Of Babas and Black magic

It was Saturday. Since I was all worn-out with the gone week’s work, I was hoping to get some rest or visit some new place. I had heard a lot about the mythical hanuman temple in Connaught place. It is believed that pandavas built this temple in mahabharata period. Thus, I decided to give this much-talked place a visit. It was a sunny day but more or less the shani(lord shani is considered the brutal judge who punishes harshly for wrongdoings in Hindu religion)day. I reached the mandir in afternoon around 2 p.m. I bought ladoos, went inside and worshipped in front of the idol. After performing the necessary rituals, I left the temple. While descending down the stairs, I saw few babas in their colorful robes occupying the corners.

 Suddenly when I turned my back towards the temple, a voice called from behind. I turned back to find an old man dressed in a stark black robe, his head covered in a red cloth looking in my direction. I went up to him only to find him enquiring about my health. I was a little perplexed, but then I replied that I was in pink of health these days. He again asked whether I was ill a few days back. Now Delhi has a very harsh weather, which can affect people with very high immunity also. Besides a week ago I had been a little ill so I replied to the baba in affirmative. I could feel his confidence rising since he had got my answer.

 Then the conversation moved to my family. He started telling me very personal things about the passing away of my grandfather this year, and my parents being in a little trouble at this and that time of the year. I was astonished. He also mentioned about I being the eldest child of my parents. He enquired whether I have a younger brother to which I again replied positively. Now I had gone to the mandir with my brother. I doubt he must have seen him or deduced it in some way. Though I have heard of various people’s encounters with babas, I had never encountered one myself. I did not know how to react and what to say, since I was so flabbergasted with what I was hearing. Now it was my turn to question. I asked him about how he knew all these things. He ignored my question with a stern face and continued with what he had to say. He now began talking about how this Diwali is going to be ill-fated for me and my family. His last prophecy was that on the day of Diwali either my parents or their children are going to die. I was utterly stunned. I then asked him what made him say so and he blamed the planetary stars for such happening. I was speechless and couldn’t ask for more. Sensing my silence he said that there is a chauraha(where roads meet from four directions) near your house where you will find a Peepal tree. Beside it lay a red cloth which somebody from your family has planted. Dig that out and get it removed otherwise the ill-fate will continue to hover over you and your family. He even mentioned the description of a person who could have possibly done this citing that it was a woman of the family. Saying all this he became silent. I turned over to find my brother calling me. I began to leave and found that baba had left too. I did not try to search for him.

Now I have never believed in these things. Since childhood I have been raised in a certain environment where black magic (totkas) and their likes are considered foolish and for people who don’t believe in karma. Of course my parents are religious people, but they have always been driven by logic and reason and have taught us the same. But this encounter with baba was beginning to wash away all the reason my parents had taught us. I told my brother about the incident and he was equally scared. Like two shocked siblings, we hurriedly reached home and told our parents. We were a little unsure to tell them as they might just dismiss it and not pay heed. But ultimately we did. After listening to the whole conversation, they started reprimanding us about meeting that baba. They began with every logic and reason they could give to calm us and dismiss it as stupidity. They quoted various examples and instances to make us understand. It obviously helped us a little but both of us (me and my brother) were still unsure as to what will happen. Few days passed and we forgot the incident.

Finally the doomsday came. Diwali began with everybody wishing each other and exchanging gifts. I was again reminded of that incident. I was eager to find out whether the baba was correct about his prophecies. Nothing happened; we celebrated Diwali, albeit a low-key affair since my grandfather had passed away this year. During night while lighting up diyas, my father said “its diwali and we are all alive” to which we all laughed heartily.

Pandita Ramabai

The concept of feminism is a hot cake in the contemporary world. It appears as if everyone has suddenly realized how imperative it is for women to have equal status as men. The so-called superior men are full of sympathy and remorse over what has happened in the past and are ready to correct their mistakes. So they have taken to various means of communication to create awareness among their fellow homosapiens. Women in large nos. have also been included in this correct-the-wrongful campaign. Amidst all this dreary process, they keep yelling that we are empowering women. But has something changed. Ask anyone and I am indisputably sure that the answer will not be in affirmative. The cataloging of women as ‘the weaker sex’ has been so deeply embedded in our society (when I say society, it is not just Indian society, but the world over) that instead of loosening it keeps on strengthening with each new day. To address this one cause, feminism as an ideology came into being. Feminist ideology basically has two aspects:  1) private is political, 2) the intrinsic traits of women like full of empathy, cooperative, caring etc. have not been eulogized. They make a clear distinction between the characteristics of men and women. However, this is where I disagree with them because generalizing the characteristics is not correct. There are many men who share some of the characteristics which feminists have already reserved for women and vice-versa. Even after many disagreements with them, I am undeniably sensitive to their cause.

It is believed that the concept of feminism like various other concepts has been imported from the west. Everyone only remember the contribution of western feminists or thinkers. Here they often tend to forget the strong headed and determined Indian woman who championed this cause at a time when the females were treated as merely an object for sexual gratification and a machine for producing sons. It needed a lot of courage will power to stand against an extremely conservative society where supremacy of men was considered natural. Pandita ramabai was an ordinary woman who adopted extraordinary ways to awaken the society from its slumber. The renowned nationalist and respected freedom fighter Bal Gangadhar Tilak once said “ a man who finds his cow wandering about and puts a rope around her neck and brings her home is not liable to a law suit. The Hindu religion considers a woman to be on par with property and cattle”. There is no doubt in the fact that everyone shared his views. Since the inception of a girl’s life, she was taught that she was inferior vis-à-vis her brothers. Her life was confined to the insides of the house, whereas her brothers were encouraged to go out. When she attained puberty she was married, mostly to men much older to her where she again had to remain meek and gentle and serve her husband with all her strength. She was then widowed at an early age. The life for widow was more painful and suffocating. And this is how her life ended.

Such wide differences between the genders were prevalent and one who did not abide by it (very rare) was ostracized from the society. Here it is required to differentiate between gender and sex which is usually taken to be synonymous. Sex is a biological identity whereas gender is a social identity. Stereotypes and prejudices about gender are created in ignorant societies. Simon de Beauvoir rightly said “one is not born, but becomes woman”. In the 19^th century colonized India, this was the condition of half of the population. It may sound strange but the fact was none of the women protested. In fact they considered it their “saubhagya”(good destiny) to cater to everyone’s need and provide selfless service to different people at various stages of her life. The brahmanical system had manipulated shastras and other ancient texts in such a way that women and lower castes were to be controlled by upper castes men throughout their life without uttering a word. However, ramabai was a non-conformist. Her upbringing can be attributed for such an outlook. Her father was keenly interested in teaching Sanskrit texts to women. For this defying act he was boycotted from the society. A major part of Ramabai’s life was spent wandering here and there. After the subsequent death of her parents and siblings, she came to Calcutta. This city was going through its phase of renaissance and had become a hub of intellectuals and reformers. After they got to know that she is educated they welcomed her with open arms because they had found a living embodiment of ‘their’ perception of Indian womanhood whom they could present as an example in the society.

It was in Calcutta that she read the ancient texts and became aware of various obligations put on women. This triggered her to take one of the most audacious and challenging step of marrying a man from shudra caste. This earned extreme criticism. After an early widowhood she came back to Maharashtra, the home of her ancestors. Post-widowhood women were expected to live a secluded life. But, non-conformist as she was, she became more involved in public activities. She began setting up Arya Mahila Sabhas, a forum for women to meet and discuss various issues. During this time she appeared before the Hunter commission debating the issue of women’s education. Perhaps she was the first woman to advocate education for women so fiercely. It is to her credit that British formed a curriculum for both men and women in India. She believed that chief needs of high caste Hindu women were self reliance, education and native women teachers. In 1887 she wrote her most famous work, the high-caste Hindu women where she discussed at length about the plight of Indian women. In her later years she got converted to Christianity as her views could not find solace in Hinduism. This again earned criticism with people questioning her character and calling her anti-national. However very early she had a tiff with church authorities when they tried to dictate certain conditions to her. A woman with her “own strong mind” was rare those days.

She established sharda sadan (widow’s home) and mukti sadan in 1899 and 1897 respectively despite various condemnations. It is sad how liberal reformers like Ranade, Karve and others shared the same perspective as conservative women. Though they supported education for women, they wanted her to be controlled by a father, a husband and a son at various stages of her life. The manusmriti completely dictated the social codes and practices. Gradually she realized that the condition of women was to remain pathetic if they remained subservient to men either British or Indian. She advocated that empowerment of women was very much related to nation-building. She linked colonization of India to subjugation of women which is definitely true.

Nine decades after her death we still seem to be struggling with the same set of issues. D K Karve said at her centenary in 1958 that it is our own fault that this great women like Dr. Ambedkar was lost to the Hindu religion.  Whenever we begin talking about Indian women we start giving age old examples of Gargi and Maitreyi or we start eulogizing Sita and Savitri who are considered the epitome of womanhood. Why is Draupadi absent from this ideal women category? To quote Dr. Lohia, it is draupadi who should be an ideal for Indian women, a woman who could raise her voice against the injustice being done to her. Ramabai joined this female bandwagon much late, but she is not much talked about. Even GOOGLE which has tons of information on any topic in this universe does not include her in the list of Indian feminists or a feminist thinker. Why? Probably because she does not fit into the category of an ideal woman which the patriarchal system approves of and will ever be able to.

India has moved a long distance from her time. There has been a whole lot of new things like widow remarriage, prohibition of child marriage, abolition of sati, right to inheritance of property and most importantly right to education for all. Women now work, go out and are trying to be independent. But the process of oppression has not stopped. Now-a-days women are exploited in the name of empowerment. Evils like dowry which is a blot on our society continues. Educated and civilized strata of the society engage into this without any qualms. The Indian constitution guarantees the right to inheritance of property by women but how many women actually exercise this right. The concept of men as insider and woman as outsider who will go to some other place post-marriage is still considered very much appropriate.

Feminism is not about women hating men. It is about the anti-female psychological setup which needs to be attacked. 33 per cent reservation for women in parliament won’t empower them, giving them equal opportunity since birth will. This fight can only be won psychologically when people break the shackles of their prejudiced mindset.  Referring to western thinkers is not required to shape our ideas. Pandita Ramabai has long ago preached about the pre-requisites of a harmonious and equal society. Even if we are able to accomplish an ounce of what she wanted, it will be a real tribute to what this phenomenal woman stood for. This is what our country needs right NOW.

A comparative view on Justice.

 From commencing of human civilization to the advent of globalization, justice has remained a widely contested concept. Various thinkers have worked their finger to the bone to unravel as to what it really is. The world we dwell in does not possess enough material, physical and social resources to satiate its booming population. This gives rise to various inequalities which ultimately lead to injustice. One is reminded of Mahatma Gandhi here when he said that “this world has enough for everyone’s need but not for one person’s greed”. The multi-dimensional statement speaks volumes about the concept. In the western political thought there have been various thinkers who have theorized on the concept, but hitherto there has not been one supreme concept of justice. Hegel believed that once a concept becomes supreme, it becomes stagnant also which leads to its destruction. So, this process of questioning and requisition each idea is necessary for making it richer and diverse. I try here to compare modern theory of justice to the teacher of father of political studies which speaks volumes about the indispensability of both the theories.

What is inequality is a question which has always been decided by the society. A lion sleeps for 18 hours and is termed the king of the jungle, whereas a donkey works for 20 hours and we all know what donkey is synonymous to. So, this group called society plays a very important role. This is one thing which has completely remained unchanged since ancient times. Plato, first person to officially begin talking about the significance of justice has built a very interesting theory around the concept. He did a simple three-fold division of society on the basis of three characteristics: appetite, courage and wisdom. He then assigned people to these three different categories. So, the person high on appetite became the producing class who was to produce for the state. The one high on courage became the warrior class who was to look after security of the state and lastly the one high on wisdom became the philosopher king who was to rule over the state. Breaking down of this order, Plato believed would lead to injustice. Basically what he meant was that if every person carries out their assigned duty, which is according to her/his capabilities, then justice will be maintained in the society. It is not as easy as it sounds.  Now there is one of the tenets of modern theory of justice, which is called the procedural theory. In simple terms, it does not distinguish between production and distribution. One of the proponents of this theory is Robert Nozick. He believes that state should be a minimal one and all the emphasis should be put on the individual unlike Plato. In his book, anarchy state and utopia he argues that individual property holdings are just if they are a consequence of fair acquisition or even transfer. There is no specific category for Nozick’s individual.

But Plato definitely has a category for this individual. This category is the producing class who has the right to keep property. However, Plato does not allow the warrior class and philosopher king to keep the property. Promoting the capitalist ideology further, Nozick says that procedural theory is based on a close association with the market economy. Any attempt to tamper with the market, would be detrimental. Plato replaced the market in above statement with the state. With changing times Plato’s state has become the market. John Rawls in ‘a theory of justice’ tries to lessen the difference between the modern concepts of procedural and distributive theories of justice. While the former propagated strongly by Nozick, Hayek and Friedman believes that it is necessary to determine a just procedure for allocation of social advantages, the latter believes that the distribution of social advantages in itself should be just. The proponents of latter are Amartya Sen, Martha Nobaussaum and others. Rawls believes that justice should definitely be a benefit to the least advantaged section of society. Plato does not believe so. He definitely allows the third class of society to keep property and family. But it is questionable whether this is an advantage.

In Plato’s theory, forms come to play a major role. He believes that usually people have a distorted form of the concept which is unreal. He explains it with an allegory. He places the individuals inside a cave where they are chained and are sitting with their back towards the wall. There is fire burning at their back which they can’t see but they can see shadows on the front wall. These people he says do not have any knowledge and they consider what they are seeing to be real, which is an illusion. He then frees them and introduces them with fire. Their level of knowledge increases slightly but they are still inside the darkness of the cave. Now, few of them are taken out and for the first time they see the sun which Plato believes is the sign of goodness. These few possess the highest level of knowledge and are called philosopher kings. They are the only ones who realize that justice is in minding your own business, thus making them fit to rule. It is interesting to note that Rawls also uses a hypothetical situation to explain his concept. He places individuals under the ‘veil of ignorance’ which he calls the original position. They are unaware of themselves and their interests but these individuals, he says, possess an elementary knowledge of economics, psychology and sense of justice. Probably these individuals are the same ones who came out of Plato’s cave and understood justice. He says that these people would be self-interested, unlike Plato’s individuals who went back to cave to rescue their fellow beings out of darkness. According to Rawls his individuals will follow the principles of justice which he gives. However, both Plato and Rawls seem to agree on one thing, apart from placing individuals at places, that is individuals should get equal opportunities and chances irrespective of their class.

Plato’s whole sense of justice is based on two ideas: an ideal education system and communism of property and family. His education system is basically to identify philosopher king. It is completely regulated by the state. For him, education is important for realization of justice. It is also a process to assign individuals to their respective classes. Education to modern theorists is not indispensable in their respective theories. Probably because with so much advancement and progress, they consider it for given that education is necessary. Plato gives the concept of communism of property and family. He says that these two institutions give rise to various desires in a person. He identifies desire as the root cause of the larger evil. It leads to corruption and ignorance of state which Plato completely despises. Nozick however justifies owning of property with his excessive focus on individualism. Rawls comes to his rescue and gives a combination of both procedural and distributive theories stating that least advantaged should always be taken care of. In fact desire is at the very root of modern theory. All the modern thinkers on justice want to find out how property which is a narrow term for resources should be judiciously distributed. Plato sound too ideal in his concept. Somewhere, he ignores the basic human nature.

Another more humane and pragmatic modern thinker is Amartya Sen who says that instead of searching for ideal justice, stress should be on removing more visible form of injustices such as subjugation of women, poverty, malnutrition etc. He criticizes Rawls for generalizing the human nature. It is to be noted here that all the political thinkers who have hitherto conceptualized justice have always prescribed how an ideal just state or society is to be. They often forget to prescribe solutions for the existing ills in the society. Even Plato is silent on this. During his time, there was excessive corruption and instability in Athens. Instead of trying to theoretically cure these ills, he altogether gave a theory as to how the state should be. Amartya Sen then stands ahead of them in this respect. To quote him, the Indian philosophy has always made a distinction between institutional justice (niti) and actual realization of justice (nyaya). Plato and other western thinkers do not distinguish between the principle of justice and delivery of justice. Why Plato sounds silent on few issues raised by modern thinkers and vice-versa is definitely debatable. To this context one answer could be that when Plato was writing he was referring to small city-states whose population might be today’s colonies. Modern thinkers whereas had a different world in front of them which was characterized by booming population, large areas and various ills afflicted on the society.

After a comparative study on the afore-mentioned facts, it is clear that the concept of justice is an area of extensive discussion and controversy. Sometimes humans have changed it and sometimes state has manipulated according to its convenience. Plato’s focus on education sounds very relevant in the contemporary world. But his concept is applicable only on the philosopher king who is endowed with all the rights. Modern day’s government has changed from monarchy to democracy where usually there is separation of power between executive, legislature and judiciary. Plato does not speak much on punishment. The modern theory which has restorative and retributive concepts on justice provides extensive details of how a person who commits crime is to be punished. Punishment is obligatory to the concept. Justice provides a base on which other concepts like liberty, equality and others nurture. It is a dynamic, heterogeneous and multi-dimensional concept. The system of justice should be constantly analyzed and interpreted to maintain its significance and authenticity. With changing times, the concept has evolved, expanded and enriched itself. And in its ever-changing form, lies its beauty.

Frailty thy name is not woman

The “mainstream” section of the world has always believed women to be an antonym of power. They have very carefully segregated women from the power-sharing and policy-making process. We live in bizarre times. We preach that women should be respected and worshipped on one hand and on the other we try all possible ways to snatch every ounce of respect from her. Women are submissive, they cannot think logically, they cannot run corporate houses, and their decision is always guided by emotion and other numerous illogical, baseless myths are deeply rooted in our societies.

You might be living in hegemonic US or a tiny Bhutan, one thing that does not change is the plight of women. Our ancestors from Paleolithic age paid more respect to women than we do now in our so-called modern age. We plant praises on us for excelling in every field possible and we do not even give a minute of our thinking to the state of half of the population of our world. On the name of empowering women we do various kinds of senseless activities and the pseudo-feminists become enlivened and think that “yeah! The women have been strengthened .now we can go and enjoy”. And they forget in the process of this excitement that instead of strengthening women they have once again been successfully marginalized without even realizing. Every now and then the modes of mass communication notify us that particular women went to the space station and made a record or other women went on to become the most powerful (politically) in the world. But do we ever notice that the percentage of this particular group of women who are breaking records is so low. Also there are so many huge incidents where women are disrobed of her dignity and her self-respect everyday and contrastingly the percentage of women falling in the latter category is considerably high.

History is witness to the fact that the arena of politics has always been heavily dominated by men. Few women have managed to reach the top most positions and even today this number remains less. There has been unwritten code which separates the area of public and private sphere. Masculinity, it is believed is suitable to public and political spaces and feminity is an attribute of the private sphere. And with this unreal separation, begins the separation of women from political life. They are made to believe that they are most suitable for a private life, a life where she is the queen of a house and has few ‘left-out’ rights. Simon de Beauvoir was definitely correct when she said “Women are not born, they are made”. So this newly ‘made women’ is not made aware of her rights and the contributions she can make to the society. She is made to believe that only when she brings few masculine traits in herself, can she achieve her political ambitions and be recognized in the society. There are many political women who have tried to act and behave like their male counterparts when in power. Difference feminists might agree with me here because behaving like a woman if you are one is not a sign of weakness, it is sign of valuing yourself as a woman.

Mary Wollstonecraft who is credited with publishing ‘A vindication of rights of women’, the first great feminist treatise mentioned in her work that “It would be an endless task to trace the variety of meannesses, cares, and sorrows, into which women are plunged by the prevailing opinion, that they were created rather to feel than reason, and that all the power they obtain, must be obtained by their charms and weakness”.  In contemporary times we have come up with providing affirmative action to women to uplift their status in the society. The Indian parliament has still not been able to pass the women’s reservation bill which will provide 33% of seats reserved for women. Let me take an opportunity here to ask my esteemed political leaders and other supporters of this bill that will women become equal or bag a fair share in the political arena. Or will they become suddenly strengthened and receive a fair treatment in the society. They might answer in affirmative but all of us are aware that this can’t happen. Give her sound education, treat her like you treat your son, and support her in times of need and she would surprise you with the things that she can accomplish.

In our country where we always act vociferous about rights of women, the political parties themselves show a shameful picture. The oldest party congress which is led by a women leader has only 10% of women political leaders in the party, whereas its rival the BJP has only 7% of women’s representation. Women are either sided to a woman’s wing group or they are made to pay heed on women’s related issues for e.g.: they are given the family planning department or the child care department. The most recent incident I witnessed was during the Delhi gang rape case. Every political party came out with their women spokesperson to offer condolences to the family of the victim and show their saddened faces which is usually dominated by men spokespersons. The scenario became more appalling when the issue was discussed in the parliament and only women political leaders read out their long written speeches whereas their male counterparts were seen yawning and stretching themselves as if they were listening to some old boring video.

The need of our times is not to make women feel as a victim or sympathize with them but to look after them since the time of their birth and be amazed with their unexpected achievements. And to all the women out there, I would like to quote Roseanne Berr, and she says “The thing women have yet to learn is nobody gives you power. You just have to take it”. Do not wait for somebody to come and award you with something, what is rightfully yours will always be yours.

Playing like a woman

How many women sportsperson we have in our highly populated country? In a country where women form half of the population, the representation of women in sports shows a shameful ratio.  It might be termed as the lack of sports culture in our society or the conservative- mindset sprouted idea. The problem arises with the separation of public and private spheres. Men work out, they can go around merry-making, play, and waste their time endlessly and nobody questions them. But when a woman does the same thing she is called names. Because if it is a woman she has to look after the home and her family, anything she does apart from this is mere nuisance. We might have moved ahead and put on the counterpane of modernity but this mindset remains alive somewhere or the other in our brain and waits for the correct moment to make an entry publically.

Women have never been active in sports. One might say that women themselves do not show any interest in games or sports and they prefer other things more. But with this argument shall we believe that men are born with an interest for sports. Their interest is created. Nothing is born with a child. A child is molded in a particular form by parents. Men are always encouraged to participate in sports and roam around but unfortunately the same is not with woman. The problem with us is that we have firmly accepted that so and so qualities are associated with men and so and so with women. Any child which does not follow these prevalent terms is called abnormal. Why women can’t be supported to play and play more. Will it lessen their womanly qualities or is the male clan scared that they might have a competition. It might be possible that men’s chauvinism may be at stake and they don’t want to lose their superiority. This senseless belief that men’s superiority can’t be questioned and women have to act subservient to them is highly detestable. Even if few parents do not discriminate and encourage their girl child to make a career in sports, the facilities available are so limited and scarce enough to shake one’s determination to go ahead with sports as a career. Sports are not introduced at the primary level of schooling until the child is not studying at some good public school and these schools are affordable only for few people in the society. The majority of the population remains deprived of this and they send their kids to government school. These schools run by government do not provide basic education and food, so the sports do not come as a question. The child passes the high school without any firsthand experience of any kind of sports. And then we blame on the lack of interest.

We all had seen the movie ‘chak de india”. It correctly showed all the problems a woman has to face and all the obstacles which come in her way if she wants to pursue sports as a career. Nobody provides the facilities required. The government is not interested in a woman’s cricket team or a hockey team. All they care about is men’s teams especially cricket. But that is a totally different story about cricket getting all the importance at the expense of other games. Few days ago India hosted women’s cricket world cup. And it got nearly nil media coverage. When cricket world cup men’s is hosted, it becomes the biggest news. We welcome it with great pomp and show. It is like celebrating a festival. Everyday there is some piece of news about it in the newspaper. A whole class of intellectual section comes up and starts writing about the significance of this religion and its effects. The whole session of celebration does not happen with the women’s world cup. If we leave the cricket and switch to other games the condition is more or less similar.

Then there are people who mock, who tease, and who make obscene gestures at women who go out to play. This whole group of nincompoops does not terminate their activity. Their tiny brain praises them for this shameful activity. Sports are no different for women from other fields where men have always dominated. There are numerous struggles and hindrances which come in their way. But we have to keep moving and fighting because the reward is not so great without the struggle involved.

Elections in University of Delhi

Barely a week and the campus of Delhi University seem silent as a grave. The over-hyped and over-rated student elections have ended with NSUI occupying most of the seats. And the vociferous elements have gone to their respective hibernation quarters. They would be called next year if any of the parties need them. The annual elections are a very good way to democratically elect a union body. But this is not an annual affair. All the parties keep alluring students round the year to increase their electorate. It is a very smooth and systematic process. Especially parties like NSUI & ABVP begin this process when the session starts. When you are a fresher these elections and campaigning sound extremely alluring and this happens with everybody. Even I was quite energized when I joined DU last year. So this is where these giant students body come in. they try their level best to catch the attention of students by cultural programmes, cleanliness campaigns, anti-tobacco campaigns and other works for social causes. Considering ourselves an active students and hot-blooded that we are, we become the mouse who falls bait to the cheese and lands up in the cage. The bait is not only in one form. Sometimes students get excited just because they are made to believe that they would get the opportunity to rub shoulders with few political honchos. So after getting for themselves enough naïve freshers the parties set out on the election journey. And this process keeps repeating every year.  DU elections are considered to be the most sought after students elections. It is a huge fad because it provides a prospect to enter directly into national politics. And that is the reason why national parties of our country leave no stone unturned in facilitating their respective youth wings to WIN even after knowing that they are violating the recommendations of Lyngdoh committee which clearly and precisely says in its Article [6.3] that ‘dissociation of student elections and student representation from political parties’. It is very thorny for them to understand this one sentence. Many of the times it appears as if it is an election between BJP & Congress rather than NSUI &ABVP. Politicians like deependra hooda, Oscar Fernandez, Sheila dikshit, and others throng the university campus on the day of voting.  They must be well-versed with the English and hindi language and also the recommendations of Lyngdoh committee. Or probably they have become brazen enough as to contravene everything that comes in their way of winning.

And they don’t stop here.  DU elections become a platform for showing off dazzling and swanky cars, heavily built men and hefty currency notes. Party which possess these three important elements in big amounts are the ones who win with a bang. Delicious free food, social gatherings free rides, beautiful faces, distribution of alcohol and freebies to students forms up the core of their original manifestos which is not made public. While this dim-witted temptation gathers few students, it doesn’t increase the turn-out for elections. This year the turnout for elections was slightly over 30%. That is it! Not even half of the university’s population comes out to vote. The enticing manifestos too don’t provide much help because firstly more or less all the parties demand for the same thing. There is nothing novel. And secondly none of them see to it that the promises they made ought to be fulfilled once they come to power. Besides one of the interesting thing is that the manifestos of these parties have been more or less same since a decade. How well-run and efficient the university is! The only promise they live up to is the parties that they throw and the fancy outstation trips they organize. The history of DU says that not a single independent candidate has been elected for any post. The woman as always becomes an object to woo voters. If they contest for any post they aren’t given votes on the basis of what issues they are raising or because it is mentioned in the constitution of Delhi university students union. It has become a history. Instead they are voted for their glamour and their heavily painted demonized visage. It was only once that a woman was elected as a president and that was in 1977.  They are mainly used by the big honchos to create scenes and grab consideration. They have no say in as far as the union is concerned.  Simon de Beauvoir was completely right when she said and I quote ‘women are not born, they are made’. Unquote.

Prem studios in kamla nagar become a very happening place during elections. It is here that most of the contestants get their attractive pictures clicked. For Rs. 800, this studio gives 3 lovely pictures. So arithmetically even if 4 candidates order 3 pictures each the cost comes up to Rs.3200 and this is when the Lyngdoh committee in its article 6.6.1 recommends the maximum permitted expenditure per candidate to be Rs. 5000. It is in actual fact hard to count how much these student bodies squander in elections.

Caste too comes to play a major role. The student politics too like the national politics is reduced to the narrow divisions of caste and class. Students commence their mind games and start selecting candidates as per the vote bases. Despite the recommendation of Lyngdoh committee in article [6.7.3] which states that ‘there shall be no appeal to caste or communal feelings for securing votes. Places of worship, within or without the campus shall not be used for election propaganda’, the parties continue to breach these proposals. Then a process starts where parties divide the areas for campaigning according to caste and religion. Grime is added to the reputation of DU. The aims of the constitution of Delhi university student’s union pledges ‘to promote consciousness among the students of the university of Delhi of the events taking place around them with a view to better equipping them as responsible and educated citizens and to build up a healthy students movement’. What an irony! When students are divided into fragments in the name of caste and religion at such an early age, how would they grow up to be civilized and responsible citizens of this country? The aims of the constitution also enlist that a sense of service to the people and a duty towards the state should be promoted among students. The students would surely grow up to learn that distributing alcohol and good food is a way of doing a service to the state and its people.

This year was no different in witnessing the painted walls and colorful photographs of the candidates. The Lyngdoh committee clearly mentions in the article [6.7.5] that ‘no candidate shall be permitted to make use of printed posters, printed pamphlets, or any other printed material for the purpose of canvassing. Candidates may only utilize hand-made posters for the purpose of canvassing, provided that such hand-made posters are procured within the expenditure limit set out herein above’. But who pays heed to this. The smaller parties are crushed in this competition of money and politics. Parties like SYS and the AISA are stomped by NSUI & ABVP in the similar fashion as BJP led NDA and Congress led UPA have done in the past with other regional parties. Who is to provide a security to these smaller groups? Why do the college authorities pay no heed to these groups? It was so appalling to see university authorities on their knees in front of these giant groups. The campus was flooded with zillions of printed posters of each candidate. The paintings were also not less. And there was nobody to keep a check on this infringement. Also it is cited in the committee’s recommendation in article [6.7.7] that ‘no candidate shall be permitted to carry out processions, or public meetings, or in any way canvass or distribute propaganda outside the university/college campuses. This was the one recommendation which was defied heavily. There were huge hoardings of the candidates and pamphlets were distributed all over the city. Whole Delhi was aware that elections are happening in Delhi University. And delhi-ites did not know this only from the news or radio channels. Students were campaigning extensively all over the city and meetings were held in every possible place except the university.

usual tussle between two of the largest groups.

Further article [6.7.8] of the committee mentions that ‘during the election period the candidates may hold processions and/or public meetings, provided that such processions and/or public meetings do not, in any manner, disturb the classes and other academic and co curricular activities of the college/university. Such procession/public meetings may not be held without the prior written permission of the college/university’. What happens in this regard is that the esteemed candidates according to their wish stomp into any random class, the teacher is asked to leave and the candidates make their impromptu inspirational and friendly speeches and mould the gullible students into their voters. With every coming year DUSU candidates arrive with some new brainless idea. So this year the dummy candidates were introduced. Once during campaigns I met this friend of mine who is from another college. And during our conversation I found out that the candidate of one of the giant party who had come to my class for a vote appeal was present in her class too and strangely at the same time. We both were totally astonished. After talking to others we found out about the new trend which commenced from this year.

As far as giving the inspirational speeches are concerned, all the candidates more or less talk in a similar tone. There have always been talks on the opening of 4 campuses for the university, probably since the time university opened in 1922. And even now after 90 years it still occupies a place in the manifestos. Also the two which have been opened, only the north one can be termed as a campus. South campus remains devoid of the basic amenities. The commuting problem is such a big issue that students usually prefer north campus colleges. Some colleges don’t even have canteens and few of the privileged ones who boast of a canteen complain of unhygienic and stale food. During admission students are always given a choice between NSS, NCC or sports and also in co-curricular activities. But nothing really happens of these. Students go for these only when they have to get their clearance done. There are few dance groups and drama groups which manage to make a mark. But these are so few that they can be counted on fingertips. Some students graduate out of university without knowing that such groups and such opportunities existed.  Hostel facilities are extremely poor. Numerically there are very few hostels which are unable to accommodate the large no of students.  Such is the condition that an ‘AAM’ student of DU can’t meet the president of DUSU. At the time of elections these groups become extra ordinarily friendly and once the election passes their rowdiness commences.

The members of union keep getting promoted to higher levels and ultimately leave college politics to join national stage and these numerous issues are reserved for next year’s manifestos. The glorious and most popular university of our country showcases such state. Is this the fate of the ‘most sought’ after student’s elections? Was this the purpose behind introduction of student’s elections in our country? How reprehensible it is to divulge that such valued institution has been so demeaning.

From such a young age students are taught of every possible filthy & sordid ways. It is fed in their minds that only through capital, might  and dissection on the name of caste can anybody win the elections. So much so that when these students grow up it becomes their habit. If the future of our country lies in the hands of such young people, then the future is definitely going to be treacherous.

BUZZ!

Pranab Mukherjee is all set to move to raisina hills in few days. The UPA candidate for presidential election, his mild and sociable nature has earned him a lot of friends. And these friends have shown their amity at the accurate time. Prime time and dailies are full of his praise. He is such an esteemed figure in the political arena today that he is capable of dividing NDA and also the left. Such is his range of friends. It is clear that BJP backed P.A.Sangma would not win this election because he does not have such wide variety of friends, infact his own party NCP is not backing him. So numerically Mr.Mukherjee is far ahead of Mr.Sangma. But one question arises here in my mind is that there are very few people who care to count his limitations. Is it because of his amicable nature or is it because people don’t want to pay attention to his negatives now that he has reached the retiring age from active politics. Few days back when Mr.Sangma called him as the “failed finance minister”, he retorted back saying the level of presidential elections should not be taken to the ordinary level. But Mr.Sangma surely left some food for thought. Was Pranab Mukherjee really a “failed finance minister”.

 There is a mood of undisguised glee in the Congress as the Sensex and rupee rebounded barely a day after Pranab Mukherjee filed his papers for presidential election. But then it simply wants to duck the question: Is Pranab’s exit as finance minister good riddance for the Congress? Or for that matter what is his legacy as finance minister?
We all saw how economy revived after the PM took over.
 It is pointed that GAAR which allowed a relook into the tax affairs of any person or assessee even after 18 years was seen as something that contributed to the negative sentiment against Mr.Mukherjee. Similarly, the retrospective taxation proposal for Vodafone also added to this.

There is no mistaking the difference between the approaches of the two leaders when it comes to the handling of the economy. “Mr. Pranab Mukherjee was Mr. Pranab Mukherjee,” said a senior Congress leader while emphasizing that the then finance minister was very much his own man who would simply refuse to accept any advice from anyone, and be it the prime minister. If this statement given by the congress leader is to be taken true then we can surely hope that there will be no rubber-stamp president this time. Let’s just wait for the day when he finally shifts to raisina hills.