Search Results

As Prime Minister May and the Conservative Party scramble through the cumbersome Brexit process, it is vital to assess the economic impact Brexit brings along. It has the potential to not just weaken the British political and economic pillars, but also to jeopardise the world economy. Will its impact be really global, as they say? Let’s find out. “Cadbury stockpiles ingredients in case of hard Brexit”, “UK driving licence may not be valid in the EU after Brexit”- this is what headlines read today, apart from the palpable unrest in the political and economic realm. Ever since the former Prime Minister of UK, Mr David Cameron held a referendum back on 23rd June 2016 pertaining to whether the UK should remain a part of the European Union, there has been no looking back. With a marginal vote of 51.9% to leave the EU, coming from the citizens, Mr Cameron had to resign. The idea of Britain exiting the EU developed not just in documents, meetings and in other tangible forms, but also in a name- Britain+Exit=Brexit, the opposite of Britain+Remain= Bremain (which is highly unlikely now!). Why was this decision exercised? Was it because of political oppression, economic downturn, sociological factors? Here’s why it happened- Britain felt that it was unnecessarily bogged down by restrictions from the EU. This is essentially because all 28 member states of EU are obliged to follow the ‘constitution’ of the European Union. Britain felt that had it not been an EU member, it would have had a better chance of signing economic and political deals with developing economies like China and India. EU has taken too much power from Downing Street, apparently. While there is flexibility in movement across the borders of these member states, there has been a large exodus of people from poor countries to rich countries like Britain, thanks to this flexibilty. Supposedly, EU wastes a lot of tax payers’ money on bureaucratic formalities. All these member states (including Britain) have to pay membership dues. Brits felt that they were not getting back much in return from the EU. Owing to all these reasons (and perhaps, many more), the present British PM, Mrs Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the European Union Constitution, which lays down the procedure for any member state to leave the EU, owing to specific reasons. Let’s now ponder over the status quo. What are the recent economic developments in Brexit? Brexit has already forced the resignation of Mr Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, who asserted that he could not support Mrs May on this issue. It must be stated that there are still large doubts lingering around, about whether the Brexit deal will be accomplished by March next year. Indeed, the economic repercussions are just as gruesome as the politics. Economists suggest that there might occur a slump in consumer spending and business investment, which is expected to drag Britain’s growth rate down to just 1.3% this year, dispelling hopes that the UK’s sluggish rate of expansion in the first six months will recover in the second half of the year. Fears over Brexit have sent the British pound to the lowest level against the dollar and the euro this year as Mrs Theresa May continue to struggle to gain support for her plan for Britain leaving the EU. There are an estimated 3 million EU citizens in the UK and a million Brits elsewhere in the EU. They are all protected with free movement and don’t need to get visas or citizenship as long as they are in the EU. If no official deal is reached by March next year, these people could lose their citizenship rights, causing havoc. Brexit negotiators would then be forced to make separate deals with each different country. Brexit is making its way not just through the realms of currency and finance but also through businesses, including the luscious Cadbury brand that has stirred discontentment among chocolate eaters. Cadbury’s owner, Mondelez International, is stockpiling ingredients, chocolates and biscuits in fear of Brexit. Hubert Weber, the president of Mondelez Europe told the media that the UK was ‘not self-sufficient in terms of food ingredients’ and confirmed the measure as part of contingency plans for a hard Brexit. This is largely because it may lead to friction in mobility of raw materials and other finished goods across borders. Shoppers may have to face higher prices and fewer choices, leading to a loss in consumer sovereignty. This may grow to affect certain export-import business. In fact, businesses across the industry are said to be stockpiling and deciding a prudent course of action. Brexit may harshly impact British drivers as they may have to get an international driving permit if they want to drive in European countries after Brexit. The government says that after March 2019 “your driving licence may no longer be valid by itself in the EU”, in its latest planning papers. It also warns that Brits travelling to the EU may need to make sure their passports have six months left to run. This means that UK-based businesses, academics and researchers will be unable to bid for future EU global navigation satellite system contracts and may face difficulty carrying out and completing existing contracts. For example, it may not be possible for businesses or organisations which currently host Galileo and European Geostationary Navigation Overlay ground infrastructure to continue to do so. Brexit may also have certain less obvious effects too. Critics say that France, the Netherlands, etc. may take cues from the UK and be driven to leave the EU (or at least consider leaving the EU). This could lead to a huge EU collapse, following which, world exports might get affected, keeping in mind that China imports around 16.2% materials from EU, while the USA, 18.3%. Businesses thriving in the UK may have to consider their actions. This isn’t just limited to British companies, but also to foreign companies. For example, Tata Iron & Steels Company would have to consider if it could really prevent losses if it establishes another of its many units in the UK. It may be possible that students from abroad will get affected too. This is partly because the UK may follow a policy of ‘immigration reduction’ (which isn’t highly likely), coercing students to pay a higher fee. There still is a 10-15% chance that premier institutions like London School of Economics and Oxford may have to bear the brunt. Many say that Brexit is leading to impaired governance, social anxiety and squeezed living standards. They fear what topsy-turvy might unravel. On being questioned about how they felt about Brexit, Europeans gave a myriad of remarks, some of which were ‘emotional’. The Swedish people literally said, “We Swedes think of you British as our kinfolk. We admire you and emulate you-you are people we have learnt so much from… Brexit, to us, is rather like a family, where the eldest son goes off to university — and the little ones still at home are left wondering how the family will change, and what their admired big brother will be up to”. Many think Brexit was a terrible idea, and what was even worse was that the irrevocable decision was taken with a large number of people not knowing what “Leave” would actually look like. At this point, one can only speculate and wonder how Brexit would be like. What is known is that Britain must leave the European Union by 29th March 2019. Whether Brexit’s barbaric impacts on people, businesses and trade will swallow the British economy and overtake the growth process of this biggest European tech hub, only time will tell. It is a matter to contemplate as to how this imperialist nation, with a rich history of rulers and revolutions, will change the global economic scenario if it will. Until then, one must hope for healthy conclusions and deals in place.

One of our editors reflects on the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court, taking a significant step towards the vision of a more equal India and the events leading up to its culmination. 06.09.18 is a historic date for Human Rights in the entire world. I use “world” instead of India because the 132.42 crore people of India are now freer. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was declared, “irrational, arbitrary and incomprehensible as it fetters the right to equality for LGBT community,” by CJI Dipak Misra on 06.09.2018. In the 493 pages of extensive judgement, The Chief Justice of India has raised the individual’s identity to the pedestal of divinity. “Constitutional morality”, the CJI has said, is not confined to the literal text of the Constitution; rather, it must seek to usher in a pluralistic and inclusive society. [1] The first few pages of the judgement speak volumes, “I am what I am”. Introduced by the British Government in 1861, modeled on the Anti-sodomy law in Britain, Section 377 banned (loving the past tense) “carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal” — which technically prohibits both homosexual and heterosexual anal and oral sex, but it is interpreted to refer to homosexual sex. The law has often been used to threaten, blackmail, harass, and sexually assault homosexuals by extortionists and police alike. One common threat given by extortionists is the disclosure of the sexual orientation to the family. Often, the closeted victims did not file an FIR. Section 377 law has been partially scrapped. The court said that “Intercourse with children, animals and bestiality” and intercourse that is non-consensual or with consent obtained by force will continue to be crimes. The fight against the stigmatisation picked up in January 2018, when a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 was filed by 20 LGBTQ students and alumni of IIT in the Supreme Court of India. The detailed hearing commenced on July 10 and went on for four days. On July 17, the Supreme Court reserved its judgement. The Centre did not take a pronounced stance on Section 377. On July 10, the Supreme Court rejected the Centre’s pleadings to delay hearing on Section 377 as the Centre requested for additional time to file a response. On July 11, the Centre-left it to the wisdom of the Supreme Court to examine the constitutional validity of the penal provision which criminalises “consensual acts of adults in private”, saying this was the only question under section 377 of the IPC which needed to be decided by the constitution bench. [2] The Bench, comprised of CJI, Justices F. Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra who were receptive to the pleas made by the counsel of the petitioners during the review in July. For instance, on the third day of the hearing, the Bench concurred that “once consensual gay sex is no longer criminalised, then related issues like social stigma and discrimination against the LGBTQ community would also go away.” Justice DY Chandrachud referred to Section 21(a) of the Mental Healthcare Act, said the Act prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and thus, “the Parliament itself now recognises the community,” he said. The history of the fight against section 377 is a protracted one. It started when Naz Foundation among others filed PILs in July 2009 in Delhi High Court. The Delhi HC decriminalized homosexuality in July 2009. In December 2012, the SC found the judgement, “legally unsustainable” and overturned the High Court’s decision. After the SC’s judgement, NCBR decided to collect data on offences under Section 377. In 2016, five petitioners belonging to the LGBTQ community filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 377. In August 2017, the SC recognized the Right to Privacy and observed that “sexual orientation is an essential attribute to Right to Privacy.” The Right to Privacy gave constitutional validity to the scrapping of gay sex ban. The UN welcomed SC’s decision on Section 377 and said, “Sexual orientation and gender expression form an integral part of an individual’s identity the world over, and violence, stigma and discrimination based on these attributes constitute an egregious violation of human rights.” 2018 seems to be a positive year for the LGBTQ community of Commonwealth nations- those nations that were formerly British colonies and have thus inherited anti-Sodomy laws. On Tuesday 17th April, Theresa May said that “I am all too aware that these laws were often put in place by my own country. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. As the UK’s prime minister, I deeply regret both the fact that such laws were introduced, and the legacy of discrimination, violence and even death that persists today.” Reiterating UK’s support for reformation of anti-gay laws she said that, “And the UK stands ready to support any Commonwealth member wanting to reform outdated legislation that makes such discrimination possible.” On April 13 this year, another Commonwealth Nation that inherited anti-gay laws from its colonial rule ruled homophobic laws unconstitutional. The Caribbean nation of Trinidad and Tobago declared sections of the Sexual Offences Act unconstitutional, which may soon lead to decriminalisation of gay sex. However, there are reservations about how far will the judgement change Indian’s attitude towards the LGBTQ community. Markandey Katju, a retired judge at the SC, for instance, expressed his concern if this judgement will reduce the social prejudice and discrimination faced by the LGBTQ community. It is true that India needs laws to prevent violence against the LGBTQ community, ensure workplace equality, and legalise gay marriage and adoption. With the awareness that there is a long fight left to gain complete equality and dignity of life for the LGBTQ community, India celebrates its first victory over homophobia with exhilaration. [1] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/section-377-verdict-supreme-court-full-judgment-5343879/ [2] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/supreme-court-pronounce-verdict-section-377-case-thursday-1332618-2018-09-05

In his first article for the Forum, Suchintan reflects on the nature of the world’s largest democracy and questions its deeply rooted ‘undemocratic’ characteristics Since the promulgation of the Constitution in January 1950, the democratization of a country as diverse and as inexperienced as India has been a tumultuous phenomenon. Questions are therefore bound to arise as to how far we have really been successful. Democracy in India is taken for granted to such an extent that politicians have ceased to aspire to progress and have begun seeking complacency through comparing the Indian experience with those of the South-Asian neighbours, who, needless to say, have been through much worse. Explicit factors such as electoral violence, rigging, intervention through the state machinery and political manipulation have never really been the deterministic factors capable of turning the Indian Democracy over its head. The subversion of democracy in this country has to be attributed to the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the dominant means of political representation and recruitment, which have by and large been fairly successful in putting up a façade of the popularly perceived notion of democracy. In a representative democracy which follows the parliamentary pattern, the political parties as the dominant means of such representation are inevitable and all-important Barring a few exceptions, almost all Indian political parties, whether national or regional are ‘undemocratic’ to the core in structure and consequently in function. This is not just symptomatic of the existing internal dichotomy of the party system in India but is also indicative of the deliberate sustenance of the same by those who have a major role to play in politics of the country and is evocative of the much larger problems which the country faces, namely corruption and nepotism, both of which have become institutions in their own right, facilitated by the glaring socio-economic inequalities and a substantial lack of education, resulting in political unconsciousness. The lack of internal democracy within the Indian political parties (almost all of which seem to have a perfectly democratic constitution without any regard for its provisions, let alone adhering to them) distorts the very processes of political recruitment and representation. Since almost all elections are contested along party lines, the choice before the electors is limited in the first phase through what should have been a ‘sieving procedure’ of the various parties so as to ensure that certain standards of abilities are met by the candidates. But this very procedure has unfortunately turned out to be a process of eliminating the more suitable such that people are left to choose the lesser evil in the elections. This unfree manner in which most parties recruit their future leadership (who also happen to be the potential leaders of the country) boils down to nothing but a prejudiced recruitment of those favoured by and the descendants of political bigwigs. This breeds nepotism in Indian politics, which is perpetuated by over-centralization and a top-down approach of political inclusion, thereby restricting access to those who are supposed to be the representatives of the people. Intra-Party democracy thus becomes elite-dominated, characterised by a mutually reinforcing favouritism and servility. A large number of Indian political parties are outright dictatorial in character and have their organizations and policies determined by their respective ‘Party Supremoes’ (often the founders themselves or their named successors). The privilege to represent is hence appropriated by a few and is often commodified as becomes the case when the Supremoes decide to auction a few seats among persons of financial influence. Others tend to keep on a veil of being democratic, while in reality, they promote what is known as a culture of the ‘High-Command’ where the party itself is metonymized as the former. Under this, the will of the handful of leaders always prevail notwithstanding whether they enjoy the support of the majority of the party members or not. Whims and tantrums of the central leadership always triumph and intra-party elections are rarely held. In the absence of organic/ideological integrity, these are justified in the name of preserving a mechanical party-unity. Dissent is hardly allowed to be ventilated within the party, and often entails disciplinary actions. Initiatives from below are actively discouraged and expression of opinions rudely suppressed. Being outside the purview of the Right to Information, the actual workings and decision-making processes of Indian political parties remain shrouded in secrecy. Members of the political parties merely accept the nominees of the elusive central leadership as their candidates. People in India have the right to vote but they do not get to choose for whom they can actually vote. In a country where the very channels of political recruitment and representation are so restrictive and so corrupt, democracy cannot prevail and in reality, it does not. The semi-feudal power relations within the large majority of Indian political parties are devoid of the democratic ethos. Characterized by a steep hierarchy of organization, these happen to be antitheses of what democratically formed associations should be like. The illusion of the popularly perceived notion of democratic India which is preserved in and nurtured by the wonderfully paradoxical piece of document called the Constitution of India falls apart when subjected to the test of actuality. Without any considerable checks and balances to ensure that the leadership of the political parties in India are somehow kept accountable to the people, a true plural polity would never be able to flourish and what will remain instead is the ghost of democracy!

Kerala’s picturesque landscape dotted with 44 rivers, 30 tributaries, 42 dams and 1500 km of backwater canals has been ravaged by the torrential downpour which when combined with the opening of 35 dams has caused the state to witness unprecedented flood havoc, as gushing waters from the reservoirs flood vast stretches of low-lying areas and turbid rivers further compound the gravity of the situation. The ongoing turmoil revisits memories of the 1924 deluge, popularly referred to as ‘The Great Flood of 99’ (in accordance with the Malayalam calendar, it occurred in the year 1099) in which the heavy rains caused the entire hilltown of Munnar to be submerged under water. The death toll has mounted to over 350 and around 3.5 lakh people are lodged in the 2000 relief camps across the state. The Indian Meteorological Department records that Kerala received 2227.26 mm of rainfall between 1st June and 16th August, 37.4% more than the season average with 6 districts receiving 40% excess rainfall and the Idukki district receiving a whopping 83.59% excess at 3211.06 mm. The death toll has mounted to over 350 and around 3.5 lakh people are lodged in the 2000 relief camps across the state. In the light of the magnitude of damage unleashed to life and property and the enormous costs that reconstruction entails, many feel that the allocation of funds for flood relief by the Centre has been far from adequate. Since 14th August, the Centre has announced a total of 760 crores as relief to the state. Home Minister Rajnath Singh and a central team had assured an interim relief of 100 crores to be immediately disbursed to the state, following their visit when the first spell of monsoon proved calamitous by claiming 37 lives, displacing around 30,000 people and was concentrated in about half of the 14 districts. The estimated losses at the time were pinned at 8,316 crores. Subsequently, a 100 crore aid was announced by Kiren Rijiju, the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs followed by another 60 crores from a delegation from the Centre who had visited the state to take stock of the situation. The Prime Minister conducted an aerial survey of the rain-ravaged state on 18th August and announced a 500 crore as financial assistance for relief. Amidst claims by insiders that only 80 crores out of the total 760 crores have reached Kerala, the primary allocation sought by the State as detailed in the memorandum submitted to the Central Government was around 1220 crore. Recalling a similar treatment meted out when the Kerala Government sought 7000 crores to undertake relief work post the Ockhi Cyclone which affected the fisherfolk and was allocated only 820 crores, led to several sections of the civil society slamming the Centre for allowing political considerations supersede humanitarian concerns. The discussion soon acquired political flavour as opposition parties vocally expressed their resentment at the Government’s scepticism to declare the Kerala floods as a ‘national disaster’. The abysmal coverage of ‘Kerala’s worst-ever calamity in almost a century’ on national media attracted censure from several quarters. Shashi Tharoor, Lok Sabha MP from Trivandrum, tweeted that the attention by the media seemed to be inversely related to the distance from Delhi. As the national media dissected the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech, delved on the demise of a former Prime Minister, speculated on Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas’ impending engagement and other TRP boosters, thousands of people stranded in their homes with no electricity, water or food took to social media as distress helplines also remained perpetually busy. The national media did not deem the large-scale disaster worthy of a ticker of helpline numbers or ‘prime-time’ until very late. American writer Jim Wallis’ words, “Sometimes it takes a natural disaster to reveal a social disaster” came to mind when hate-mongers ran social-media campaigns against donating to the CM’s Relief Fund because ‘the land of beef-eaters deserves it’. The barrage of hatred encountered on social media as calls urging for contributions to the relief operations in cash, kind or person poured in, was vicious and disenchanting. The circulators of fake news, who gullibly forwarded the WhatsApp messages of false claims of cracks in the 123-year old Mullaperiyar dam, looming fuel shortage, baseless weather forecasts or a state-wide power cut only heightened panic and grief in this dire situation. As the national media dissected the Prime Minister’s Independence Day speech, delved on the demise of a former Prime Minister, speculated on Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jonas’ impending engagement and other TRP boosters, thousands of people were stranded in their homes with no electricity, water or food. The extent of the loss Kerala is bound to suffer is not confined to the material nature alone. The mammoth task of rehabilitation of victims remains even after the floods subside. The capacity of a tiny state like Kerala to mobilise huge amounts of tax revenue to rebuild the state is rather constrained, especially in the face of huge blows to tourism and plantation, the two main drivers of Kerala’s economy. The unexpected tragedy makes health workers and doctors believe that a widespread epidemic of water and air-borne diseases is imminent. The thousands who have been marooned in the floods and lost everything they built and held dear need immense psychological succour besides financial assistance to return to normalcy. Darryn Kagan, American Broadcast journalist said, “Bad things do happen in the world, like war, natural disasters, disease. But out of those situations always arise stories of ordinary people doing extraordinary things.” The Kerala floods relief mission bears testimony to many of these stories. The Army, Navy and Air-Force personnel have galvanized into action for the flood rescue operations, navigating through difficult topography to save lives, while risking their own. Young and old alike volunteer tirelessly in rescue and relief operations. Those who are safe from the wrath of the rains have offered abode to the less fortunate. Benevolent donors continue to contribute heartily, both in cash and kind. People have been ‘kinder than is necessary’ and that is the beacon of hope to believe that Kerala will emerge from the ashes like a phoenix, on the shoulder of these (extra)ordinary people. For this too, shall pass. _______________ It is an earnest plea to the readers from everyone at the Stephanian Forum to help the state of Kerala in whatever way they can. We are linking below some of the many avenues of providing relief to the natural calamity struck state: Kerela Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund: https://donation.cmdrf.kerala.gov.in/ Goonj Foundation Dropping Centres: https://goonj.org/droping-centres/ Donations can be also made via UPI mobile apps. These include BHIM, Paytm, Tez, Phonepe ( This is certainly quite accessible, so we urge everyone to contribute) You can donate a meal through Zomato App Global Giving Project: https://www.globalgiving.org/projects/relief-to-flood-hit-families-in-kerala/

One of our readers, Jaspreet, pulls back the curtains on the monsoon session of the parliament and looks past the theatrics of the 18 days to provide a comprehensive take of its truly significant happenings. The Parliament’s Monsoon Session began against the backdrop of public discontent due to continuous disruptions of legislative activity in both the houses. With key bills on the docket, especially some that would come in to replace ordinances, the government felt almost pressed to get work done. The first two days saw some legislative business being undertaken in the parliament, with the passage of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill in the Rajya Sabha and the Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill in the Lok Sabha. It was a key piece of legislation put forth by the government to ensure that economic offenders, such as Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi, are not allowed to flee the country along with providing a clause for the confiscation of the property of such offenders. Throughout the 24-day session, protests (colourful, at times) were staged by the Telugu Desam Party’s MPs regarding the ‘Special State’ status being granted to Andhra Pradesh. They said that the government had backtracked on a promise made to Andhra’s people. The government tried to defend its stance by pointing out that the special package given to the state was commensurate and after the 14th Finance Commission’s recommendations, the category of ‘Special State’ did not exist anymore. Consequently, the TDP brought a No-Confidence motion against the government on this issue, which was supported and replicated by other opposition parties as they put forth their own no-confidence motions. Such a decision to bring a no-trust motion, the first one since 2003, was surprisingly even-handedly accepted by the government, as it saw the debate on the motion as a way to reaffirm the NDA’s numerical majority. The opposition did initially speculate on how some of the NDA’s allies would vote but it eventually conceded that the motion was symbolic and served as a way for voices of discontent to be raised in the parliament. At the end of a marathon debate, we saw some hard-hitting speeches from both sides of the aisle and a ‘meme-worthy’ moment of Rahul Gandhi crossing the parliament floor to give the Prime Minister a surprise hug. While the opposition in its speeches raised a plethora of issues, majority of them were addressed by the NDA in a well-tested ‘counting of achievements, attack on the Congress, and recounting of past incidents to deflect blame’ approach, which has been characteristic of BJP leaders, especially in sight of the upcoming state and general elections. However, the numerical majority easily ensured that the NDA government sailed across the line with 325 votes to defeat the no-confidence motion. Also thrown into contention during the no-trust debate were the allegations regarding the Rafale Fighter Jet deal, wherein the opposition parties, led by the Congress, demanded that the government be forthcoming regarding the financial details of the deal. The deal warranted scrutiny as the contract previously awarded to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) was handed over to Reliance. While the Defence Minister and the BJP maintained that under a said secrecy clause the prices could not be revealed, Congress President Rahul Gandhi maintained that he had met with the French President, who reportedly told him that no such secrecy clause existed. While confusion ensued over the secrecy clause, a group of opposition leaders also subsequently moved a Privilege Motion against the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister, alleging that they had lied to the parliament. While exact details still remain hidden from the public eye, subsequent press conferences by Congress leaders have left the BJP on the defensive and have raised multiple questions investigating possible crony-capitalism. As the parliament returned to legislative business after the no-confidence debate, the proceedings witnessed discussions on issues of pressing national importance and even strong opposition unity as the BJP’s failure to effectively curb incidents of mob violence was repeatedly questioned by members of parliament. The government’s deflection of responsibility on the matter was highlighted and many Congress leaders including Shashi Tharoor stated that the government’s response to the matter was ‘unsatisfactory’. A key bill that did not make it to the table this session was the proposed amendment of the RTI Act, which according to many experts and lawmakers would have been a severe dilution of the law. The Bill was reportedly not introduced in the Parliament following media coverage and outrage by opposition leaders, but it is likely that the bill may be reconsidered and brought back in the Winter Session. Tasked with the massive burden of taking up a total of 43 bills over 18 sittings, this session of parliament has managed to get done with only a fraction of them. Nonetheless, legislative activity saw a significant improvement as compared to the previous session. Going beyond the scope of Bills tabled and approved in the parliament, the government also faced heat from the opposition in both houses regarding the Assam Citizens list as members of the TMC, Congress and other opposition parties protested against it, saying that it was being used as a tool by the BJP to target Assam’s Muslim population. The government in its defence, offered by party leader Amit Shah and Home Minister Rajnath Singh, said that the BJP had only fulfilled what Rajiv Gandhi had signed in the 1985 Assam accord. The Home Minister also assured the parliament that no ‘citizen’ of India would be declared an illegal migrant and deported. The monsoon session of the parliament has certainly witnessed an eventful period of 18 days but beyond the bills proposed and amended, the government has fallen short of providing concrete solutions to the problems of mob violence fuelled by rumours on social media, on reported acts of vandalism by the workers of BJP state cadres, and embarrassingly so on the Rafale issue, which is being characterised by many as the ‘Bofors’ of the NDA government. While there was initial speculation that the government may call for early elections to be held in December, the matter has now been put out of contention and the parliament will witness the winter session and the budget session before the general elections. What remains to be seen is: Can the government build on this legislative momentum or will the parliament yet again fall prey to adjournments?

One of our editors delves into the fast-advancing realm of Artificial Intelligence to analyse its staggering impact on our personal and professional lives. We are moving towards a world where Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be ingrained in every part of our daily lives. From highly personalised digital assistants and the Internet of things to self-driving cars, AI will descend on Earth and get to work, in fact, in some spheres it already has. It is advancing at such a fascinating pace that it’s difficult to predict what shape it will take in the coming decade or even over the next five years. What we are certain about, however, is that it is here to change the way the world works. So, what does automation mean for the common man? How is it going to affect us? Whether you’ve realised it or not, AI, even at its nascent stage, is already making our lives easier. Almost all of us have a Siri, Alexa, Cortana or Google Assistant at the tip of our tongues. The fact that AI will redefine productivity is therefore undeniable. What we need to do is recalibrate our perception of AI because the traditional ‘man vs machine’ outlook portrayed by the entertainment industry no longer fits the bill. Robots aren’t here to destroy our jobs but augment our abilities. In an attempt to get a head start, several organisations worldwide are already leveraging cutting-edge technologies like machine learning, deep learning, natural language processing and generation, the blockchain and more to automate their processes. JP Morgan, for example, has adopted a software programme called COIN, short for Contract Intelligence, which performs the herculean task of interpreting loan agreements and other contracts within seconds; a task which would’ve otherwise accounted for 3,60,000 lawyers’ hours annually. One can only estimate how enormous the benefits derived from such automation can be. There has been tremendous activity concerning AI policy in different countries like the USA, UK, France, Japan, and China. In India, the NITI Aayog has crafted a national strategy to absorb this inevitable wave of change. Banks like SBI, Axis, HDFC have taken initiative and organised start-up accelerator programs, innovation summits, hackathons and much more to come up with solutions for both back-office and customer-facing purposes. A future powered by AI doesn’t seem as unthinkable as it did a few decades back. But the challenge is to promote adoption and further development of such technologies with democratic access, learn from the best of the world and build foundational R&D capabilities to encourage home-grown solutions and develop future talent in accordance with the changing needs of employers. As innovation progresses further, it is but obvious that some jobs will be lost. But others will be created as well, which brings us to the question- what kinds of jobs? Are computer scientists the gods of the future? Certainly not. AI tools can be adopted by sectors including, but not limited to, financial services, healthcare, retails, manufacturing, smart mobility, transportation, agriculture, etc. What we need are AI-literate functional specialists, not only programmers. As these technologies seep into everyday work processes, functional specialists will play a greater role as experts in their respective fields and will be best suited to draw insights from what the machines predict and prescribe. When we witness the transition of the kind of work we are required to perform- from mechanical and area-specific tasks to more meaningful work outside the purview of conventional roles, it is essential that we upskill not only the existing workforce but also their mindsets to ensure a collaborative and effective synergy between man and machine. But, as is the case with any innovation, as AI permeates the way we work and live, questions on ethics, privacy, security and accessibility also emerge. While we fundamentally believe in the promise of AI, for it has massive potential advantages, it is critical that this technology is used to help people- that it is socially beneficial, fair, accountable and works for everyone. In Accenture’s Technology Vision 2018 report, Michael Biltz, managing director of Accenture Technology Vision said, “While AI is by no means human, by no means can we treat it like just a program. AIs need to be trained and ‘raised’, to not only perform a task but to act as a responsible co-worker and representative of the company.” It is safe to conclude that in the years ahead, automation is the way forward. If you don’t innovate, the kid in the garage down the street will.

With the two-day summit in Brussels now in the rearview mirror, it is all but clear, that even close allies have lost their patience with the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Here is an insight by one of our editors into the changing, almost ancient, relationships of the United States of America. Almost approaching 70 years — from the darkest days of the Cold War, through the Cuban Missile Crisis, with the two ends of the world at times minutes from a catastrophic nuclear disaster and the disintegration of the USSR — NATO has always been successful in guaranteeing the supremacy of the West and safeguarding its democratic ideals. The summit made it vividly apparent that, if it serves his purpose, Donald Trump seems perfectly inclined to dismantle the alliance. This can prove to be a terrible idea. USA needs NATO, a strong, united alliance, with a common purpose and a powerful voice, now more than ever before. The European Union is facing strains of supremacy struggles from the left and the right, the refugee crisis is growing everyday and Russia has been relentless in its torments, NATO has been the only single constant that has stood the test of time in these troubled waters. Among the many possible reasons for Trump’s ‘wrecking ball approach’ to the summit in Brussels, two stand out as most likely (and frankly erroneous) — policy and economics. Trump appears eager to put his own brand name on everything he is associated with, just as he has, for instance, on every real estate project he has developed. He denunciated NATO even before landing in Brussels — increasing the deception of an entire continent that has failed to carry the weight of its defence payments, relying instead on generosity by the US. In the age of the blitzkrieg, NATO has created ground deterrents to prevent tanks of its Soviet-led counterparts from fanning out across Germany and into Europe. According to the alliance’s rules, all 29 members should be allocating 2% of their GDP to their military by 2024. When Trump assumed office in 2017, four nations had met the target; four more are on track to achieve this by the end of this year. Some countries have managed to carry their weight even without being able to meet this number. France, standing at about 1.7% has backed up American forces with its own troops from Afghanistan to Western Africa. Forces of NATO members have fought and died alongside American forces on almost every continent. Therefore it was all the more shocking when Trump dropped a bombshell by demanding that the amount be doubled to 4% of GDP; a demand that no NATO member can feasibly meet. While Trump’s complaints about the NATO budget have been almost a constant since the early days of his campaign, he aggravated this by berating Germany for being ‘totally controlled by Russia’ in reference to the new Nord Stream 2 pipeline that will bring large quantities of Russian natural gas to Germany. It’s fair to expect that the other NATO members should spend more of their GDP on defence; and fair to expect, too, that they should reach the 2 percent benchmark sometime sooner than 2024. However, it isn’t fair to demand, as Trump does, that they reach the 2 percent mark by the end of this year and then increase it to 4 percent. Trump’s actions resonate an undertone of rank commercialism. Spending more on arms may mean more arms purchases from the US industry — more revenues — more American jobs. Simultaneously, easing back on gas imports from Russia could mean more imports of natural gas from American producers. Such a shift could even the trade imbalance that is a perpetual Trump complaint against Europe. There is no doubt that all these complaints aim to achieve just what he intends: the collapse of the liberal international order, both in its animated commitment to open societies as well as its essential international institutions. Seen in this light, Trump’s wretched behaviour isn’t — or isn’t merely — the product of a defective personality. It’s the result of a willful ideology. For him, the upside is the substitution of a liberal order with an illiberal one, based on conceits about sovereignty, nationality, religion and ethnicity. These are the same conceits that Vladimir Putin has long made his own, which helps explain Trump’s affinity for his Russian counterpart. The key question is whether Trump’s bludgeoning of NATO will really strengthen or improve the alliance’s ability to stand up to a resurgent Russia.The chances are slim. It also explains his undisguised contempt for contemporary European democracy and his efforts to replace it with something more ‘Trumpian’: Xenophobic, protectionist and defiant. This is the Europe of Germany’s Gauland, France’s Marine Le Pen, Britain’s Nigel Farage, Hungary’s Orban, Poland’s Jaroslaw Kaczynski, and Italy’s Matteo Salvini. Note that the last three are already in power. All this must be gratifying to Trump’s sense of historical importance. For America, it’s a historical disaster. The United States can only lead a world that’s prepared to follow. But follow what? Not the rules of trade that America once set but now claims are rigged against it. Not the democratic ideals that America once embodied but now treats with disdain. This will only suit Americans for whom the idea of a free world always seemed like a distant abstraction. It will suit Europeans whose anti-Americanism predates Trump’s arrival by decades. An America that stands for its own interests first also stands, and falls, alone. It’s fair that the US uses its leverage to negotiate more advantageous trade deals. It isn’t fair to insist on politically unsustainable trade concessions that the President knows other countries won’t make — in order to destroy these agreements permanently, while blaming the other side. Above all, it’s fair to prod and cajole and quarrel with our core allies — in private. But Trump is out to embarrass them in public, marking them as enemies. Donald Trump has spent his presidency trashing countries under the historically sordid banner of “America First.” Sadly, he has largely forgotten the central tenet of the art of any deal – or any alliance – that it is truly successful only when both sides feel good about one outcome. Trump seems to have decided sometime early in his career as a real estate developer, one who was even forced into multiple bankruptcies, that a deal is beneficial when its good only for him and when he has managed to ram it down the throat of an unwilling adversary. NATO, however, is not a real estate venture to be bartered away on a whim. It is a central part of the way of life that most Western nations are still determined to preserve for themselves.

1. 9-year-old Vishnu* vacillates between 7, 8, and 9 for the answer to 3+4. 2. 13-year-old Fathima* recites the contents of her Geography text by heart, but she thinks the subject is ‘apne daere se bahaar’ (beyond her scope). 3. 15-year-old Aman* is expected to know elementary algebra to take his Boards\ examinations, but he cannot comprehend the English statements to construct the equations. *Names changed Like any other teenager, I was under the assumption that the public schooling system in India is making a considerable headway; an illusion primarily fostered by media’s portrayal of encouraging growth in school-enrollment rates every quarter year. During the ephemeral course of interactions with children of karamcharis of college, who I met through Social Service League’s Evening Classes initiative, I realized that the lower league school systems in India are plagued with several systemic issues, and India is failing many of the country’s poorest children. Be it Arithmetic, Grammar, History, Chemistry, Algebra- learning is by rote. I was aghast at how a 10th Grader was impressing solutions to Math problems on her memory (since she was told that she must resort to it to get ‘ache number’ in exams). I asked her why she doesn’t ask her teacher when she cannot grasp a concept, to which came the pat reply, “Ek toh woh Eid ka chaand hai. Aur jab woh aati hain bacchon ke sawaal nahi sunti.’ (One, we get to see her once in a blue moon, and when she comes, she never listens to our questions). The last straw however was her teacher’s notes that declared ‘Sin and Cos and trigonmatric (Spellcheck: trigonometric) angles’. This summarizes the debacle of our education system. The primary school enrollment rate is at its peak at a staggering 95%. This is unequivocally a commendable feat considering that on the eve of independence the literacy rate in India stood at a paltry 12%. The surge in enrollment is because of the impact of consummate policy decisions, both on the legislative and programmatic front. The Midday Meal Scheme has incentivized parents to send their children to schools, school fees are entirely or partially waived, easing the financial strain on parents. The Right to Education Act, enshrined in Article 21-A of the Constitution which came into effect on 1st April 2010, has upheld the right to full-time, free, and quality elementary education as a fundamental child right. However, the spurt in enrollment rates is a delusive metric of socio-economic progress, at least in the Indian context, and it would be expedient to get hoodwinked by the impressive statistics. Burgeoning enrollment rates are not necessarily an indicator of the education coverage. The other side of the story is the grim reality in which one child in every five primary school going children drop out. Only two out of three children of this age attend school regularly. Of course, there are several other socio-demographic variables at play here; child malnutrition, for instance, linked to cognitive deficits and stunted growth including other devastating consequences has intervening effects on attendance levels. Teacher absenteeism is a crucial concern. Impromptu visits to government schools hint that 25% of the workforce is absent from school on any given working day. Teacher absenteeism is often attributed to the lack of incentives for teachers in public schools. It also demoralizes students from attending school and hampers the learning process. A substantial proportion of teachers in publicly funded schools are ill-trained. The standard of teaching is unsatisfactory. Pedagogical strategies endorse a ‘Drill and Kill’ policy over fostering an environment conducive to meaningful learning. Discussing meaningful learning is probably a tad far-fetched in chaotic classrooms teeming with students of different grades. “Saans lene ki bhi jagah nahi hoti” (there is no place to even breathe), says the 15-year-old. Through the creation of such unpropitious conditions, the quality of education imparted is being compromised upon. A 5th Grader failing at basic arithmetic, a 6th Grader stuttering with simple English sentences or an 8th Grader unable to comprehend the idea of squares of numbers, is testament to the abysmal quality of education delivered in these schools. Comprehensive reports by NGOs like Pratham suggest that about 78% of grade 3 students and 50% of grade 5 students cannot read textbooks designed for Second-Graders. Out of 144 million children studying in 7,14,000 publicly funded schools in India, more than half cannot read simple English or recognize numbers beyond 99. The pertinent concern of education inequity, or the inequity in the distribution of academic resources remains insufficiently addressed and overlooked. There is a consensus that presence of inequalities undermines the spirit of democracy; banishing differential access to resources is pivotal to the smooth functioning of our democratic order. This could prove detrimental to the economic health of the nation as it poses an essential threat to sustenance of growth rates and impedes on the efficacy of policy measures. The inequity in the distribution of educational resources has far-reaching political and economic implications. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, in his speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25th, 1949 forewarned about the prevalence of structured inequalities which could jeopardize the existence of the social order when he said, “We are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality in social and economic rights, we will have inequality…we must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment or else those who suffer from inequality will blow up the structure of political democracy which this Assembly has so laboriously built up.” It has been recognized that education serves the potential to be a democratizing force by reconciling socio-economic disparities in a society highly stratified by caste and class. However, the deplorable state of public education is perilous to the democratic fabric of the nation as it reinforces social contrariety that are to be imperatively exterminated and is also a roadblock in the eradication of poverty. India has one of the youngest age profiles in the world and by 2030, the median age of the population is likely to be 31.2 years. The demographic dividend, which is touted to give India an edge over other developing nations could yield catastrophic results if the economy fails to create around 12 million jobs annually for the new entrants into the labour market. The opportunities created by the demographic dividend need to be harnessed efficiently for the country to propel growth, employment, and prosperity. The dearth of skill in India’s labour force stemming primarily from the pitfalls in the education system, which is ill equipped to meet the increasing demand for skilled or semi-skilled human resources could erode the asset of a youthful population into a social, economic, and political liability. Bridging these socio-economic differences to pave way for a society characterized by an equitable distribution of resources should be the foremost priority of development. In U.S educator Felix E Schelling’s words, “True education makes for inequality; the inequality of individuality, the inequality of success, the glorious inequality of talent, of genius; for inequality, not mediocrity, individual superiority, not standardization, is the measure of the progress of the world.” How long before the liberating force of true education can emancipate us from the shackles of caste, class, creed, religion, or gender? Is India really incapacitated that the basic human right of quality education is perceived as an extravagance for the country’s most impoverished? Here I enclose with an excerpt from Stephen Spender’s poignant poem An Elementary School Classroom in a Slum: “This map becomes their window and these windows That shut upon their lives like catacombs, Break O break open till they break the town And show the children to green fields, and make their world Run azure on gold sands, and let their tongues Run naked into books the white and green leaves open History theirs whose language is the sun.”

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. The Forum interviewed the newly elected President of the Students’ Union Society, Konda Sai Aashirvad on 13th September, 2017. The interview was administered by the First Year SF team consisting of Rajat Chandra Mishra, Adreeta Chakraborty, Pranay Krishna, Nitya Chopra, and Sunish Bansal. The team was headed by our Core Team Editor, Ayushi Jha. Read on to know what to expect from the Union this academic year. 1. Before​ ​we​ ​talk​ ​about​ ​your​ ​plans​ ​in​ ​the​ ​future​ ​as​ ​ President​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Student​ ​Union,​ ​tell​ ​us​ ​what​ ​you think​ ​made​ ​you​ ​stand​ ​out​ ​during​ ​the​ ​election​ ​campaign.​ ​What​ ​do​ ​you​ ​think​ ​contributed​  ​most to​ ​your​ ​majority​ ​victory? I​ ​didn’t​ ​expect​ ​that​ ​I​ ​would​ ​win​ ​by​ ​such​ ​a​ ​majority​ ​because​ ​the​ ​competition​ ​was​ ​tough.​ ​The​ ​margin of​ ​188​ ​votes​ ​was​ ​huge.​ ​And​ ​when​ ​I​ ​come​ ​to​ ​think​ ​of ​​what​ ​made​ ​this​ ​possible,​ ​I​ ​realize​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​my team​ ​that​ ​has​ ​mainly​ ​contributed​ ​to​ ​my​ ​victory.​ ​It​ ​ consists​ ​of​ ​mostly ​Second​ ​and​ ​Third​ ​Years​ ​who have​ ​been​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Union​ ​for​ ​the​ ​past​ ​two​ ​years,​ ​have​ ​been​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​many​ ​other​ ​societies​ ​and​ ​have represented​ ​the​ ​college​ ​in​ ​various​ ​forms.​ ​I​ ​was​ ​also​ apprehensive​ ​if​ ​practicality​ ​in​ ​the​ ​manifesto​ ​will work,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​did​ ​turn​ ​out​ ​to​ ​do​ ​so​ ​in​ ​our​ ​favour.​ ​We​ ​planned​ ​it​ ​really​ ​well​ ​and​ ​our​ ​experience​ ​did​ ​work out​ ​for​ ​us. 2. Many first years are​ ​curious about​ ​the​ ​powers​ ​of​ ​the​ ​SUS​.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​think the​ ​college​ ​gives​ ​a​ ​significant​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​power​ ​to​ ​the ​ ​SUS?​ ​A​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​people​ ​say​ ​that​ ​it’s​ ​just​ ​an event​ ​organizing​ ​committee. The​ ​SUS​ ​doesn’t​ ​really​ ​have​ ​many​ ​powers,​ ​to​ ​be​ ​honest.​ ​It’s​ ​just​ ​like​ ​any​ ​other​ ​society,​ ​but​ ​with elected representation.​ ​In​ ​matters​ ​that​ ​require​ ​attention,​ ​you​ ​write​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Principal​ ​as​ ​President​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Student Union.​ ​The​ ​answer​ ​might​ ​be​ ​yes​ ​or​ ​no,​ ​but​ ​you​ ​have​ ​the​ ​right​ ​to​ ​approach.​ ​How​ ​you​ ​take​ ​it​ ​up​ ​is​ ​a different​ ​case.​ ​At​ ​the​ ​same​ ​time​ ​you’re​ ​backed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Staff​ ​Adviser.​​​ ​In​ ​that​ ​sense,​ ​we​ ​don’t​ ​have many​ ​powers​ ​unless​ ​and​ ​until​ ​we​ ​decide​ ​to​ ​mobilize​ ​the ​entire​ ​student​ ​body​ ​to​ ​come​ ​and​ ​promote​ ​a particular​ ​cause.​ ​Last​ ​year,​ ​we​ ​did​ ​see​ ​that​ ​happening. 3. The​ ​Common​ ​Freshers​ ​is​ ​something​ ​you’ve​ ​started​ ​this​ ​year.​ ​How​ ​will​ ​you​ ​finance​ ​it? Last​ ​year​ ​there​ ​was​ ​a​ ​Resident’s​ ​Freshers​ ​and​ ​a​ ​movie​ ​screening.​ ​We​ ​wanted​ ​to​ ​continue​ ​with​ ​the idea,​ ​and​ ​decided​ ​to​ ​expand​ ​it​ ​for​ ​Day​ ​Scholars​ ​as​ ​ well.​ ​It’ll​ ​be​ ​a​ ​get​ ​together​ ​of​ ​sorts.​ ​There​ ​will​ ​be performances​ ​by​ ​some​ ​enthusiastic​ ​first​ ​years.​ ​We​ ​have​ some​ ​money​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Fund​ ​which​ ​will​ ​be utilized​ ​to​ ​get​ ​refreshments, if at all. 4. There​ ​was​ ​a​ ​point​ ​in​ ​your​ ​manifesto​ ​which​ ​was​ ​greatly​ ​appreciated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​residents​ ​owing​ ​to​ ​the Delhi​ ​Heat.​ ​You​ ​proposed​ ​that​ ​Rooms​ ​A,​ ​B​ ​and​ ​C​ ​be​ ​ kept​ ​open​ ​till​ ​10 PM.​ ​The​ ​college​ ​isn’t​ ​willing​ ​to extend​ ​the​ ​library​ ​timings​ ​by​ ​an​ ​hour.​ ​The​ ​extra​ ​hours ​​of​ ​operation​ ​will​ ​certainly​ ​add​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bill.​ ​Do you​ ​think​ ​the​ ​Bursar​ ​will​ ​be​ ​in​ ​favor​ ​of​ ​this​ ​proposition? The​ ​library​ ​timings​ ​are​ ​not​ ​being​ ​extended​ ​because​ ​of​ ​staff​ ​members. ​ ​According​ ​to​ ​UGC​ ​guidelines, staff​ ​members​ ​can​ ​stay​ ​in​ ​college​ ​only​ ​till​ ​a​ ​specific ​time​ ​i.e.​ ​5​ ​pm.​ ​If​ ​they​ ​stay​ ​later​ ​than​ ​that, ​ ​the college​ ​has​ ​to​ ​pay. ​ ​Moreover,​ ​the​ ​staff​ ​members​ ​are​ ​ not​ ​willing​ ​to​ ​stay​ ​in​ ​college​ ​after​ ​that. So​ ​opening​ ​either​ ​of​ ​the​ ​rooms-​ ​A, ​ ​B,​ ​and​ ​C​ ​is​ ​an​ ​alternative​ ​to​ ​this. As​ ​far​ ​as​ ​the​ ​AC​ ​bill​ ​is​ ​concerned, ​ ​it​ ​will​ ​not​ really​ ​add​ ​substantially​ ​to​ ​the​ ​current​ ​expenses​ ​as​ ​some rooms​ ​are​ ​already​ ​open​ ​for​ ​Evening​ ​Classes.​ ​It​ ​should​ ​be​ ​manageable.​ ​The​ ​staff​ ​adviser​ ​has​ ​already approved​ ​of​ ​this​ ​proposition.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​still​ ​waiting​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Principal’s​ ​approval. 5. The​ ​manifestos​ ​of​ ​the​ ​other​ ​two​ ​candidates​ ​were​ seen​ ​as​ ​largely​ ​similar​ ​since​ ​everyone​ ​was striving to​ ​promote​ the ​greater​ ​good​ ​of​ ​Stephania.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​plan​ ​to​ ​incorporate​ ​their​ ​suggestions​ ​as​ ​well? How? Yes,​ ​definitely.​ ​I​ ​read​ ​both​ ​their​ ​manifestos.​ ​In​ ​fact,​ ​I​ ​asked​ ​the​ ​other​ ​two​ ​candidates​ ​if​ ​they’d​ ​like​ ​to be​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Union.​ ​Apparently,​ ​one​ ​of​ ​them​ ​refused.​ ​The​ ​other​ ​candidate​ ​did​ ​say​ ​that​ ​people from​ ​his​ ​camp​ ​are​ ​interested,​ ​but​ ​refused​ ​so​ ​at​ ​a​​ later​ ​date.​ ​I​ ​was​ ​ready​ ​to​ ​work​ ​with​ ​them,​ ​but​ ​they didn’t​ ​show​ ​any​ ​interest.​ ​I​ ​did​ ​my​ ​part​ ​by​ ​asking​ ​them. But​ ​it’s​ ​great​ ​to​ ​see​ ​that​ ​Second​ ​Years​ ​from​ ​different​ ​camps​ ​have​ ​applied​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​part​ ​of​ ​our​ ​Union. This​ ​is​ ​something​ ​that​ ​didn’t​ ​happen​ ​last​ ​year. 6. Last​ ​year​ ​the​ ​elected​ ​Student​ ​Council​ ​had​ ​two​ ​meetings​ ​throughout​ ​the​ ​year,​ ​indicating​ ​the minimal​ ​role​ ​that​ ​they​ ​play​ ​in​ ​the​ ​college.​ ​Why​ ​do​ ​ you​ ​think​ ​this​ ​is​ ​so?​ ​ The​ ​Constitution​ ​says​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Union​ ​should​ ​have​ ​regular​ ​meetings,​ ​but​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not​ ​specify how​ ​many.​ ​It​ ​gets​ ​difficult​ ​for​ ​Staff​ ​Advisers​ ​and​ ​all ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Council​ ​members​ ​to​ ​come​ ​together due​ ​to​ ​differences​ ​in​ ​their​ ​schedules. So,​ ​we​ ​usually​ ​meet​ ​once​ ​in​ ​the​ ​odd​ ​semester,​ ​and​ ​ maybe​ ​twice​ ​in​ ​the​ ​even​ ​semester,​ ​before​ ​and after​ ​Harmony​ ​to​ ​present​ ​the​ ​budget.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​not​ ​good​ ​practice,​ ​of​ ​course.​ ​This​ ​year​ ​we​ ​plan​ ​to consult​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Council​ ​before​ ​taking​ ​all​ ​major​​ decisions-​ ​opening​ ​the​ ​SUS​ ​link,​ ​holding​ ​major events,​ ​etc.​ ​It​ ​might​ ​take​ ​some​ ​more​ ​time,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​is​ ​the​ ​approach​ ​we​ ​want​ ​to​ ​adopt.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​past, there​ ​has​ ​been​ ​a​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​communication​ ​between​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Council​ ​and​ the ​Student​ ​Union.​ ​Better coordination​ ​will​ ​help​ ​both​ ​of​ ​us.​ ​As​ ​our​ ​teams​ ​are​ ​ diversified,​ ​we​ ​have​ ​a​ ​right​ ​to​ ​inform​ ​and​ ​be informed.​ ​It’s​ ​also​ ​important​ ​that​ ​the​ ​first​ ​years​ ​get​ ​to​ ​know​ ​how​ ​things​ ​are​ ​done​ ​because​ ​they’ll have​ ​to​ ​handle​ ​such​ ​tasks​ ​in​ ​the​ ​future. 7. Your​ ​manifesto​ ​promised​ ​creation​ ​of​ ​many​ ​committees-​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Mess,​ ​Cafe,​ ​Academic​ ​Cell,​ ​etc.​ ​How will​ ​the​ ​members​ ​of​ ​such​ ​committees​ ​be​ ​chosen? Committees​ ​usually​ ​constitute of​ ​students​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Second​ ​and ​Third​ ​Year.​ ​So​ ​we​ ​have​ ​been​ ​circulating google​ ​forms​ ​for​ ​interested​ ​students​ ​to​ ​volunteer.​ ​Many​ ​people​ ​have​ ​done​ ​so,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​committees will​ ​be​ ​formed​ ​as​ ​per​ ​their​ ​preference.​ ​​We​ ​do​ ​not​ ​ have​ ​a​ ​recruitment​ ​criteria​ ​as​ ​such.​ ​Whoever​ ​is willing​ ​to​ ​work​ ​and​ ​has​ ​volunteered,​ ​will​ ​be​ ​given​ ​the ​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​work​ ​for​ ​the​ ​college.​ ​That’s​ ​the plan. After​ ​that​ ​is​ ​done,​ ​we​ ​will​ ​gather​ ​suggestions​ ​and​ ​ ideas​ ​from​ ​all​ ​students,​ ​again​ ​via​ ​Google​ ​forms,​ ​and the​ ​same​ ​will​ ​be​ ​put​ ​forward​ ​to​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​by​ ​the​ ​concerned​ ​committees.​ ​As​ ​discussion follows,​ ​we​ ​put​ ​forward​ ​our​ ​points,​ ​the​ ​administration​ ​ states​ ​its​ ​concerns​ ​and​ ​we​ ​try​ ​to​ ​reach​ ​a conclusion​ ​as​ ​to​ ​what​ ​is​ ​feasible. Take for​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​café​ ​menu.​ ​Students​ ​suggest​ ​that​ ​they​ ​want​ ​all​ ​kinds​ ​of​ ​juices,​ ​shakes,​ ​noodles,​ ​but​ ​this​ ​is​ ​not​ ​feasible.​ ​Moreover,​ ​the​ ​college​ ​does​​ not​ ​want​ ​privatization​ ​of​ ​the​ ​café,​ ​which​ ​is understandable.​ ​So​ ​we​ ​can​ ​ask​ ​for​ ​a​ ​greater​ ​but​​ limited​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​options,​ ​something​ ​which​ ​is do-able.​ ​We’ll​ ​be​ ​circulating​ ​the​ ​forms​ ​soon​ ​so​ ​that​ ​ each​ ​student​ ​has​ ​the​ ​opportunity​ ​to​ ​send​ ​in​ ​their preferences. 8. You​ ​proposed​ ​an​ ​elected​ ​representative​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Ladies Common Room.​ ​What​ ​will​ ​the​ ​election​ ​process​ ​for​ ​that​ ​look like?​ And​ ​what​ ​will​ ​the​ ​representative’s​ ​powers​ ​be? We​ ​had​ ​elections​ ​for​ ​the​ ​Junior Common Room​ ​Representative.​ ​For​​ the​ ​LCR​ ​Representative,​ ​it​ ​will​ ​happen​ ​along​ ​the same​ ​lines.​ ​Voters​ ​will​ ​be​ ​lady​ ​day-scholars,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​nominations​ ​will​ ​be​ ​accepted​ ​only​ ​from​ ​Third Year​ ​lady​ ​day-scholars.​ ​The representative will ensure​ ​that ​​she​ ​is​ ​in​ ​touch​ ​with​ ​the​ ​person​ ​sitting​ ​in​ ​the​ ​LCR and​ ​the​ ​Estate​ ​Office,​ ​so​ ​that​ ​they​ ​can​ ​work​ ​together​ ​to​ ​resolve​ ​any​ ​issues​ ​that​ ​arise. Someone​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Union​ ​could​ ​have​ ​also​ ​done​ ​the​ ​job​ but​ ​if​ ​we​ ​have​ ​one​ ​person​ ​who​ ​is​ ​specifically enthusiastic​ ​about​ ​the​ ​position​​ ​and​ ​ wants​ ​to​ ​take​ ​it​ ​up,​ ​it​ ​makes​ ​more​ ​sense. We​ ​want​ ​to​ ​get​ ​more​ ​things​ ​in​ ​the​ ​LCR.​ ​Right​ ​now,​ ​ I​ ​won’t​ ​spell​ ​out​ ​all​ ​that​ ​we​ ​plan​ ​to​ ​do.​ ​If​ ​ things​ ​go well,​ ​we​ ​will​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​provide​​ ​a​ ​sanitary​ ​napkin​ ​dispenser​ ​as​ ​promised. 9. One​ ​of​ ​the​ ​winning​ ​points​ ​of​ ​your​ ​Manifesto​ ​was​ ​the​ E-library.​ ​What​ ​is​ ​going​ ​to​ ​be​ ​your​ ​plan​ ​of action​ ​to​ ​initiate​ ​this? A​ ​system​ ​to​ ​facilitate​ ​this​ ​already​ ​exists​ ​but​ ​the​ ​student​ ​community​ ​is​ ​unaware.​ ​We​ ​will​ ​give​ ​each​ ​CR a​ ​form​ ​which​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​filled​ ​by​ ​all​ ​students.​ ​The ​ ​form​ ​will​ ​include​ ​some​ ​basic​ ​details.​ ​The​ ​librarian will​ ​mail​ ​everyone​ ​their​ ​account​ ​IDs​ ​and​ ​passwords.​ ​With ​ ​that​ ​account​ ​you’ll​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​access e-libraries​ ​of​ ​universities​ ​like​ ​Cambridge,​ ​Stanford,​ ​etc​. ​which​ ​are​ ​free​ ​of​ ​cost,​ ​and​ ​you​ ​can​ ​download PDF​ ​versions.​ ​You​ ​can​ ​access​ ​the​ ​Delhi​ ​University​ ​ library​ ​and​ ​check​ ​catalogue​ ​numbers​ ​for​ ​our​ ​college library​ ​as​ ​well. 10. Are​ ​you​ ​comfortable​ ​sharing​ ​your​ ​stance​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Autonomy​ ​issue? Yes,​ ​I​ ​am​ ​quite​ ​comfortable​ ​talking​ ​about​ ​the​ ​issue.​ ​The​ ​students​ ​did​ ​not​ ​say​ ​whether​ ​seeking​ ​the autonomy​ ​status​ ​was​ ​right​ ​or​ ​wrong,​ ​or​ ​whether​ ​they​​ were​ ​against​ ​it.​ ​All​ ​they​ ​wanted​ ​was​ ​a democratic​ ​process​ ​of​ ​debate​ ​and​ ​deliberation.​ ​As​ ​a​ student​ ​of​ ​Political​ ​Science​ ​myself,​ ​I​ ​too​ ​feel​ ​that discussions​ ​should’ve​ ​taken​ ​place.​ ​I​ ​have​ ​read​ ​a​ ​couple​ ​of​ ​ articles​ ​about​ ​the​ ​same​ ​and​ ​tried​ ​to understand​ ​the​ ​extent​ ​to​ ​which​ ​it​ ​will​ ​affect​ ​everyone.​ ​If​ ​Autonomy​ ​comes​ ​in​ ​a​ ​way​ ​that​ ​it​ ​does​ ​not affect​ ​the​ ​finances​ ​of​ ​the​ ​college,​ ​the​ ​karamcharis,​ ​etc ​ ​then​ ​it’s​ ​a​ ​good​ ​thing.​ ​Moreover,​ ​if​ ​the government​ ​is​ ​imposing it,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​little​ ​we​ ​can​ ​do. I​ ​had​ ​this​ ​discussion​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Bursar​, who said​ ​that​ ​there​ ​is​ ​a​ ​new​ ​notification​ ​which specifies​ ​that​ ​the​ ​existing​ ​staff,​ ​the​ ​recruiting​ ​staff,​ ​the​ ​present​ ​batch​ ​of​ ​students​ ​and​ ​the​ ​next​ ​new batch​ ​coming​ ​in​ ​won’t​ ​be​ ​affected​ ​until​ ​and​ ​unless​ ​the ​college​ ​decides​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​a​ ​new​ ​course. So,​ ​if​ ​the​ ​college​ ​were​ ​to​ ​introduce​ ​a​ ​new​ ​department, ​​say​ ​Political​ ​Science,​ ​then​ ​they​ ​have​ ​complete discretion​ ​to​ ​decide​ ​the​ ​fees​ ​for​ ​that​ ​particular​ ​course ​ ​only.​ ​But​ ​as​ ​of​ ​now,​ ​our​ ​college​ ​doesn’t​ ​plan​ ​to do​ ​anything​ ​along​ ​those​ ​lines. The​ ​new​ ​notification​ ​also​ ​says​ ​that​ ​the​ ​University Grants Commission​ ​will​ ​ continue​ ​to​ ​fund​ ​the​ ​college​ ​for​ ​all​ ​existing​ ​courses, as​ ​it​ ​has​ ​till​ ​date. 11. Currently​ ​our​ ​college’s​ ​Union​ ​is​ ​formed​ ​by​ ​electing​ ​the​ ​President​ ​and​ ​the​ ​rest​ ​of​ ​the​ ​team​ ​is​ ​formed at​ ​the​ ​President’s​ ​discretion. ​What​ ​is​ ​your​ ​view​ ​on​ ​a​ ​single​ ​individual​ ​holding​ ​such​ ​power? When​ ​we​ ​say​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Union​ ​doesn’t​ ​have​ ​power,​ ​we​ can’t​ ​say​ ​that​ ​the​ ​President​ ​has​ ​all​ ​the​ ​power. Even​ ​the​ ​constitution​ ​supports​ ​this​ ​statement.​ ​There​ ​is​​ one​ ​elected​ ​member,​ ​the​ ​President,​ ​who​ ​can select​ ​his​ ​own​ ​cabinet. It’s​ ​a​ ​huge​ ​responsibility​ ​for​ ​me, and​ ​will​ ​be​ ​throughout​ the​ ​year.​ ​But​ ​at​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the​ ​day,​ ​it’s​ ​‘Students’ Union​ ​Society’.​ ​So​ ​we​ ​have​ ​to​ ​follow​ ​the​ ​guidelines​ ​as​ ​other​ ​societies​ ​do.​ ​Each​ ​society​ ​has​ ​a President,​ ​a​ ​Vice​ ​President​ ​and​ ​Vertical​ ​Heads,​ ​all​ ​selected​ ​on​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​merit.​ ​The​ ​same​ ​goes​ ​with​ ​the Union.​ ​It​ ​has​ ​different​ ​committees.​ ​All​ ​third​ ​years​ ​and​ ​second​ ​years​ ​work​ ​at​ ​the​ ​same​ ​level. 12. On​ ​the​ ​day​ ​of​ ​Open​ ​Court,​ ​someone​ ​raised​ ​an​ ​allegation ​regarding​​ ​promotion of​ ​regionalism​ ​in college by your camp.​ ​What​ ​do​ ​you​ ​have​ ​to​ ​say​ ​to​ ​that? The​ ​debate​ ​about​ ​regionalism​ ​is​ ​going​ ​on​ ​since​ ​last​ ​year. ​I​ ​really​ ​don’t​ ​know​ ​why​ ​they​ ​think​ ​that​ ​I promoted​ ​regionalism. One​ ​of​ ​my​ ​best​ ​friends​ ​was​ ​stopped​ ​by​ ​a​ ​person​ ​from​ ​another​ ​camp​ ​while​ ​he​ ​was​ ​walking​, ​and​ ​asked who​ ​he​ ​would​ ​vote​ ​for.​ ​When​ ​he​ ​replied​ ​with​ ​my​ ​name, ​they​ ​asked​ ​him​ ​why​ ​he​ ​was​ ​voting​ ​for​ ​a South​ ​Indian,​ ​being​ ​from​ ​North​ ​India. During​ ​Open​ ​Court,​ ​they​ ​started​ ​accusing​ ​me​ ​of​ regionalism​ ​and​ ​showed​ ​some​ ​messages.​ ​Those messages​ ​were​ ​related​ ​to​ ​“mallu​ ​ragging”​ ​and​ ​had no​ connection​ ​to​ ​my​ ​campaign​ ​at​ ​all.​ ​I​ ​could​ ​actually show​ ​that​ ​I​ ​have​ ​a​ ​more​ ​diversified​ ​team​ ​than​ ​the​ ​ other​ ​two​ ​camps​ ​but​ ​I​ ​did​ ​not​ ​want​ ​to​ ​use​ ​the regionalism​ ​card​ ​on​ ​the​ ​day​ ​of​ ​Open​ ​Court. 13. You​ ​have​ ​worked​ ​under​ ​two ​different​ ​presidents.​ ​Do​ ​you​ ​ feel​ ​the​ ​need​ ​to​ ​differentiate​ ​yourself​ ​from them? Elections in my First Year​ ​were​ ​quite​ ​funny​ ​because​ ​there​ ​was​ ​only​ ​one​ ​candidate​ ​standing​ ​for elections.​ ​Later​ ​she​ ​resigned,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​person​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Council​ ​took​ ​charge.​ ​I​ ​mostly​ ​worked​ ​with my​ ​Second​ ​Years​ ​then​ ​which​ ​was​ ​a​ ​really​ ​good​ ​experience.​ ​Coming​ ​to​ ​last​ ​year’s​ ​President,​ ​he​ ​took up​ ​some​ ​initiatives​ ​but​ ​those​ ​did​ ​not​ ​sustain.​ ​I​ ​ really​ ​have​ ​a​ ​great​ ​team​ ​that​ ​has​ ​my​ ​back.​ ​That​ ​is always​ ​been​ ​my​ ​strength.​ ​When​ ​results​ ​were​ ​announced,​ ​I​ ​was​ ​shocked​ ​to​ ​see​ ​such​ ​a​ ​huge​ ​majority. I​ ​feel​ ​more​ ​responsible​ ​after​ ​seeing​ ​such​ ​support​ ​for​ ​me. ​We​ ​might​ ​not​ ​end​ ​up​ ​doing​ ​great​ ​things​ ​but​ ​we​ hope to ​end​ ​up​ ​doing​ ​small ​things​, ​which ​the next​ ​batch​ can ​take​ ​up.​ ​We​ ​never​ ​take​ ​any​ ​one​ ​as​ ​our​ ​ideal​ ​president​ ​or​ ​ideal​ ​team.​ ​This​ ​year​ ​we​ ​want to be​ ​that​ ​ideal​ ​team​ ​which​ ​can​ ​really​ ​work​ ​for​ ​the​ ​ welfare​ ​of​ ​students​ ​and​ ​the​ ​college.​ ​These​ ​small things​ ​which​ ​we​ ​start​ ​now​ ​will​ ​definitely​ ​sustain​ ​when​ ​they​ ​are​ ​taken​ ​up​ ​by​ ​batches​ ​to​ ​come. 14. Are​ ​you​ ​a​ ​feminist?​ ​What​ ​do​ ​you​ ​have​ ​to​ ​say​ ​about​ the​ ​debates that​ ​sparked off​ ​over​ ​feminism​ ​after​ ​Open Court? I​ ​am​ ​a​ ​feminist.​ ​I​ ​don’t​ ​know​ ​much​ ​about​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​feminist​ ​theory​ ​but​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​in​ ​equality.​ ​There were​ ​many​ ​things​ that ​happened​ ​this​ ​year​ ​after​ ​open​ ​court.​ ​​​People​ ​from​ ​other​ ​camps​ ​started​ ​making memes​ ​about​ ​a​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​things which was meaningless. 15. You​ ​mention​ ​the​ ​Sexual​ ​Harassment​ ​Committee​ ​in​ ​the​ ​same​ ​breath​ ​as​ ​LCR,​ ​making​ ​it​ ​a​ ​gender specific​ ​requirement​ ​in​ ​some​ ​ways. What​ ​will​ ​the​ ​constitution​ ​and​ ​the​ ​mechanism​ ​look​ ​like?​ ​How​ ​soon​ ​we​ ​can​ ​expect​ ​it​ ​to be​ ​functional? On​ ​the​ ​day​ ​of​ ​open​ ​court,​ ​I​ ​had​ ​to​ ​cover​ ​many​ ​things​ ​under​ ​5​ ​minutes.​ ​I​ ​mentioned​ ​the​ ​Sexual Harassment​ ​Committee​ ​after​ ​LCR​ ​but​ ​I​ ​realize​ ​that​​ these​ ​two​ ​are​ ​separate​ ​bodies.​ ​I​ ​had​ ​a​ ​meeting with​ ​Joan​ recently​, ​who​ ​is​ ​involved​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Pinjra​ ​Tod​ ​movement.​ ​She​ ​would​ ​help​ ​me​ ​in​ ​further developments​ ​about​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​since​ ​she​ ​particularly​ ​ knows​ ​when​ ​to​ ​have​ ​elections​ ​as mandated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​University.​ ​She​ ​said​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​ prudent​ ​to​ ​have​ ​an​ ​election​ ​at​ ​the​ ​end​ ​of​ ​the month​ ​so​ ​as​ ​to​ ​coincide​ ​with​ ​Pinjra​ ​Tod​ ​movement.​ ​They ​ ​will​ ​send​ ​a​ ​mail​ ​to​ ​each​ ​college representative​ ​to​ ​make​ ​sure​ ​that​ ​elections​ ​happened. ​ ​There​ ​will​ ​be​ ​one​ ​elected​ ​representative​ ​from​ ​the​ ​ students​ ​and​ ​two​ ​staff​ ​members.​ ​The​ ​Principal​ ​will not​ ​be​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Committee.​ ​So​ ​you​ ​can​ ​bring​ ​up​ ​an​ ​ issue​ ​against​ ​anyone,​ ​even​ ​the​ ​Principal.​ ​The present​ ​faculty​ ​member​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Committee​ ​is​ ​not​ ​active. This​ ​year​ ​we​ ​will​ ​have​ ​elections​ ​so​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Committee ​is​ ​more​ ​pro-active and​ ​the​ ​elected representatives​ ​have​ ​a​ ​sense​ ​of​ ​responsibility. Apart​ ​from​ ​this,​ ​we​ ​are​ ​planning​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a​ ​student​ ​counselling​ ​cell.​ ​We​ ​hope​ ​this​ ​will​ ​give​ ​mental support​ ​to​ ​the​ ​students. 16. Do​ ​you​ ​have​ ​plans​ ​to​ ​reintroduce​ ​the​ ​Principal’s​ ​ Tree? I​ ​am​ ​really​ ​not​ ​up​ ​for​ ​it​ ​considering​ ​how​ ​it​​ backfired​ ​last​ ​year​, ​but​ ​it​ ​depends.​ ​There​ ​were​ ​many​​ issues that​ ​were​ ​raised​ ​on​ ​that​ ​day​ ​last​ ​year.​ ​The​ ​curfew​​ issue​ ​was​ ​raised​ ​and​ ​the Principal​ ​asked​ ​us​ ​to​ ​make​ ​plans​ ​for an​ ​open​ ​campus.​ ​We​ ​made​ ​the​ ​plans​ ​but​ ​all​ ​our​ ​work​ ​was​ ​in​ ​vain. 17.What​ ​is​ ​your​ ​take​ ​on​ ​open​ ​campus​ ​and​ ​curfew​ ​situations ​in​ ​campus​ ​now? 10​ ​PM​ ​is​ ​very​ ​restrictive.​ ​​We​ ​can​ ​make​ ​it​ ​an​ ​open ​campus​ ​and​ ​restrict​ ​the​ ​entry​ ​of​ ​outsiders​ ​to ensure​ ​safety.​ ​We​ ​can​ ​also​ ​propose​ ​to​ ​extend​ ​the​ ​ curfew.​ ​I​ ​know​ ​for​ ​the​ ​boys,​ ​curfew​ ​is​ ​not​ ​strict. We​ ​can​ ​take​ ​up​ ​this​ ​issue,​ ​make​ ​a​ ​plan​ ​and​ ​put​ ​it​ ​before​ ​Principal.​ ​It’s​ ​up​ ​to​ ​him​ ​to​ ​accept​ ​it​ ​or​ ​not but​ ​the​ ​plan​ ​should​ ​be​ ​clear​ ​and​ ​convincing.​ ​I​ ​don’t​ ​know​ ​if​ ​everyone​ ​is​ ​fine​ ​with​ ​open​ ​campus​ ​or extending​ ​the​ ​curfew​ ​timings.​ ​I​ ​don’t​ ​think​ ​we​ ​are​ ​not ​ ​safe​ ​after​ ​10.​ ​If​ ​you​ ​are​ ​safe​ ​till​ ​10,​ ​you​ ​will​ ​be safe​ ​after​ ​10​ ​also.​ ​I​ ​also​ ​know​ ​there​ ​are​ ​many​ ​other ​ ​issues​ ​faced​ ​by​ ​residence​ ​students​ ​like application​ ​for​ ​night​ ​outs.​ ​Also​ ​different​ ​blocks​ ​have​ different​ ​rules​ ​so​ ​these​ ​are​ ​things​ ​that​ ​need​ ​to be​ ​changed. 18. So​ ​the​ ​elections​ ​were​ ​held​ ​on​ ​30​th​​ ​August.​​ ​Not​ ​a​ ​significant​ ​amount​ ​of​ ​time​ ​for you​ ​to​ ​start​ ​working​ ​on​ ​your​ ​promises,​ ​but​ ​how​ ​has​ ​ it​ ​been​ ​so​ ​far? In​ ​order​ ​to​ ​declare​ ​my​ ​Cabinet​ ​and​ ​second-year​ ​Council,​ ​the​ ​Executive​ ​Council​ ​results​ ​have​ ​to​ ​be​ ​out because​ ​some​ ​people​ ​from​ ​my​ ​camp​ ​also​ ​contested​ ​for​​ Executive​ ​Council​ ​positions. Apart​ ​from​ ​that,​ ​some​ ​dengue​ ​cases​ ​were​ ​reported,​ ​so​ ​I ​ ​have​ ​spoken​ ​to​ ​the​ ​college​ ​administration regarding​ ​fumigation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​campus.​ ​We​ ​sent​ ​a​ ​notice​ ​ to​ ​the​ ​Municipal​ ​Corporation​ ​of​ ​Delhi​ ​for​ ​the same.​ ​Hopefully​ ​they’ll​ ​be​ ​coming​ ​in​ ​next​ ​week.​ ​In​ ​ another​ ​week​ ​we​ ​should​ ​be​ ​able​ ​to​ ​start​ ​the​ ​Mess and​ ​Cafe​ ​menu.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​had​ ​discussions​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Dean​ ​as​ ​well,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Estate​ ​Office​ ​regarding​ ​the concern​ ​of​ ​cleanliness​ ​in​ ​washrooms.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​also​ ​planned​ ​a​ ​Common​ ​Freshers.

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. Shoma Chaudhury, a noted journalist delivered a lucid lecture on one of the most complex problems grappling the 21st century on August 23, organized by the Planning Forum. Chaudhury spoke of modern times, wherein facts aren’t the ultimate truth, and truth isn’t objective but swayed by emotion and personal belief. As a journalist, Chaudhury has been exposed to a world full of reported truths and lies: The political purposes to bury the former and the veritable verisimilitude of the latter. Her professional hands-on experiences provide a telescoped view of the post-modern world riddled with ironies and paradoxes. As an individual, which narrative must one believe in? Chaudhury dwelt on the importance of a mature public discourse and its two facets. One, the matter of discourse, and second, the public who involves itself in it. The matter of discourse attains some significance with regard to a Post-Truth world, for this discourse is usually biased. “It’s a hard world out there for journalists”, she says. Journalism is not valued enough; people need to pay for their news. Highly underpaid by the public, it becomes difficult for news houses to sustain themselves, and they fall back on sponsors who influence the reported matter to suit their benefit. Thus, the matter of discourse which depends on the news, is often biased at the source. Since journalists do end up shaping public opinion, they should not refrain from doing so. Journalism should be subjective, but fair, accommodating all sides, and finally operating to the needs of society. Thus, even by the manner of arranging facts in an article, journalists can bring out their views clearly and then arrive at their own truth. Talking of the public, she mentioned that a demarcated public space is central to the idea of modernity. These public spaces are important non-state actors, with an influence over the power structures. But how does one become part of this larger discourse? It is “by keeping an open-mind, by finding fault in your own rhetoric”, Chaudhury suggests. She believes, we are so often swayed by our personal ideologies that we completely disregard the opposition’s views; and this is dangerous, for we may eschew certain (un)agreeable points. This is how right-wing extremist political organisations develop, she says- over time, their ideologies become increasingly rigid and lead to fascist establishments. The problem with the political discourse, she said, is the lack of a centre- there is no balance, one side ends up overpowering the other. In this Post-Truth, Post-Scientific world, facts don’t matter anymore. Emotions can transcend into bigger and perhaps, violent outcomes. The case of Babri Masjid demolition, and the Taslima Nasreen protests best explain portrayal of distorted facts and the existence of an immature political discourse which is both problematic and hazardous to the society. Speaking of portrayal of facts, Choudhary mentioned that even research in a Post-Truth world is profit-centered to the extent that hypotheses become theories without reliable facts to validate them. In this scenario thus, it becomes hard to choose your beliefs. One’s outlook hence becomes important. Chaudhury says, “Have the courage to be a radical in your views”, exist in a complex zone, acknowledge differences, for this is the hardest age to live in, amidst climate change, high levels of unemployment and a huge information explosion. Thus, she says that a single person’s resistance makes all the difference in this post-truth world. Chaudhury believes in the power of an individual- a single individual can stand up in the face of resistance and bring about a change. It’s time for us to step out of our prosaic chambers, our self-constructed bubbles and meet people who don’t conform to our beliefs. Addressing a young audience, Chaudhary explained this phenomenon through the most (over)used social media platform- Facebook. Like it is known, Facebook regulates the posts we see based on our preferences. This, she believes, has a negative effect because one does not end up exploring or reading about conflicting ideas, but has a more monolithic view of society. Therefore, she urges one to be proactive and to seek complexity in life- after all, a feature of the post-truth world is that it’s no longer divided solely into black or white. The talk remains significant in the discourse of contemporary times. Chaudhury highlights important matters: Resistance, radicalism, creation of a public space and quite importantly, biases. She summed up the essence of a post-truth world, saying that it is a world swayed by feelings and emotions, driven by the thirst for power leading to a lack of justice in a lot of cases. Thus, power becomes less pragmatic, and follows the frenzy rhetoric of the general mood, which one requires to identify and resist. Featured Image by: Aarzoo Jolly, 1st English

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. In his first piece for the Stephanian Forum, Nitish Vasav delivers an acerbic message about people in college. I made my way out of choking rooms full of people—full of people full of themselves, who as usual, had their timidity to cover it up; quite like the average Economics classroom in St. Stephen’s. However, this was a party fortunately and it was just the smoke. Cynicism aside for a bit, it was a good party with good folks. I left the party feeling weird. The replacements were lovely, but they are replacements after all. In the slowest way, a blow can possibly crush you; people you begin looking up to are extricated from familiar spaces—the café, the lawns and corridors, to be replaced by people you look down upon (only to love more dearly later). While I am mostly ranting in this article that might disguise itself under the garb of critical commentary, I am also writing this in the hope that the new students don’t fall face first, down the vortex that college can be. Let’s take a step back before we return to this. The outgoing batch was delightfully old school—reminiscent of old plays and Urdu poetry, with strange solidarity that would manifest in groups like the Mess Bench. And now, post the transition of two batches, behold the kids who are as millennial as they come in 2017. ‘Lit af’ is the new ‘Brilliant’ and well, this diverse and enthusiastic bunch of people seems rather lit af. Eclectic and promising but I don’t think that’s quite how it works here. Over the course of a few months, all the eagerness and enthusiasm is suppressed. It starts with pathetic attempts to “get to know your juniors” through what we call ‘Intros’—the most insipid possible way to welcome the new members of college. This annual cycle of subtly oppressive “humour” is just about as funny as the occasional excuse of a joke you hear in the morning assembly. Ah there, there, there. Through generous injections of dread about assemblies and timings and rules and teachers, we begin to chip parts off the first years, but it doesn’t help to lay out the worst picture. Step 2 is a process of weird socialization where the incoming first years are slowly forced to fit the trope of a ‘College Kid’. Don’t be too excited. Don’t have it all figured out. All you’re allowed to have is sleeplessness and loads of coffee. Well, the last part is brilliant but my point still holds (without even getting to debauchery domination). Some people shall force the to-hell-with-it-all attitude down your throats, I mean that’s the tune of the times (quite literally, cue “Yahi umar hai karle galti se mistake“). Stuck in the sludge of mediocrity, these people, maybe through the best of intentions, are set to drag you in. Newtonian Laws don’t apply here for the further you are from dread, mediocrity, and general meh-ness, the more the sludge draws you in. Anything new, anything that’s out there and not hiding in the shadows is met with such harsh reactions that it would put the toxicity of the Chemistry Lab dump to shame. Now, the Elections and the Open Court. Let’s have a glance at a largely ignored side of this game—us. Nobody seems to care about which candidate is better addressing an administration that’s using its power in ways akin to governments around the world today, or whose leadership would be most effective. They do however care about personal histories and regionalism. Engaging in meaningful dialogue and identifying areas that demand immediate attention does not seem to matter. All that people are here for are gaffes in the Open Court which will give them at least something to talk about until next year. Well, the only court for most people is not the one where leaders sit but where jesters do, because that’s what they try to make of the candidates. Whenever there’s someone who takes a step forward, we pull them down with the entire pressure that our lack of balls creates—in the classroom, with first years whose excitement we slowly kill and more recently, with the three candidates whose dedication we brought down with debates on regionalism and bad-memes-that-in-no-way-contribute-to-the-political-discourse-we-need. Before this gets more political and we begin to discuss how fruitful fruit shops are, and how alarming monkey alarms can be, let’s reverse this deviation. This article was never meant to convey an explicit message in the end but oops, don’t we all preach at the slightest chance? At first, I wanted to end it on a sparkling note of how despite everything, we thrive and shine because of the indomitable spirit of Stephania. However, this is more about people acting at their worst sometimes and there is no thriving and shining at the end of generally downward paths. But hey, college isn’t an endless void, it is the endless expanse of a magnificent ocean so go on, be a sailor, a pirate or maybe just a plankton but for heaven’s sake, don’t be a mindless sponge. You are brilliant and special and amazing and *chokes on cheese* yeah, you’re fantastic the way you are so go do your thing. If you are reading this, especially if college has just started for you, and even partially understand what I mean by this suffocation, pulling down and forcing of the to-hell-with-it-all attitude, do exactly that. Featured Image credits: Julie Mehretu.

Disclaimer: The Stephanian Forum does not take any institutional position on its content and would like to inform readers that the views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in the text belong solely to the author. I happened to watch a reality game show on a leading television channel during the semester break at home in Cochin. The show involved the game’s protagonist choosing an opponent of their choice at every level of the game. The episode I watched was that of a young man who was doing remarkably well, but what made me notice him was that he chose a lady in the first level of the game (that is not what grabbed my attention) saying, “Ladies first” (that statement made me sit up). He did defeat that female contestant and in the next two levels too, he chose female contestants, citing reasons from how it would be easier to beat lady opponents, to some phenomenon he called ‘lady luck’. He was not impolite, but patriarchy was evident in his language, in forms that most people tend to overlook (which is a problem in itself). Social networks and communal bonds were forged centuries ago out of an intuitive sense of belonging to individuals we could communicate with easily. It was later, in the post-Renaissance period, that the ideas of nationhood and nationalism, emerged from these linguistic identities. Most anthropologists and linguists agree that it is communication that gives rise to language, not the other way round. It is humanity’s ardent desire to communicate with the fellow members of the species, which gave rise to language, which has evolved into different types, dialects and sub-dialects today. The earliest example of linguistic nationalism is that of the ancient Greeks, who distinguished themselves as a nation or ethnic community, because they spoke a language different from the Barbarians, whose communication was still primeval in nature as compared to them. Modern nation states in Europe were established primarily on linguistic grounds. In India, Andhra Pradesh became the first state to be formed based on language in 1953. Languages are flags of allegiance in today’s world, often being imposed on communities and tribes to reinforce or establish larger identities, say that of a nation. That is another book in itself. Coming back to the reality game show episode I witnessed, it was a clear example of language reflecting a social fact, which is the deep-rooted presence of patriarchy in our society. It has been through my interactions with students from across the country in my college, which led me to understand the politics of language– the sexism that still exists in modern language, the racism in etymology and colloquial terminology, the vestiges of the caste system in our native tongues- perspectives which I would not have realized if I did not have the good fortune of exposing myself to different groups of people. We might wonder what is wrong with telling a lady to do any activity first (we are told that it is gentlemanly and chivalrous- I would probably have been remarking so even today, if not for the lucky opportunities to broaden my mind), but what we often fail to realize is that such phrases and terms are subtle messages we (un)intentionally convey. …today I think twice before cracking jokes or reviewing movies– there is a lot more to language than what we hear or read. Ukrainian poster depicting a German soldier protecting a Ukrainian woman; targeted at colonists of the Reichsgau Wartheland The terms ‘gentlemanly’ and ‘chivalrous’ entered the English language since the time of ‘knights in shining armour’ and ever since connote the apparent responsibility of a man to protect the woman he is with or to let the female companions speak first, supposedly because men are stronger or capable enough to wait patiently and consider the task the lady must perform. These are archaic, patriarchal notions reeking of the supposedly ‘masculine’ qualities of intelligence and strength and resilience, compared to the ‘feminine’ traits of frailty and dependence and beauty – none of which can be attributed to any one gender. These traits and qualities vary from individual to individual, irrespective of gender, and the continued use of such terms like the ‘fairer sex’ to denote women or the use of the word ‘mankind’ to denote the human species is deplorable and deadly. They propagate the dominance of a gender or disseminate the characterization of a gender with traits in our subconscious minds. Examples abound in almost all languages, especially in English include- a ‘master’ has positive connotations, but nobody says they work for their ‘mistress’; there is a ‘chairman’, and a female chairman (pardon the terminology, English vocabulary does not help) is referred to as a ‘chairperson’. Our proverbs and pop culture references, not to mention the language used in the media, are abound with gender discrimination once we start looking for them. Racism still permeates our language, and the Varna system hides itself cleverly in Indian languages, most of them having originated from Sanskrit. We may not be racists or casteists, but the language we use often are, and do harm by reinforcing those notions. That is why today I think twice before cracking jokes or reviewing movies– there is a lot more to language than what we hear or read. We live in a post-truth world, where political leaders march to power by cleverly manipulating the politics of language. Language is one of the most important tools of propaganda, and has been used and is still being used as method of thought control. In his masterpiece ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, George Orwell establishes ‘Newspeak’ as the official language of Oceania, devised to meet the ideological needs of the ruling dispensation. Leading articles and mass media use Newspeak, which is predicted to overtake ‘Oldspeak’ by 2050. The biggest advantage of Newspeak was to provide a unified medium of communication worldwide, making all other methods of thought impossible. Information and ideas in other languages are being systematically erased with the imposition of Newspeak in Oceania, thereby using it as a powerful tool of propaganda. Orwell writes how the word ‘free’ in Oceania meant the usage in ‘Dogs are free of lice’ and not political freedom, which used a new term ‘Crimethink’. Today, there is a manufacture of consent (Chomsky) which political and corporate powers achieve to stifle dissent, by articulating the way we view various happenings around the world in linguistic terms, that convey the dominant thought, suppressing subaltern opinions. We live in a post-truth world, where political leaders march to power by cleverly manipulating the politics of language. When demonetisation can be represented as an economic class uprising to win elections, and a President can be elected by using language that conveys fear of the immigrants, coupled with catchy slogans to reinforce identities, we realise that language plays an important role in shaping our thoughts and actions. ‘Azaadi’ means freedom, and today communities need to gain freedom from poverty, from oppression, from discrimination. But the mainstream thought in India has converted ‘azaadi’, at the behest of forces powerful enough, into a word denoting sedition and ‘anti-nationalism’. I personally know of students who are today uncomfortable with shouting ‘azaadi’ from any legitimate oppression, because of its links to Kashmiri politics and so-called anti-nationalism. The usage of terms like terrorists and martyrs, vary as per perspective of the concerned communities, and the rise of a dominant use of a term changes the politics of that term. Violence can never be condoned, and if Hamas soldiers who attack Israel are terrorists, then why are Israeli soldiers who forcibly displace Palestinians and kill innocent civilians in their own land, not branded so? A Delhi University student, Gurmehar Kaur, rightly pointed out that her decorated Army Captain father was killed by War, not by Pakistan. This logical, rational statement saw anger and hatred spewed by trolls, and even adverse comments from politicians and celebrities. She left Delhi when she started receiving rape threats (Welcome to 21st century India). If there is one thing I learnt over the years, it has been to constantly try to question the language used and the information which is bombarded at me, every day, by people and by the media. I believe it is important to ensure that we do not fall prey to the propaganda traps of mainstream language, and we refrain from propagating social evils like patriarchy and racism, even subtly, through words oral and written. It is never possible to change the system by changing language (which in itself is never perfect, with all of us unknowingly using subtle terms of patriarchy or elitism, however hard we try), because language reflects the society. As a writer pointed out, ultimately even if we change linguistic convention to use only ‘chairperson’, it does not change the fact that more men occupy the position than women. But it surely is a start. It is time to start looking out for a lot more than to cross the t’s and dot the i’s. And as Martin Osborne, an economist, wrote in the foreword to his Game Theory textbook which we learn, I shall henceforth use ‘she’ to denote an individual in general terms as the dominant convention exceedingly favours the men, and we can do our small part to prevent language from propagating patriarchy. Acknowledgements: Gratitude is in order to the Gender Studies Cell and Planning Forum at my college, my college library, and my politically motivated fellow batchmates.