college gets littered with DUSU pamphlets in the month of September, 58.5% of the participants (of the poll) think that Stephen’s should be part of DUSU. This academic year’s election was a dull affair. With first years not getting a chance to witness Open Court this year, a very underwhelming number of nominations were also recorded for the post of President and other council numbers. The questions drafted also aimed to gauge the awareness of participants regarding SUS & student politics in Stephen’s. 78.9% of the participants expressed that they were not familiarized with the SUS and its structures/functions by any meetings/orientations when they started their college journey in Stephen’s. An overwhelming 88.3% of the participants was not aware of the college constitution and the powers of SUS under it. A majority of those who knew about it accessed the constitution from the college website which is not the extensive document and does not specifically talk about the SUS at all. 86% of the participants who were well aware of the powers of SUS wanted the constitution to be amended to increase the scope of SUS. They want the SUS to perform substantial work at the ground level for the college community and the staff advisor of the SUS also expressed that if there is such a need of constitutional amendment felt strongly, it should be taken up with due process. In a comment from the administration regarding the same- “There is a sense of entitlement among the students wherein they expect to be spoon-fed everything. Ample notices are put up in every part of college, be it A/V boards or the Main Corridor notice boards, it is the duty of students to check these. An official announcement by the Principal in the assembly is a procedure we do not follow in order to assure the detachment of the office of the Principal from the election process.” Over 67.3% of the participants are not aware of the eligibility criteria for the post of SUS President. The eligibility criteria can be a deterrent for the students. Our survey revealed that 58.5% of the participants think that existing attendance eligibility criteria of 75% should be reduced. Stephen’s is known for its emphasis on academics and no wonder, academic eligibility exists for SUS posts as well. However, 57.3% of the participants think that academic criteria should not exist. Election season in Stephen’s is marked by the presence of one to one campaigning in corridors. The current rules and regulations at Stephen’s do not allow the nominees for the post of President to use Social Media as a platform for campaigning. 74.9% of the participants want social media campaigns to be allowed for the posts of SUS elections. In conversation with Ayde sir we find that social media campaigns were allowed in previous years and had to be discontinued as they were employed to propagate false charges, illegitimate reports, and smear campaigns and in one year, “it turned ugly to the point that the administration had to intervene.” “The five days of classroom campaigning, publication of the manifestos on Notice Boards, Informal gatherings are ample means for campaigning, “this is also done to maintain a level-playing field for all candidates.” As the conversations around ‘representations’ gather momentum, students notice some patterns around them. An overwhelming 68.4% of the participants of the poll think that there is a lack of female participation and representation. On the other hand, 88.3% of the survey participants strongly detest any sort of reservation of seats in case of SUS representatives whereas the other 11.7% talk about reservations in the form of SC/OBC/ST, female candidates and differently abled candidates. The SUS cabinet assists the President in discharging his/her duties for the betterment of college community. However, elections are not conducted for the Cabinet. A huge amount of people, precisely 84.2% of the participants feel that elections should be conducted for SUS Cabinet as well, just as for the Student Council to make the whole representation completely transparent. Contrary to the accusations levelled against the Council being an inert body, Stephanians think of the Council to be important as 77.8% of the participants think that it is an important body to keep a check on the SUS. Given this historical background, ambit of power of the SUS and student response on these issues, a variety of observations come about that give a definite conclusion that there is an imperative need for change in our political processes and we must play our part for the same.

A candid conversation with the SUS President (2019-20), Raman Mohora The interview was conducted on September 3, 2019, by Siddharth Abraham (II Economics), Nidhi Priya (II Economics), Priyankush Adhikary (I History), Parth Seth (I History), Bhavna Dahiya (I BA Programme) and Ashwin Kandath (I Maths). As freshers we have no clue about your vision for the college, so could you elaborate more on what you plan on doing? Tell us about your cabinet members and why you chose them in particular. Every year when freshers come and even when I joined this college as a fresher we didn’t really know there existed a students‘ union society and that there is a representative body of the students. There was this lack of communication and lack of information, so I want to congratulate you on taking this initiative to create this sort of awareness among the first years and the greater college community that there exists a Students’ Union Society. Every year the different candidates come up with a manifesto before elections but this time as you know there were no elections so we didn’t have to release a manifesto as such but instead we released a Plan of Action a few days ago that encapsulates all the changes we want to bring in college and the work we want to do. The SUS has always been seen as an event organizing society; we were reduced to that status. It was all about Harmony, Common Freshers’ and the issue of student grievances always got compromised at the cost of event organization. This time our focus is to address the students’ grievances with regard to washrooms, gender related reforms, residence, etc. As far as my cabinet is concerned, it’s pretty diverse and it’s a really strong team which represents different voices of students throughout the college community. If you look geographically, it represents people from different regions in the country. Our college is basically a mini India, so in order to represent that diversity I have chosen each and every cabinet member and it wasn’t an arbitrary decision but a collective decision as far as my core team was concerned. As you know elections didn’t hold this year, some people say that the motive of the entire campaign was lost, so how do you instill that trust that you stand for our wishes and rights? That’s a very good question. The first reason we didn’t have that much nominations is that the students have lost faith in the democratic institution that there is. So our biggest challenge as a Union is to reinstill that belief in the students that there exists an SUS which is vested with powers to deal with issues. Our first step towards instilling this belief would be to involve them and this year our approach is to install Action Committees at the lower levels which will constitute students from the student council, the cabinet and the normal students who are willing to bring the change. In this way, we will not only succeed in getting back their faith but we will also truly live up to the fact that the Student’s Union represents the entire college community. Do you feel it would have been better to have the entire election (open court, class campaigns,etc.), rather than having simply been elected because you were the only one? I always invited competition and I even went out of my way to encourage other people to stand for elections. I approached two other possible candidates, one of them stepped up to contest but her nomination was not accepted and the other had her personal reasons due to which she couldn’t stand. So I went out of my way to reach out and invite not only an opposition but also an opinion. Mental health issues like unbridled stress, anxiety, depression etc. have become a part of nearly every student’s life. How do you plan to address these issues in college as an office-holder of the SUS? Mental health is an issue that has been plaguing us, our college and other spaces as well like schools, universities, etc. It has not been adequately addressed by anyone. So, last year under our union, a step was taken in this direction. A lot of concerned people from the Mental Health Initiative organised an event called the Mental Health Week and they did a really commendable job. They are not a society but a group of concerned people who are working for mental health. So what I intend to do is to collaborate with them in organising workshops, seminars, therapy sessions and also to make the people aware that help is available. What and how would you bring a wave of change in the college which you think hasn’t been brought by the other presidents elected so far? Through consultation. A lot of times why past presidents haven’t been successful in bringing change is that we just point out the problem. We go to the admin and say, this is the problem. But we do not provide solutions to the problems. So, our approach this year would be to try to make this system of consultative democracy wherein we consult the students for every small issue. We invite more discussions; we’ll have more General Body Meetings, more charchas in which we really take up the students’ issues, and also work on providing solutions because at the end of the day, we want to be a part of the solution process also. How do you plan to bring together different stakeholders of the college to initiate collective change? Who constitutes the college? The faculty, the students, the non-teaching staff, and the karamcharis. The biggest strength of our college is that student-teacher relationship is great. We want to capitalize on that. As far as karmacharis are concerned, we want to involve them by making an action committee to address their concerns. In a nutshell, we want to involve all stakeholders in this process by consultations, discussions, and deliberations. In your action plan, you talked of the dormancy of the Students’ Council. What reasons do you attribute to this dormancy? More than the dormancy of the union, I would like to talk about the dormancy of the Students’ Council. The Students’ Council is actually the elected body. They don’t involve themselves in the process. And the Union did not take an initiative to involve them so it becomes dormant. This time we will be making them Heads to various action committees so they’ll be forced to work. How would you reinvent the upcoming important events which you and your Cabinet would plan? I don’t think that there is any reinvention required because we are a fantastic event organizing society as we do it every year and we are known for it. But my focus is more on students’ grievances this time. What would be your three biggest priorities for the betterment of the college and its students? First, definitely washrooms. Second, is to create a system of accountability for those in power, also from us. And third would be to make a system of consultative democracy in college. Our College is very unique, it’s not like any other college. The politics here is not like DUSU politics because in those colleges students are representative of parties (political). But here since we have no parties, we can discuss issues, try a new brand of student politics. How do you plan to increase formal interactions and contacts between the students of St. Stephen’s College and other colleges of DU? We have one plan up sleeve. Introducing a Literary Festival, somewhere around January. For two days or so, we will be collaborating with English LitSoc, or similar society, to have an open event where we will be inviting people from other colleges. We will invite authors, publishers and have lots of discussions on a wide range of topics related to politics, social issues, science and technology. What are your concerns on the current state of politics in the country? I am very concerned. It is a very dangerous state, to be frank. There is a lot of silence and this silence is worrying. There is a lot of increasing hate, bigotry, intolerance; and we need to stand up against this. I think it is the duty of the Stephanians to become more well-informed citizens and bring about this change in the country. We need to speak up. What do you think is the reason for the lack of participation and fervour in this year’s Students’ Union elections? As I said, people have lost faith in the democratic institution of the College. This culture has died down to be honest due to lack of communication between the Union and the Students. This year, we plan on having monthly GBMs (General Body Meetings) where we talk to the student body as this is very necessary. What encouraged you to contest for SUS? It was only in my second year that I got to know that there is an SUS which works. So I contested for Students’ Council and got elected. There wasn’t much to do. I worked closely with Jeffin, the previous SUS President and he really got us involved. I saw that there is immense possibility that the union can bring some change which had not been realized till now. And SUS is the only society that works for the entire college community, then I got motivated to stand for it. A lot of the first year students feel left out and alone in the sense that they are not able to interact with others and are not able to find their voice. What do you intend to do to help such students? Firstly, through the Mental Health Initiative we want to let them know that there is help available. Secondly, we have the common fresher’s coming up so they can participate and get to know each other. Thirdly, if they are in residence, what we are planning to do this year is to revive residence life. People don’t really engage or participate. What we are introducing this year is that we will have some fun like tea, movie screenings, discussions after dinner, etc. to encourage more participation in residence life. Through this hopefully we will try to bring people together. What we observe is resident members now are restricted to themselves only. Do you think this is because of the less number of first years in residence? It is only the trend this year. From what I can remember is that in my first year, my seniors always told me that after dinner there used to be lively discussions on various topics in the mess lawns, Rudra lawns and people would be singing around. The only time when the residence comes alive is during the Resmataz (fest where residence blocks compete against each other). What are the final words which do you want the people in the college should know about your agenda with respect to the upcoming year? I want to create a new brand of politics, a healthy brand of politics in college which is more democratic and more collective. Also, given the state of the affairs of our country right now, we as a Union should be able to make students aware of what is happening outside the country. We should make the most of our college life here. We should use this space for discussion and deliberation. We have released the Plan of Action. This is one step towards creating a system of accountability. I want The Stephanian Forum, to conduct frequent interviews with us so that the college can get to know about the status of work being done so that the students can hold us accountable. We invite feedback and believe in constructive criticism.

By Suchintan Das, 2nd History The University of Delhi, which is no stranger to controversies, has recently found itself at the centre of another. The issue in question pertains to the revision of the syllabi of several undergraduate honours’ courses in general and that of History in particular. The specificity of the objection raised by the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad regarding the same was remarkable. The teaching of ‘Naxalism and Communism’ in the course was unpalatable to them. However, what is worthy of being paid greater attention to is not what the ABVP means by or thinks of these ‘isms’ but the question of what it strives to achieve through protests of this nature. It would be platitudinous to suggest that the ABVP protesters are solely driven by the motive to close the space for contestation in history as a discipline and claim it as their own. What often gets overlooked in this regard is that this demand for certain subtractive changes in the syllabus cannot be viewed in isolation. It is intricately linked to practices which have been familiarized and condoned by this present regime time and again such as dogmatizing citizens as ‘urban naxals’ and ‘anti-nationals’, coining terms with inescapable derogatory connotations like ‘libtards’ and ‘sickulars’, assassinating free-thinkers and rationalists, strategically controlling and silencing the mass media, privileging particular slogans like ‘Jai Shri Ram’ and ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’ over others, and above all, attempting to implement the National Register of Citizens across the country. All these constitute a kind of essentialization. They exemplify a certain project—that of building the Anti-Nation. The act of discrediting is more easily attempted and more effectively realized than that of legitimizing. It goes hand in hand with the objective of rendering citizens outsiders from within—homeless within their own homeland. They are then projected as the members of an imagined community, ever conspiratorial and complicit in seditious crimes against the ‘nation’. They are therefore depicted as the inhabitants of an anti-nation. The obsession of the present government to weed out ‘non-citizens’ and dissenters alike is merely a manifestation of this project, which is administrative in form and ideological in content. This making of an anti-nation is complementary to the RSS’ scheme of establishing a Hindu Rashtra. For it is only through the process of reducing everything into binaries—citizens and non-citizens, Hindus and non-Hindus, nationalists and anti-nationalists that the devious questions of dispossession, deprivation, and dissension can be shoved under the proverbial carpet of perpetual ignorance. This whole project has radically altered the fundamental objectives of the RSS and by extension, its political outfit—the BJP. They have begun to concentrate more on controlling the structures of counter-narratives than the intricacies of the narrative that they seek to promote. This is a strange exercise of power – one which sparks off a sense of urgency to combat an imagined enemy—an anti-nation inhabited by the most defiant individuals, who are burdened with the responsibility of proving themselves to be otherwise. It is in this context that the question of how this is actually achieved emerges. The answer to the same comes from an imagined Machiavelli who says “My scheme envisions the neutralising of the press by the press itself. Because journalism wields great power, do you know what my government will do? It will become like them. It will become journalism incarnate. Like God Vishnu my press will have a hundred arms, and these arms will stretch out their hand to every shape of opinion. Everyone will be my party without knowing it. Those who think they speak their own language will be speaking mine, those who think they are marching under their own banner will be marching under mine. I will be able to say that I direct opinion at will on all questions of external and internal policy. I awaken people’s minds or lull them to sleep. I reassure them or confuse them. I plead for and against, the true and the false.” (Dialogues in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu—Maurice Joly) These journalists incarnate and self-proclaimed agents of the ‘nation’ then charge at the ‘Tukde Tukde Gang’ and the ‘Khan Market Gang’ like Don Quixote at the windmills. As history is replaced by a compendium of myths, propaganda subsumes the necessity of news. A combination of these constitute identity and knowledge-formation in the ‘nation’, whereas, anything with even the remote possibility of unsettling these processes come to be associated with the ever-lurking idea of the anti-nation. The nation, in effect, gets likened to a herd of sheep where “glory, the most foolish of divinities and the most murderous, [takes] the place of liberty.” (To Business Men—Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) The existence of the nation is seen to be perpetually under threat and the position of those in power eternally assured so long as the idea of the anti-nation remains a despicable and disastrous one. In order to succeed in such a portrayal, the abuse of history becomes a necessary presupposition. “Italian fascism has proclaimed national ‘sacred egoism’ as the sole creative factor. After reducing the history of humanity to national history, German fascism proceeded to reduce nation to race and race to blood.” (Nationalism and Economic Life—Leon Trotsky) Since it has become rather difficult to tread the conventional path of reclaiming history from the clutches of its abusers, any attempt to resurrect the Nehruvian notions of unity in diversity and harmonious coexistence in India since time immemorial will fall upon deaf years. Similar will be the possible fate of an effort to problematize these very notions so as to uncover more heterogeneous histories. Let us for once admit that Indian history has largely operated on structures of violence and is replete with episodes of conflict, continuous or otherwise, between classes, castes, and communities. (Source: Post-Gazette) It will not do us any harm to choose sides in these historical struggles. It will do the RSS more harm if pre-existing conflicts are deprived of the privilege of being pretexts for self-perpetuation. The culture of vengeful violence needs to be thoroughly undermined. The anti-nation might be of some use in this regard for it is also an alternate nation, a nation that departs from the existing one, a nation which is sought to be created. The ties binding the inhabitants of the anti-nation are those of victimhood and martyrdom. These are strong enough in their own rights and worth solidarizing for. Instead of labouring an obvious counterpoint to the RSS’ abuse of history, turning this project of building the anti-nation on its head is of greater significance. This can be achieved through the denouncement of the premise that a better future cannot be imagined with the baggage of a worse past. Let it be murmured loudly that whether Ram was historically born at the place where the Babri Masjid used to stand does not matter. What matters is whether its destroyers are brought to justice or not. History writing in India is often pulled in two different directions. There has been a long-standing attempt at portraying India’s history as one of harmony, synthesis, and relative amity. The response to this has characterized Indian history as being one of discord, divergence, and overarching violence. ‘Myth-busting’ and self-reflexive exercises such as problematizing the conspicuous absence of testimonies in existing sources have taken place in the academia from both sides, with each laying claim to a set of convenient truths. This, however, has hardly impacted the notion of Indian history as it is constituted in the cultural psyche of the common citizen. The much more refined argument that histories of conflict can and should be written in India without suggesting either the necessity or aggravation of further conflict doesn’t have much of an audience beyond the academia either. It is necessary but not sufficient to merely pose a counterpoint to the abuse of history. What is required is a total dismantling of history’s hallowed position of power in the public sphere—a position that enables its abusers to use history as a justificatory apparatus for mobilizational purposes. In order to be in a position to even suggest this, the complicity of the abuse of history in the creation of a nation needs to be recognized and the latter as a category thoroughly critiqued. Tagore had defined nation “in the sense of the political and economic union of a people” as “that aspect which a whole population assumes when organized for a mechanical purpose.” (On Nationalism—Rabindranath Tagore) The anti-nation, on the other hand, is a category of all that gets spilled and thrown out in the project of nation building. Nonconformity and heterogeneity are its fundamental characteristics. In fact, it is prefigurative of the idea of a future world nation, the product of a time when the concept of nation-states will become anachronistic. This concept is both constituted by and attributed with a sense of national pride. “But pride in every form breeds blindness at the end. Like all artificial stimulants its first effect is a heightening of consciousness and then with the increasing dose it muddles it and brings an exultation that is misleading.” (On Nationalism—Rabindranath Tagore) The subversive aim of the anti-nation should therefore be to question and eventually unsettle any national pride that colludes to impose subjecthood on citizens. “Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should — in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 — and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible.” (‘Notes on Nationalism’—George Orwell). It is to this end that Hobsbawm remarks, “Historians are to nationalism what poppy growers in Pakistan are to Heroin addicts: we supply the essential raw material to the market.” (‘Ethnicity and Nationalism in Europe Today’—Eric Hobsbawm) “Forgetting, I would even say historical error, is an essential factor in the creation of a nation and it is for this reason that the progress of historical studies often poses a threat to nationality.” (‘What is a Nation’—Ernst Renan) Unfortunately, the obverse is not true. Remembering, rather, selective remembering (which is always inevitably the case) fulfills the same purpose. Fighting the abuse of history does not require the reiteration of a firm commitment to a rigorous reading of the nation’s supposedly real history. What is indeed essential is to dislodge nationalism from the pedestal of being a high virtue and imagine an alternative to the socio-historical construct called the ‘nation’ as we know it today. Notwithstanding what is usually read into the history of the Indian nation, it is more crucial at this juncture to seize control of the making of the anti-nation by suggesting that it is the idea of the same that transcends parochial classifications. It is only by choosing not to belong to any one nation or for that matter, any great nation, that one can summarily reject its ideological bulwark – nationalism. Even if India is not truly a socialist secular republic and even if it never was, there is absolutely no reason why it should not be made into one. Connected in their being relentless and unapologetic dreamers, it is quite certain that the inhabitants of the anti-nation are going to lead the way! More recently, it has come to be known that the Government of India has unilaterally revoked the articles 35A and 370 of the Constitution and has resolved to bifurcate the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories, of Ladakh and of Jammu and Kashmir, with the former devoid of any legislative apparatus. Before administering the death blow on the concerned articles, the government had deployed a huge number of paramilitary troops, put the army and the air force on high alert, placed all mainstream political leaders of the state either under detention or house arrest and cut off all modes of communication in the state keeping citizens in the dark about their very future. This undeclared emergency could be seen in stark contrast to the claims of the Home Minister in Parliament that the Government acted in order to realize “people’s aspirations”. What was more surprising was the support that was extended to the blatant governmental contravention of the Indian Constitution by parties in the opposition, like the BJD, the AAP, and even the BSP among others. These parties are so lustful of acquiring or remaining in power, that they have begun to operate within the political paradigm of competitive nationalism that has been curated and sustained by the BJP. In doing so, they have done away with both their political autonomy and the ideology with which they had come into existence. What the BJP has been able to do in its five years of rule over this country is to successfully abrogate and discredit all notions of consent, social or political, individual or collective. Mob lynchings have been the prototypical acts of such negation of consent, which is now being used to underwrite the systematic demolition of the federal structure of the country. The revision of university syllabi, implementation of the NRC, and the revocation of articles 370 and 35A seem to be eerily connected by the usage of nationalism as a justification that seeks to coerce all conversation regarding these issues into a permanent closure. What is being done at the same time is to claim the land of Jammu and Kashmir as that of the Indian nation from time immemorial, while casting out all its inhabitants into the anti-nation that is the perpetual bête noire of the RSS’ ultimate fetish, the ‘Akhand Hindu Rashtra’. Order prevails in Kashmir today. However, ‘the jubilant “victors” fail to notice that any “order” that needs to be regularly maintained through bloody slaughter, heads inexorably towards its historic destiny; its own demise’. (Order Prevails in Berlin—Rosa Luxemburg) The very intellectual exercise of differentiating between nationalism and jingoism has become futile in this context. A spectre has been haunting the country — the spectre of Nationalism. All the powers of ‘new India’ have entered into an unholy alliance to conjure and sustain this spectre: big businessmen and bureaucrat opportunists, herbal capitalists and market fundamentalists, right-wing politicians and Hindutva terrorists. There is no one way to exorcise this ghost of Nationalism. Subverting the very idea of the anti-nation seems to be a good way to start. Patriotism has long been dead. Long Live Nationalism!

By Siddharth Abraham, 2nd Economics Not so long ago, on May 7, 2019, the ICSE and ISC results were declared for classes X and XII, respectively. The “Sharma-ji ke bete” mindset was in full swing as two students managed to score a best-of-four of 100%, becoming the first to ever do so. Even the 98.75% that Gaurav Mehta* scored wasn’t good enough, and his parents, who had been grooming him to be the best (read: highest-scoring) student in school, let their unhappiness be known to him.If you pause and think about this cycle that goes on year after year, it makes one wonder: what exactly is the education system today about? What is a student being tested on? The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a worldwide study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that evaluates education systems by testing 15-year-olds in math, reading and science. India’s reaction to the 2009 edition results was surprising- it came next to last and decided to drop out of the 2012 and 2015 tests citing “socio-cultural” differences as the cause for such low results. China topped all the subjects in most of the test series, but, interestingly, other worldwide education ranking systems don’t even place it in the top three. Various sources suggest, and it is in fact true, that India and China face the same issue of basing intelligence on grades, marks and results. What this means is that students aren’t taught the subject as much as they are taught how to solve the questions on various exams. How many times have we skipped a concept or failed to analyse different texts “not in the syllabus”? The answer is concerning. A Wikipedia search for standardized tests in India reveals as many as 47 tests—the many board exams, Civil Services exams, the JEE and NEET, to name a few. Time and again, it has been shown that these exams aren’t really the best measure of intelligence or proof of having understood the concepts. The Board Examinations, for instance, which “decide the fate” of almost every student in India, work only in favour of those who can hit the bullseye with the keywords mentioned in the model answers used for evaluation. A couple of cases have shown that even though someone might essentially be correct, if the answers aren’t worded exactly he or she may lose several marks over the course of the paper. This rigidity in the assessment system is a huge disadvantage for many students who are ostracised, not because they aren’t capable of learning, but because they aren’t able to fit into these schemes of testing. Their indigenous knowledge, problem-solving strategies and potential is completely ignored in the face of these exams which expose what they do not know. In 2017, S. Anitha, a student from Tamil Nadu, committed suicide for not clearing NEET. She had scored 1176/1200 in her 12th standard exams in the Tamil Nadu State Board from a Tamil-medium school. It would have helped her secure a medical seat had Tamil Nadu not joined NEET. Anitha was from a poor Dalit family and couldn’t afford coaching to crack NEET. She wanted to become a doctor and would have been the first girl from her village to do so. This is just a chilling reminder of how irrational standardized tests can be. Despite the fact that they make multiple state-wise tests unnecessary, they do not suit the fabric of a country as diverse as India. Instead of helping “choose the best”, they basically serve to eliminate and anyone who doesn’t score enough ends up feeling eliminated and unworthy like Anitha did. It is time we realise that the present-day economy is headed in favour of individuals, not herds, and the “one test for all” approach is pointless and detrimental from a future perspective. The tricks and shortcuts adopted to cope with the excessive pressure to perform reduce the overall quality of education. In the process of focussing on the numerical indicators of performance, the process of learning is completely neglected—something which definitely shouldn’t be the case. *Some names and identifying details have been changed to protect the privacy of individuals

Vrinda questions the glaring yet somehow easily ignored double standards and ideas that are tacitly accepted in public let alone private spaces. From classroom discussions to social media warzones, there seem to be increasing attempts to attach shame to the word feminism. Has ensuring equality between men and women ever been a collective responsibility? Will it ever be? Feminism. The different ways in which people interpret this single term might be enough for me to write a book on. I have heard people saying, “I believe in equal rights but not in feminism.” This would be akin to saying that one believes in Bajrang Dal but not in fascism (wait, what?). Derogatory terms such as ‘feminazi’ have also been coined to mock those who speak for gender equality. The count of people, who feel that feminism is, in fact, a movement that schemes to put women on a pedestal and annihilate men, is quite distressing. I still remember the first day of college, enthusiastic and brimming with energy, I was quite excited to be enrolled in ‘one of the best colleges’ of our country, that is until our professor started a discussion on feminism. To my surprise (read: tragic disappointment), more than half of my class did not believe in (ahem) equality. Not sure if they were actually fans of patriarchy, or if they had grown up believing that feminism implied subordination of men, or if they were just plain bored and unwilling to participate in any form of dialogue. But I often wonder if these students would hold the same views about feminism if they were asked about it now, as they are about to graduate from college. Their response would determine the success of our hallowed institution. I, of course, write of my experience with feminist ideas, in the current context of the #MeToo movement. What started off with a single tweet, soon turned into an international phenomenon of people united in their anger with the system that protects men and hushes women. It has initiated a domino effect, where women, once too scared to speak out, are being empowered by the stories being shared and have sought the courage to do the same. What I find most hopeful about #MeToo is that even the rich and resourceful are being held accountable for their actions. When one person stands up and takes the lead, it gives courage to a hundred others to fight against the unjust. Some questions that often come up though are- Why after so many years? What do these women seek to gain by speaking out after decades of allegedly facing harassment? Dubious intents, political vendetta or long-held grudges—what could be the possible cause? But to answer these, one only needs to look at the historical evidence of how little women have ever gained from speaking out, and how much of their own credibility have they lost in this society that overlooks men’s faults while holding its women to exceptionally high standards. To believe that hundreds of women are sharing detailed accounts of harassment for frivolous reasons is to ostrich your way out of uncomfortable times. People continue to belittle the stories of the victims and look at them with suspicion and disdain. Lack of empathy towards the survivors and victim blaming/shaming is not a very uncommon occurrence. How long will it take for the victims to come out in the open without facing humiliation, to speak against their predators without the fear of being ridiculed, to fight for their right without being sued for defamation? Creating a space to express is not enough. Speaking up does not necessarily mean being heard. We need people to listen, to change their outlook towards the victim, to understand that feminism is equality and that bringing about this equality is not a choice; it is our collective responsibility. The question is not how far have we come, it is how much further are we willing to go to break down the walls of patriarchy? Featured Image Source: http://violetanoy.com/work/bad-workshop/

Devak delves into the history, cultural ties, and the significance of what at first glance seems like an illustration with no political or social implications attached to it. How does the Angry Hanuman tie in with Hyper-Masculinity, Secularism and much more? Read on to know Devak’s views. With staggering intensity in his eyes, intimidating physiognomy and brows furrowed in unprecedented ferocity and fury – the “Angry Hanuman” has been taking over the streets of India. The black and saffron-clad sticker is now a common sight. Be it windshields, t-shirts, flags or even WhatsApp display pictures – the ubiquitous artwork is raging throughout the nation. It now seems to be the new fad, but we must question whether we should reduce such a powerful symbol to just a vogue. It would be naïve to assume that such widespread nature of the picture has no social or political connotations. The controversial sticker’s origin can be traced back to three years ago in a village in Kerala; where Karan Acharya was asked by a local organization to create a new logo to put on flags for a Hindu festival. In a telephonic interview with News18.com, he has been quoted saying that his portrayal of the Hindu monkey god is not one of anger but of attitude. He is powerful, but not oppressive. However, Acharya admits the problem with art and its infinite ways of interpretation, which probably is the cause behind the uproar about such epidemic use of the picture. Original intentions at the time of conception may not always be permanent. The perception of a symbol can be of a dynamic nature. Take the swastika, for instance, the ancient symbol for peace and divinity in ancient religions of Eurasia. The symbol lost all its original meaning and became a societal stigma after Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party employed it to spread racism and antisemitism. Similarly, a ‘Hanuman with an attitude’ might metamorphose into the national symbol for an aggressive form of Hindutva. There have been different perceptions about the pictogram across the country. A few individuals identified it as majoritarian propaganda against the secular fabric of the Constitution of India. One such individual, J Devika, a Kerala-based writer, gave the clarion call for boycotting all cabs, autos that sported the ‘violent’ sticker. The backlash against such protests was also prevalent. C.J. Harikrishnan, a senior journalist, held the opinion that such boycotts were against the freedom of expression guaranteed to every citizen of the nation and the accusations made were baseless to a good extent given the subjective nature of the picture. Hence, denying employment on prejudices and blatant discrimination is a crime by law. But the question remains: Can majoritarian propaganda of Hindutva hyper masculinity be allowed to proliferate under the armour of freedom of expression? Another category of response comes under the one given by Padma Pillai, who (under the banner of ‘Ready to wait’ campaign) declared a 50-rupee reward for every auto or taxi she witnessed which exhibited the sticker explicitly. Is this the symptom of a disease that would lead to the demise of the composite culture of India? If not, why are we even raising this question in the first place? The answer lies in the status quo. A general sense of insecurity that prevails across the nation has its basis in statements and acts. When Yogi Adityanath claims that India will be a Ram Rajya by 2022 or when a BJP Rajya Sabha Member asserts that history has given Muslims their share of land and thus, Indian Muslims should go to Pakistan or Bangladesh; the delicate façade of unity in diversity shatters more and more. Yet, it is interesting to observe how the weapon of freedom of expression which is often used to uphold minority manifestation is now employed to bombard their arguments, which just further asserts that basic rights are not for the minority or the majority, but the singularity. Another feature that must be acknowledged out of this craze is the undertone of anger. Gods that represented the epitome of humility now symbolize rage and vengeance. The family ‘Raja Ram’ was transformed to an open-haired ready-to-fight warrior Ram in the 1990 Babri Masjid controversy. News channels that were once accused of being insipid are now setting their discussion panels on fire, literally. The average Indian is getting angrier, fiercer and more radical, and our symbols and gods reflect the same. The repercussions of an experimental artwork in a small village in Kerala are not single fold but multifaceted. It ignites some basic arguments that this country has faced time and again but failed to resolve. Maybe the ‘Angry Hanuman’ is nothing more than a fad, a speck in the vast history of glorification and admiration. Or maybe it is the face of a new India, but not necessarily an improved India.