Engaging with the RSS/BJP combine allowed me to understand why decent, hardworking people buy into an ideology that is so plainly bad for the country.
Yeah, you read that right. A “fascist” saved my people. That man was Jagmohan Malhotra: Lieutenant Governor of Kashmir during the worst days of militancy and perhaps one of the most controversial Indian politicians alive. Opinions could not be more starkly divided about Jagmohan among Kashmiris: Kashmiri Pandits (my community) hail him as a hero. My grandmother gets teary eyed even as I write this article about how Jagmohan organised the escape of the Pandits from the valley. “Nobody fought for us” she recalls. “Only Jagmohan was there. He commandeered every vehicle he could lay his hands on and got us to safety”. My grandfather, a retired IAS officer, has often told me that in his view, the Kashmiri Pandit community would not have survived. On the other hand, I’ve gotten to see the other side of Jagmohan from stories resident Kashmiris from the valley have recounted about his tenure. These concern the dark side of his tenure: extrajudicial operations and carte-blanche killings that have earned him the moniker “laash watul”.
Until a few years ago, I could never understand how my family could vote for the BJP. Like many organising the protest against the RSS Pracharak Shivkumar, I looked upon the BJP/RSS combine as one that propagated hate and threatened to destroy the secular fabric of this country. I still do. But I listened to my family as they recounted what Jagmohan had done for their people. My people. In their view, Jagmohan had joined the party that stood for Hindus and the Kashmiri Pandits. I took the opportunity to engage with Jagmohan’s ideas by reading his autobiography and watching his interviews. That gave way to a larger interest into what the RSS/BJP combine was all about, what made it tick and what gave it power. In doing so, I went to a number of in-person sessions with RSS/BJP functionaries and tried to understand what made them tick. Engaging with those ideas gave me two things: first, it made me more resolute in my opposition to the BJP’s ideology. Having engaged with it, entertained it and discarded it, I saw why it was the wrong one for India. Second, and perhaps more importantly, I got to understand my family and country better. I understood why decent, hardworking people buy into an ideology that is so plainly bad for the country. In one corner of India, Jagmohan saved lives. In another, Modi promised to build them a temple. In yet another, the RSS provided free healthcare and education when the government couldn’t.
Understanding and engaging the BJP and the RSS is as important as peacefully protesting them. To close your eyes to it is to close your eyes to modern India and why these organisations gained power. To those who fear a fascist ascendancy in India, taking this opportunity to interact with a member of these organisations in-person is imperative because it helps you get closer to identifying the cause of their success. Books and TV interviews are one thing and debating an articulate pracharak or politician in-person is quite another. And if telling a pracharak and his ideology to take a hike is what you want, then doing it in person is the way to go. Trust me, if I could do that to Jagmohan, I would.
Shashank Mattoo is second year student majoring in Political Science who takes great pride in his Kashmiri roots and Bangalore origins. This piece is a part of a series Engage started by The Edict to gauge student opinions on a recent controversy regarding a talk on campus by an RSS member.
“Imagine this. There are 5 murderers, followed by 40 people (Group R) and 5 non-murderers, followed by 20 people (Group L). While these 60 people engage in conversations with each other, they refuse to engage with the opposite group’s leader. As a result, in interactions, the murderers are always faced with people from Group R. These people listen to their leader, hear others praising them and always find their grievances addressed. They continue to support the 5 murderers who consequently, stay in power. Both groups accuse each other of not listening to each other’s point of view. It’s 40 and 20.
OR
A member from Group L decides to attend a talk by one of the 5 murderers. She listens patiently and in the question session, points out a glaring flaw in the murderer’s argument. The members of group R see their leader fumble, evade and get agitated. Most of them ignore it but a few of them — who’ve always followed the herd — thinks she made sense. They speak to her and maybe even listen to the non murderers. Someone, somewhere, changes their belief. It’s 39 and 21.”
An economics major must realise beforehand that nothing in this world can be certain but death, taxes, and exams. The life of an Ashokan majoring in economics is a lot of work and if they expect that they will have a college experience equivalent to the one seen in Hollywood films, one might say they are yet to come to their senses. When they do though, they often make it a point to grudge the work they have every single day, until they relinquish themselves to the bitter truth that they must work consistently in order to keep themselves above the water.
It is evident that the Economics program in Ashoka is a challenging one where the student must be fully committed to educating themselves in the discipline by listening to some of the most brilliant minds that the world has to offer. Even our professors, who are well acquainted with the subject at hand, put in hours of work so that every lecture is crafted to precision and delivered in perfection. However, if I maybe so bold as to give a dissenting opinion about the subject with which I am yet to acquaint myself properly, I want to present a two-fold contention with what I am presently learning — an ideological one and a technical one.
Firstly, the ideological trouble that I have is not as narrow as the one between socialists and capitalists. These labels can be far too limiting to permit a sociable conversation and I do not intend to argue about the economics taught to us being heavily oriented to either side. The issue that I have is rather an environmental one.
Economics as a subject has been moulded by crisis. For instance, David Ricardo’s theory on comparative advantage came as response to the economic nationalism of that time, enforced in the form of the Corn Laws enacted by the then British Prime Minister, Lord Liverpool. A more recent instance is that of the Great Depression and the subsequent crisis of freedom characterized by the Second World War and the despotic regime of the Soviet Union. The Great Depression was not solved by a miracle of God but rather by the power of Keynesian ideas of increased government spending. Moreover, it was thinkers such as Hayek and Friedman who showed the intrinsic relation between freedom and the capitalist economic system.
The crisis of our generation is not primarily one of freedom or world poverty. Of course, we are still plagued by issues of freedom and world poverty. If we were to dedicate resources to solve the said issues, as a species, we shall definitely be better off. But our crisis is an existential one — of the environment, and if we continue to turn a blind eye towards the brewing environmental problem, we would be infinitely worse off. One method of approaching this problem has been to say that the issue of global warming is a hoax or that the scientists who have dedicated their lives to research on this issue are just propagating ‘fake news.’ But a rather prudent way would be to see it as an eminent problem in urgent need of a solution. The question I ask is this — is the economics being taught in our classroom equipping us to deal with arguably the most eminent crisis we face as a generation? I certainly don’t think it is.
In classes, we are taught the Smithian idea of the world where individual pursuit of self interests leads to a structure of society which makes everyone better off. If we add the element pertaining to the sustainability of the planet and the survival of future generations, this structure fails us. Its perpetuation shall lead to a sorry outcome for everyone on this planet. In the language of economics, all of us might be better off in the short run, but in the long run, we will all be dead.
I find a certain academic irresponsibility when we discuss powerful models of organizing production and distribution of goods and services, while hardly talking about the massive unaccounted externalities created by the current system of excessive conversion of natural resources to marketable assets. For example, the production of 1kg of meat uses 5000 litres of water (as per the Guardian), and leads to a huge amount of carbon usage. The system we have propped up and learnt about is a definitive recipe for disaster. Economics at Ashoka is tooling us up for the past crises that have come and gone while forgetting the responsibility towards the future where all of it will matter conditional upon the system’s survival. The system in turn will survive only if the students think about the current economic structure and about reforming it to form a stable sustainable scheme. But the technical problem I highlight next has played a role in preventing engagement with these ideas.
This brings me to the second issue, which pertains to the organization of classes at Ashoka. It would not be wrong to assume that the Ashokan academic model is an abridgment of the American Model, designed for four years. However, the UGC restrictions mould Economics at Ashoka in tandem with a three year programme, out of which a year is spent on finishing foundation courses, with two spent on finishing the major chosen. We are offered an optional fourth year but the courses, especially in Economics, are essentially designed to fit the UGC constraint.
This results in Ashokan professors and students being hurried to finish the basic amount of knowledge required for the next course in a linear structure. There is a transfer of knowledge, but not necessarily an efficient enough one. There seems to exist a Pareto optimal allocation of time which we still have not reached. It would not be imprudent to consider extending class time per semester, either through more class hours, or extending the semester by just two weeks. This could be implemented if the professor deems it necessary for a certain course, and while, the students might not be too happy about it, at least a satisfactorily good enough pace for teaching and being taught can be achieved.
The economics at Ashoka University introduces us to many powerful ideas but hardly allows us to engage with them. We touch the idea, but are forced to run for the next so that the mandated portions may be covered adequately. The issue with this is that we do not struggle to confront or understand both the idea and its significance in the world. In order to allow for effective learning, there is a need to question and critique ideas. Even if you might be proven wrong by minds of equal if not more prowess, it still strengthens your knowledge. For instance, think of the ‘aha’ moment in mathematics when you realize that you have been approaching the problem wrongly the whole day. It may seem to be a wastage of your time, but the impact of that realisation shall ingrain itself in your brain, and the conceptual clarity arises out of logic, not memorisation.
The status quo may seem to be satisfactory. But Ashoka’s foundation is not to recreate status quo. It is to make a better one, and then question the same. I completely agree that the curriculum designed for us matches some of the top institutions of the world, but the larger, bolder question remains — will the economics tools taught to us in class be adequate for the looming challenge of the environment or must we replace the entire armoury to combat the threat to our very survival?
This is a weekly column summarizing the 10 best questions from the quiz held by the Quizzing Society of Ashoka University on 11th of October.
Q1. “On a typical dark, wet Glasgow night, a bus driver coming off shift came in and ordered a ___. He sent it back to the waiter saying it’s dry. At the time, dad had an ulcer and was enjoying a plate of tomato soup. So he said why not put some tomato soup into the __ with some spices. They sent it back to the table and the bus driver absolutely loved it. He and his friends came back again and again and we put it on the menu.” The origins of which popular dish are being talked about here, on which a play of words has become exceedingly popular in the sporting fraternity over the last year and happened to be the 23rd most common FPL name? Give me the dish and player.
Q2. Keshia “________” Chante is a Canadian singer, songwriter, television personality, actress and philanthropist. She started as a teen star, having released three albums exclusively for Canada. In in 2012 she rose to international prominence hosting BET’s 106 & Park. Chante was given a star on the Brampton Walk of Fame for her achievements in Canadian Music and Film. She grew up with famous rapper Drake in Toronto, with the both having dated during their teenage years — Chante is also said to be his first girlfriend. According to Capital Xtra, Keshia is in news again with her nickname. What is Keshia’s nickname or FITB.
Q3. It’s not that it isn’t in X, it’s just that it doesn’t exist, period. The list goes from one-one hundred twenty three, but skips numbers in between, likely due to various changes in boundaries, closures or mergers. While X does have nine four, but the next closest number is hundred. Based on a map shown in __________, it looks like the accurate location could be Prospect Heights or more likely, Park Slope. A more realistic number to along with X could be seven-seven or seven-eight but that really doesn’t have the same ring to it. Give funda.
Q4. X’s first and only appearance came in The Punisher #1 in May, 2009. The backstory for X is that he drops out of high school to pursue a career in hip-hop. Once he gains popularity he becomes a regular at freestyle battles. After a night at one such performance, X and his bodyguards are seemingly ambushed by the Punisher who kills all of X’s guards. X is then rescued by Barracuda, a childhood friend of X’s, who teams up with him to take the Punisher out. After an intense action sequence, Punisher tells X that he needs to pay a visit to The Parents Music Council so X tells Punisher to tell them “Shady sent ya”. X’s abilities as listed on Marvel’s Wikia are his shooting and ________ skills, the latter being something for which we actually know him. Tell me who is X?
Q5. The term X, a play on words on a substance very commonly found in nature, became viral on social media very recently (August). It originated from a speech given at the 56th Convocation Ceremony of the Indian Institute of Bombay. The speech, given after awarding 3 gold medals and 43 silver medals to IIT Bombay students in various categories, talked about how innovation was the buzzword for the 21st century — but it also talked about how tea could be made using gas from a nearby drainage. This caught the social media’s attention, prompting a flurry of jokes and hashtags on the same. Identify.
Q6. In 1924, the Commonwealth of Virginia gifted Britain a replica of a statue of George Washington, the first president of the United States of America. The statue, crafted by Jean Antoine Houdon, is seen holding a bundle of 13 fasces — which represent the original 13 states of the newly created USA. It is now kept in the heart of London at Trafalgar Square. However, popular legend has it that the statue would have broken a pledge Washington took, while fighting the British in the War of Independence — to avoid that, the US authorities came up with a creative solution. What pledge, and what solution is being talked about?
Q7. CrossFit is a branded fitness regimen created by Greg Glassman and Lauren Jenai in 2000. Promoted as a physical exercise philosophy and also as a competitive fitness sport, CrossFit is practiced by members of over 13,000 affiliated gyms, roughly half of which are located in the United States. Mumbai-born Dheepesh Bhatt started what is claimed to be India’s first crossfit gym — Crossfit OM Box in Juhu catering to some of the biggest names in the Indian film industry. Bhatt, also known as Shivoham, now works full-time as a celebrity fitness trainer and is known to have helped Aamir Khan achieve his look for Dangal. However we all associate Dheepesh with Bollywood for altogether a different reason. What?
Q8. The first time he did this, he was quizzed about the curious act in 2011, he said — “I felt like an animal. I wanted to see how it tastes. It tastes good and well kept! It just came to me spontaneously really — I didn’t plan to do it.” In 2015, he was wiser, having asked the concerned authorities, saying, “I was assured it was not processed. It was gluten free, so I could do it”.
In 2018, he reminisced back. “The first time I’ve done it, it was the sweetest dessert I’ve ever tasted in my life. That experience hopefully I’ll get to taste one more time before I finish my career.” “I had a double portion this year to treat myself.”
Who and what act is being talked about here, something which may earn him the moniker of “GOAT”, but in a different way than it is usually used?
Q9. Tourism, alongside finance, education and arts is one of the major contributions to the city’s economy with $8.8 billion. According to marketing and branding consultant Gordon Hendren, X is responsible for about 5% or $440m of the total income from tourism by representing a lot of city landmarks, the Toronto Raptors and various restaurants and clubs from around the city. For instance, tourists still swarm Joso’s Restaurant in the city after X’s artwork featured it in 2011. Even, politicians have gotten proactive about using X’s brand to attract foreign investment. Toronto City Councillor Michael Thompson described how he used X as a selling point to bring a $147 million tech conference to the city for the next three years. Identify Toronto’s biggest star attraction X.
Q10. After a week of hype and anticipation on the subreddit r/___________, over 350,000 users were banned by random selection — much to shock and dismay of redditors and internet users alike. When it was set up, it was suggested as a part of the merriment that it would be funny if at some point half of the subreddit’s members were randomly banned. The moderators of r/_________ had to get permission from Reddit admins to go through with the ban, and then they had to automate the process. As word of the upcoming ban spread, hundreds of thousands of Reddit users flocked to join r/_____________________ just so they’d have a chance to get ousted. By the time ban day rolled around, over 700,000 users had subscribed — making the culling by far the largest “dusting,” or mass ban, in Reddit history. FITB
Answers:
Chicken Tikka Masala, Mohammed Salah (Chicken Tikka Mo Salah)
2. Keke or Kiki from Drake’s summer hit In My Feelings
3. Brooklyn’s Ninth Ninth Precinct
4. Eminem or Slim Shady
5. Mitrogen, with the substance being Nitrogen and the cheif guest at the convocation being Prime Minister Narendra Modi
6. Washington pledged to never set foot on British soil — soil was flown in from Virginia to be kept under the statue
7. Dheepesh Bhatt played the character of Franky Ramdayal in the movie Kal Ho Na Ho
8.Novak Djokovic, Eating grass off the court
9. Drake
10. r/thanosdidnothingwrong
‘The BEST Quiz Ever’ was hosted by Aryaman Arora, an undergraduate from the class of 2021, on 11th October, 2018.
This piece is the first amongst our newly instated theme for the month — Sexual Harrasment & #metoo.
— by Kristina Flour
Whisper networks are quite possibly the biggest open secret in modern culture. Women have been creating and sustaining these for decades, keeping each other wary of people in their workplaces, educational institutions — even families. They’re one of the best-kept secrets within the female community, allowing the network to thrive and inform; keeping women wary of men but not enough to move towards some form of due process prosecution. It’s tacitly understood that these networks are to keep women in a community connected with those who have sexual harassment stories related to the people they’re around. With the dawn of the #metoo movement, these unsaid and unseen whisper networks have turned into loud, powerful declarations and allegations, carrying forth the hesitancy of possibly fake accusations but remaining, at its essence, a system to warn and inform.
Whisper networks have never been completely devoid of dubiosity — the possibility of false allegations or inflated accounts was just as real then as it is now. However, the restriction of the network to the women who were directly concerned by it kept those apprehensions buried. It wasn’t a question of who was falsely accused, but instead of who’s left to trust: a question that remains at the crux of today’s movement. Ultimately, though, the #metoo movement is a public whisper network, complete with all of its advantages and faults but massively inflated. This inflation is what has led to the creation of the dangerous yet firm ground on which the movement stands. It benefits most out of the expansion of the network, and yet is susceptible to mis-narration and mischaracterization by virtue of this large base.
Public whisper networks are fundamentally different from private ones because of their politicized nature. They are warped into questions of falsity and ethicality, yanking the narrative away from the widespread abuse of power in nearly every single industry to instead the cases that are innocent until never proven guilty. The solidarity of the network is now lost because those involved within it cannot be trusted to keep the information to themselves and disseminate it only to those who need to know; Twitter becomes a platform where the network dies a brutal death in the arms of a keyboard warrior who would rather fight for the (few) unsung heroes it finds in men who rise above their accusations, than fight for the (many) women who get buried under the weight of their unaccepted truth.
This line of thinking leaves me with one haunting question — can Ashoka sustain its whisper networks in this age of #metoo? Or will names slowly begin to trickle out of the community, leaving no choice but mass public declarations?
It would be foolish to assume that Ashoka doesn’t have its whisper networks — the rooms of SH2 and SH4 have seen and heard conversations laced with secrecy and caution, but more importantly, have experienced the anxiety and fear that comes with telling your story. Ashoka, as a community, is quite possibly not equipped to deal with its own #metoo movement; this campus, as small as it is, is also not enough to contain the sharp tremors that would be felt in our social fabric. Admittedly, there exists distrust around our own internal due processes, and the entire purpose of this public movement is to shake things up where due process was unable to and where laws and policies failed to protect its people.
However, are we equipped enough as a community to even fathom the true impact of this movement seizing Ashoka at its infantile stages? This isn’t a question about how many people may be involved, or which people are involved — it runs much deeper than that. As a community, we have never dealt with something that would run as dirty as the exposition of this university’s whisper networks. But will there ever come a point where these networks can no more serve us in the way they’re meant to? The biggest downside to whisper networks is that they aren’t political enough — they keep stories and accounts contained amongst women in private conversations. The political whisper network is one that is public, and it is one that comes from an ineffective private network. In essence, that’s where the #metoo movement sprung from — the inefficacy of private whisper networks led to the creation of the biggest, most public and political one ever, one that stretches across countries and industries, professions and age groups.
Can a public whisper network at Ashoka handle the onslaught from a community that is small enough for you to be whispering about the person sitting next to you every week?
This is a weekly column summarizing the 5 best questions from the quiz held by the Quizzing Society of Ashoka University on 3rd of October.
Queston 1
Q 1. In 1973, a 22-year-old featured in a DCM Towels campaign. The tag line said, “Towels so good you want to wear them”.
The ads were hurriedly withdrawn. Who was the model, and subsequent Member of Parliament?
Q 2. The Jharkhand Vidhan Sabha has a peculiar problem. This problem was exacerbated in the year 2004 when Madhu Koda (an independent candidate) became Chief Minister indirectly taking advantage of this problem.
What could this problem be?
Q 3. In 1960, when X came to NYC for the UNGA, tensions were riding high. X had originally checked into the famous Shelbourne Hotel. However, he was asked to leave because of X’s “uncouth primitives” who had supposedly “killed, plucked, and cooked chickens in their rooms at the Shelburne and extinguished cigars on expensive carpets”.
X considered sleeping in hammocks in Central Park and threatened to march to the UN and set up camp on the grounds. But Y and other civil rights leaders arranged for X to stay at the rundown Hotel Theresa in predominantly black Harlem which subsequently became famous because X was visited there by Kruschev, Nasser and Nehru.
Identify X and Y.
Question 4
Q 4. The October 1973 Yom Kippur War, known in the Arab World as the Ramadan War, showed the risks to Israel of underestimating dangers to national security, no matter how small or insignificant they may seem.
It is the classic intelligence failure in Israeli history and it happened because the military establishment was captivated and captured by what they called The Concept of Arab Intentions — a preset world view that did not contemplate the possibility of an all-out assault.
This failure ultimately to the creation of a certain rule in Israeli intelligence. Which rule is this?
Q 5. On 22 April 1994, X died. On 16 June 1994 Hunter Thompson, a journalist, published his obituary titled ‘He Was A Crook’ for X in The Rolling Stone. The following is an excerpt from the article:
“If the right people had been in charge of [X’s] funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. [X] was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal….His body should have been burned in a trash bin.” Identify X.
Q 6. In 1969 X had issued a decree to expel all Italians from his country. But in 2002, he bought 6.4 million shares in the Italian football club Juventus. X has also delivered a two-hour long speech at UN during which he expressed support for Somali pirates, called Obama his “son”, and claimed that Israel was responsible for JFK’s assasination. Who is X?
Q 7. Identify the person who printed this advertisement in the first page of The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Boston Globe in 1987.
Picture edited for Q. 7.
Q 8. In 1979 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to X. In her speech she said: “Today, abortion is the worst evil, and the greatest enemy of peace”.
She has previously taken the side of the Duvalier regime of Haiti, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Union Carbide following the 1984 Bhopal disaster, and visited Nicaragua to side with the CIA-backed Contras against the Sandinistas. Identify X.
Q 9. Put Funda:
What is the Ambassador pointing at?
Q 10. In 1967, X artist had asked his producer to come up with album art which depicted his Indian American heritage (Native American). The producer spent $5000 and come up with the image on the left. To this, X said, “You got it wrong…I’m not that kind of Indian”.
Identify X.
Answers:
Maneka Gandhi;
2. Assembly has 81 seats. Odd numbered Houses create a problem of numbers. BJP got 40 seats. Congress got 40 seats. Madhu Koda was an Independent Candidate who became CM.
3. X- Fidel Castro; Y- Malcolm X
4. The ‘Tenth Man’ rule. The Tenth Man is a devil’s advocate. If there are 10 people in a room and nine agree, the role of the tenth is to disagree and point out flaws in whatever decision the group has reached.
5. Richard Nixon;
6. Muhammad Gaddafi;
7. Donald J. Trump;
8. Mother Teresa;
9. The Thing, also known as the Great Seal bug, was one of the first covert listening devices (or “bugs”) to use passive techniques to transmit an audio signal. It was concealed inside a gift given by the Soviet Union to W. Averell Harriman, the United States Ambassador to the Soviet Union, on August 4, 1945.
10. Jimi Hendrix.
The Geopolitics and IR quiz is an annual quiz hosted by Sparsh Agarwal and Zainab Firdausi, courtesy the Quizzing Society at Ashoka.
This is a weekly column summarizing the 5 best questions from the quiz held by the Quizzing Society of Ashoka University on 26th of September.
Logo of the Quizzing Society of Ashoka
Following are the top five questions from Harry Potter quiz hosted by Aanchal Manuka, as part of the Ashoka Quizzing League-
Sensing opportunity, Joe asked his brother if they could finally cash in on that Harry Potter idea. In the span of a couple hours they wrote their first songs, had their first practice, and played their first show to six people. They christened themselves X, the first ever fan-fiction rock band. Two brothers dressed in traditional Gryffindor garb and sang about Snape, Ginny Weasley, and Voldemort. It was a gimmick, a daydream, and a beautiful geeky power-fantasy all wrapped in one. As inauspicious as it was, this the beginning of a movement. “Wizard rock,” Joe and Paul’s accidental creation . ID X.
2. In the wizarding world, muggle is a polite word for someone who has no magical capabilities, as well as no known wizard blood. Someone with wizard blood and no gifts in the realm of magic is called a Squib.
Since at least the 1930s, “Mr. Muggles” has been used to refer to something else in the world, an abundance of which can be found inside as well as near Ashoka . What is this something?
3. In the 13th century, Arithmancer Bridget Wenlock came up with a fascinating new theorem which exposed the magical properties of X. “The significance of X” is something very widely recognised in the Potter universe. In fact, all the occurrences of X and Xth in the books add up to give a massive 159. ID X.
Harry Potter through the ages.
4. This particular illness, as opposed to simply feeling a little sad sometimes, can feel like a monster straight out of a movie. J.K. Rowling has occasionally spoken about her own encounter with the same. own bouts with it. A serious illness, when left untreated, it leads to a mortality rate of about 15%.
This illness has found manifestation in her books as well as the movies in form of what might be described is a terrifying creation/creature. ID the illness and the creation
5. Who should you date as per the picture below?
Question 5
Answer: 1. Harry and the Potters; 2. Marijuana; 3. The number 7; 4. Depression and Dementors; 5. Kreacher, the house elf.
Answer to Qn 1.
The Harry Potter quiz was hosted by Aanchal Manuja, who is currently enrolled in the Young India Fellowship program, with the class of 2019.
Following the events of the Vice-Chancellor’s Townhall, which inter alia announced the night curfew, an article was published in the columns of this newspaper, on 2nd October, titled “The Consequence of Our Convenience,” authored by Vaibhav Parik, someone I know as a batchmate, colleague, and friend. The suggestion to write this article came from one of my conversations with him. The intended purpose is to register my disagreement with some of the views he expressed, to make a defense, if I may, of the stance taken by the Student Government, and in the process, to offer an alternative take on the matter that he raised in his article. I would like it to be known that the views expressed in this article are neither limited to, nor by virtue of, my capacity as an elected Representative.
At the very onset, allow me to voice my resounding affirmation for some of the views that Vaibhav expressed: the apparent discomfort we have with broaching discourses that challenge our convenience and entitlement; the justification of our irresponsible behaviour in the name of freedom and social justice; the lack of initiative aimed towards issues that face us as a community; and, the suggestion to constructively engage with this through organised conversation. However, I wish to note that there is one slight inconsistency in his article that must be reconciled before I proceed to put forth my arguments — the characterisation of our University. In the very first paragraph, Ashoka is referred to as “a certain established product,” but in the seventh one, it is (more aptly, in my view) described as “merely a five-year old institution that is not perfect and may not have all the right systems in place.” I think we can agree that the latter is a more acceptable way to think about Ashoka, and I would take this as my starting point.
When the Vice-Chancellor was posed with the final question at the townhall about whether he deems us worthy of consultation, he concluded with a joke, and the punchline went along the lines of: “You are a product of this University.” Not only is this an assertion that dismantles all pre-existing notions that we have about the relationship between the administration and the students of this University, it is also one that I find frightening. By comfortably joking about this at such a platform as the townhall, the Vice-Chancellor is breaking the promise of Ashoka: that in its formative stages, the students play a role in shaping its legacy. Unlike already established universities like Oxford, which attract students with their experience, and excellence, Ashoka offers us this promise. A promise that is made to us from the moment the Founders call it an Ivy League in the making, to the time that the Vice-Chancellor himself addresses the incoming students and parents on the first day of the Orientation Week, saying that “[this] is what distinguishes an education at Ashoka from every other institution.” His remarks at the townhall, then, come as nothing short of a betrayal of the administration’s word.
This brings us to the second point in Vaibhav’s article that I would like to respond to. He suggests that the students “hastily generalise and blame [the administration] for the slightest of flaws,” which only propagates more hate towards them; that “we want to make this an us-against-them matter.” I beg to differ here — particularly in reference to the stance taken by the SG. I refuse to concede that it is a conscious effort by, or in the best interests of, any of us to otherize the administration. In fact, everything that the SG must do to affect long term change can only happen with the authorisation of the administration. Our budget is subject to their approval; our concerns are subject to their perusal; our ideas are subject to their consideration; even our meetings are in a way subject to the availability of rooms. We might tend to take for granted their cooperation on all these matters, but what must not be forgotten is that they may chose to withdraw their support any second they deem fit, significantly impeding our work, albeit not halting it altogether. Why is it, then, that we are still charged with antagonising the administration? Because there is one very significant development in recent times, that we cannot stay silent about without betraying our duties and our conscience — the increasingly paternalistic approach of the administration. The night curfew is just the latest in line of several recent decisions that not only disregard what the student body has widely expressed, but altogether overlook the consultative step of the process: the survey for cross-residence access, the case of the CCTV cameras, and the policy on porn and cross-batch emails. This is not to say, that there is no way to call out this problematic pattern without necessarily alienating the administration, and the attempt has been to continue employing such means. However, with this backdrop, I feel that if this trade-off is considered inevitable, we should nonetheless demand our rightful say in the decision-making process. We do not owe a cordial and cooperative attitude to a party, if they simply refuse to acknowledge our stake in the conversation.
Finally, the concluding argument of Vaibhav’s article was that the night curfew is “a collective repercussion of the lack of an inclusive discourse about the culture of substance abuse;” our inaction “is definitely the biggest contributing factor of this fallout.” I would argue that it is fallacious to think of the night curfew as a fallout that befell us because of something that we as a community took a fall for (or in this case, failed to do). It does not take a very close look to notice the whataboutery in pointing out our inaction, which, albeit deplorable and worthy of attention, in no way exonerates the administration of its own shortcomings. The insufficient communication, and lack of transparency, is in stark contrast with what students learn within the classrooms of this university. Afterall, if a university’s administration is not consistent with its own value system, where are the students to look for inspiration? Moreover, as for the lack of discourse, or the delay in creating it, why is it exclusive to demanding our seat at the negotiation table? Is it not for us to introspect as a community why we are repulsed from any discourse that compels us to think of ourselves as anything more than atomised individuals? Can it have something to do with the prevalent sentiment of disdain for anything that serves as a reminder of our existence as a collective, and responsibilities thereof, such as our cultural fest Banjaara or even the Student Government for that matter? These are all pressing questions, but none that preclude us from asserting our right to being consulted. If anything, this discourse and the process of consultation are complementary and mutually reinforcing.
A simple thought experiment can help elucidate this point. First, note that despite the night curfew not having been implemented yet, there is already an exponential decline in the number of students who can be seen outside campus on Thursday nights, owing in part also to the advisories. Now, imagine the same townhall with the Vice-Chancellor, except he does not announce the curfew at the end as something they have decided to impose on us but mentions it as an option that is being considered. They then give us a week to 10 days to have discussions among and within ourselves, and in that time, the SG is asked to collate all the feedback and inputs from the students. It can reasonably be foreseen that these discussions would have been of a nature similar to the ones that we had this time around. At the end of the stipulated time period, the SG would present this collated feedback to them, and seeing how many students welcomed the decision even when it was imposed, it can be said that had the process been consultative, the proportion of students in agreement would have at least stayed the same, if not been higher. Even if it had been lower, what matters is that that is what the student body conveyed to the administration, and that the administration considers us “[its] colleagues and [its] peers,” not products that are passively subjected to its decisions.
On a parting note, students might be relieved to know that our endeavours in the aftermath of the townhall have borne some fruit. Our condemnation of the imposition of the night curfew, the subsequent email, the open House meetings, and the counter-proposal that we unanimously stood by, have certainly had some impact. The Residence Life Team invited us to meet on 4th October, as well as 11th October (both befittingly happen to be Thursday evenings), to discuss the policy draft, and some of the concerns that we raised at that meeting seem to have resonated with them strongly. The policy is still being drafted, we have been told that they would run the draft by us before it comes into force, and hopefully, the resultant policy will be more carefully thought out and encompassing of all our demands. Simultaneously, we must ensure that the impending discourse around substance abuse is initiated and the various accompanying nuances are explored. This is our chance to shape the legacy that we leave for future batches. This is our chance to learn from our past errors, and grow as a community. This is our chance to meet up to our end of the promise that Ashoka holds.
Deep Vakil is a Politics and Society major and IR minor, from the Undergraduate Class of 2020. He is also a member of the Fourth House of Representatives, and occupies the seat of the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs in the Cabinet.
Last semester, as I approached the end of my first year at Ashoka, I realised a fundamental change that was inevitable as batches passed, the fact that there was a significant departure in our relationship with this place compared to our senior batches. After all, what we got when we came here was a certain established product, as opposed to them, who saw this place being built from scratch. There is no denying that this has led to a significant change in our relationship with this place.
But it is a bit jarring to see that relationship transform into a rising hostility between the students and the administration. I never thought that the finished product we are getting would create a relationship with the administration such that we hastily generalise and blame them for the slightest of flaws. Instead of contributing to fix any flaw, or pushing our boundaries to reach out to the administration, we hope that everything is fixed for us. In the light of the curfew, what we fundamentally need to realise is that instead of blaming the administration for the manner of the curfew’s imposition, it is far more important to look at the lack of genuine discussion around the culture of substance abuse at Ashoka, as a reason for this fallout. And that lack of discussion is something that can be attributed to our convenience and entitlement, alongside our inaction as a community.
In the beginning, we need to see why blaming the administration at this point of time does not make sense, because in doing that, we don’t realise how we are undermining the idea of the discourse on the culture of substance abuse that needs to happen. The Student Government’s(SG) mail saying that the argument about this action’s manner is not ancillary but rather important*, completely takes the element of the discourse (although not belittling it) and puts it as if it’s not a priority at this point of time. I do not see how this argument and pushing for student involvement as a consequence, given the current constraint, allows them to accommodate for the unheard voices that haven’t come up so far, because this only postpones the discourse mentioned above, that has needed to happen for a very long time.
I understand the concern that the SG might have, that this constant coercion is not something we should give in to. But as a community, instead of just trying to use their argument as a rallying point for more hate towards the administration, what does it mean for us to not engage in discourse creation? Not that I blame the SG, but is it so hard for us to see that we’re totally missing the point with all that distrust towards the administration? If discourse needs to be created, we need to be cognisant of its need and engage with it.
So why has this discourse genuinely been held back?Is there an honest answer for this delay apart from our convenience and our entitlement not to push our boundaries? Do we ever breach uncomfortable discourses beyond our convenience or rather, despite our inconvenience? What we have done so far is try to create a sort of image of the administration as this external threat, ignoring that they’re working to do things for us. We want to make this an us-against-them matter in, something which reeks of convenience. It abhors me to the greatest degree when narratives like “you’re just concerned about the reputation of the university” exist; trying to firstly say as if this is not your university and that its reputation does not affect you, while secondly just trying to show that the cause you are actually trying to fight for is about social justice.
The urgent town-hall announcing the curfew took place in the sports MPH since a large turnout was expected.
That’s the biggest double standard we are setting for ourselves in this case. Breaking the law, but convincing ourselves that the fact that we might be in protest of it justifies our defiance. If that is what satisfies our moral conscience every Thursday night we go out there, then we truly have no integrity. It is undeniable that the protest of the law has absolutely nothing to do with breaking it in this case, and if protest is our main concern, I do not believe it is a concern that shall be reasonably highlighted or understood by anyone at a shack on a Thursday night.
Our convenience has often pushed us to take things for granted and feel that we deserve all that we need. After all, we pay so much. But here again, this is not just about one issue or fix for that matter. This is about the fact that we do not realise that this is merely a five-year old institution that is not perfect and may not have all the right systems in place. There is an implicit sense of expectation that there should exist no flaws in the structure, and if they do, the administration needs to work around them in such a way that it doesn’t infringe on our freedoms. How exactly will students ever be involved, if narratives exist to other the administration and the university from us?
This leads to the idea of inaction amongst us. We complain about the administration’s unresponsiveness. On how many occasions have any of us in the recent times, being unsatisfied with the administration’s response to a certain action, done something about it? The genuine lack of initiative at this point of time seems a fair concern, particularly because there is so much that can be established, but also because our preference for convenience has the tendency to translate to inaction.
I don’t want to limit this inaction just to initiative. It is something that can be extended to the fact that we need to push our own boundaries as individuals, in trying to go out and communicate with the administration. That is one of the biggest inactions I see, particularly within my own batch (the Class of 2020). It is amazing how we at times assume the administration’s inaction, and totally ignore our own.
In fact the administration members at times, push boundaries more than we do, which I think demands for a certain reciprocation from our part. If the VC and the erstwhile Pro-VC have been pushing their boundaries to communicate with us, why can’t we as students do the same? For instance, the Dhaba sessions they have been organising are opportunities where concerns can genuinely be voiced, as they keep asking us about our problems and the issues that need to be addressed.
Just because we have not been using mechanisms to communicate doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The entire curfew shows how the absence of discussion manifested into such a stringent action, and while that isn’t a failure solely on the students part, what I think needs to be made clear is that it is not entirely the administration’s failure either. It’s a collective repercussion of the lack of an inclusive discourse about the culture of substance abuse at Ashoka and deep down, we know that voices do exist on this issue, inside this space. It is our failure as the Ashokan community to create that discourse and sensitise ourselves that is definitely the biggest contributing factor of this fallout.
Fundamentally I do believe that the right way to go about this is through organised conversation early on and approaching this in a constructive manner. But as we approach a finalisation of this policy, let us get this conversation started, because deep down, the narratives we hope would be a mutual point of great deliberation and reason should not recede to take their place as small time conversations between concurring viewpoints anymore. Now is a good time to let them out and maybe that is exactly the fundamental rallying point this place needs right now.
*SG e-mail “Regarding VC’s town hall” Sep 26, 2018, 10:28 am
In light of the recently established curfew, there is an urgent need to have an open conversation.
Sparsh Agarwal, Class of 2019
In 1981, followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh set up the City of Rajneeshpuram in the middle of the State of Oregon. It was the utter disregard of the Rajneeshee community for their surroundings and the people that lived in them which sowed the seeds for their protracted conflict with the original inhabitants of Wasco County. Ashoka University is no cult, however, there are stark parallels that we share with Rajneeshpuram. We have descended upon the village of Asawarpur in the Sonipat district of Haryana almost as an alien ship, similar to the Rajneeshees descending on Wasco County. If there is anything to be learnt from the rise and fall of Rajneeshpuram it is that the difference in ways of the people in the area around us requires us to be both logical and sociologically sensitive about the consequences of our actions.
In light of the recently established curfew, there is an urgent need to have an open conversation about the consequences of going to illegal establishments across from the university gates on us, as a community, and on the community that exists outside our gates.
However, the purpose of this column is not to take any moral pedestal on this issue. Its purpose is provide an understanding of the unintended repercussions of going out to the illegal establishment outside the University gates. It also follows from an important Facebook post that was made by a student last year on the Undergraduates group.
Pictures from a Thursday SSP night.
“The ancient Indian King after whom this University is named asked the question:
What is Dhamma?
He answered:
It is having few faults and many good deeds; mercy, charity, truthfulness and integrity.
I commit myself to these values, and through them, move from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light and from death to immortality.”
This is the university oath. Following from the tradition and teachings of the Emperor Ashoka, it is the commitment to integrity that has stumbled down from the rock edicts and stares all of us in our faces today. I like to believe that this integrity functions on three levels: the social character of integrity that requires one to stand up for something, the individual level of harmony within the self, and, on a larger philosophical level, having an understanding of one’s moral obligations.
Part 1: Social Integrity
Most people have been first hand witnesses to what happens at SSP, while others must have heard about it in vivid details as well. Nonetheless, it is important to consider the establishment from the point of view of those who inhabit the village, who also happen to be former owners of the land on which this college has been built. When they sold their lands for the construction of a University, they must have had certain notions of what that would entail as well. One does not need to go out and talk to villagers to understand how divorced Ashoka is from the real world around it: one of the most fundamental alienations being in the form of the lifestyle that we as students of Ashoka University (from a particular socio-economic background) bring with ourselves. Besides being subjected suddenly to this absolute change of lifestyles and societal notions, it is also worth imagining whether they signed up to having to bear the burden of listening to blasting music through the night every Thursday and Friday; to see the bottle dripping, the weed burning and (occasionally) blood flowing.
Ashoka is often termed as a bubble. If it is so, then, not being cognizant of the impact that we as an institution have on the surrounding ecosystem is the simplest way of this bubble bursting.
Currently, one of the exemplary activities that a number of students of Ashoka have been a part of is the Neev program, which aims to make the University more accessible to the surrounding areas. It should not come as a surprise that many parents from Asawarpur have expressed their disillusionment (by wanting to pull out their wards) with the University because of the example that we set for their children every weekend. Moving beyond the sociological, there is also an urgent need to think about this issue empathetically (“mercy and charity” if you remember correctly). Many students at Ashoka have nobly advocated for the rights of the construction workers, the most marginal of all those who are a part of this campus. The rights, the conditions of these workers and the hours of work have all been scrutinized and spoken about ad nauseum. However, it is worth reminding ourselves that it is the same worker who toils during the day to build our campus who has to stay up at night due to the ruckus that is created by us when we go out to party. Does the mere hanging of a painting in the Atrium, to signify their contribution, make up for our utter disregard for them outside the canvas and the frame?
Part 2: Harmony within the self
Haryana comes from the words ‘Hari’ (Vishnu) and ‘ayana’ (home). The Haryana Tourism department would sure like everyone to believe that the state is truly an Abode of the Gods. However, there are dangers that lurk outside the Ashoka bubbles that make it closer to being the Highway to Hell, if anything. I don’t know who the Hades is, but what I do know is that there is no guarantee of personal safety whatsoever.
There have already been documented instances of molestation, voyeuristic videos of women being non-consensually recorded and the frequent occurrence of violence. There have also been reports of suspicious vans circling the area, potentially of men who might have heard of this oasis in the middle of Haryana where young women in large numbers go out to party. Now imagine individuals from neighboring areas or universities coming to the establishment and forcing someone to get into their car at the tyranny of their gun, or worse pulling the trigger. Imagination does not need to run wild; an event of this sort is not even a 6 or 10 sigma event (like the Iranian Revolution or the Financial Crisis). There are serious safety hazards of going out, which go beyond the occasional drunken frenzies that Ashoka students might have with their Jindal counterparts. And surely one can always say that it is wrong if anything of this sort happens, but that would be similar to getting into the cage of a lion arguing that the lion should respect your right to existence. Is a little bit of liquid courage worth entering the lair of the lion!
To take this self interested argument further, let us take a step back and contemplate the larger issues at stake. Another event who’s possibility of occurrence is not tough to imagine is an FIR being lodged against a student from the University. In the event that this happens, the consequences would be severe. It’s not like our University is particularly liked by the current government anyway. One only has to look at the tweets of some of the most influential representatives of the government (Rajiv Malhotra, S. Gurumurthy, Mohandas Pai) to see this. In this extremely polarised political environment, where the government is looking for an opportunity to clamp down on institutions like ours, by terming us as a second JNU, is it truly prudent to continue with our parties at SSP. If the BJP (or any other future government) is to get us, let them at least get us on a noble count rather than something like this (in fact, if as students we are to see the back of prison bars, might it be for something like the infamous article 144 of the IPC than for illegal underage drinking). In today’s day and age when the name of an institution can get very easily besmirched as has been seen with example of JNU, one can only imagine what we would have to go through as an institution as well as individually (in terms of careers).
Lady Prudence was standing by the University gates every Thursday night advising us to mend our course, before it is too late; before an unforeseen event like an accident, or a scuffle with the law enforcement agency happens, before the Administration has a valid justification to curtain our freedoms for safety concerns. And we would have done well to abide by it. Yet, the fact that we didn’t, we only have ourselves to blame today. We can talk about why the administration did not have the Town Hall to discuss this with us before taking this step, but the question can also be turned around: when we knew that this was happening, and the consequences it brought with it, why didn’t we as a community have a Town Hall of our own?
Part 3: Moral Obligations
There is also a moral obligation that we as students have to all that we are studying. Ashokan ideals involve developing critical thinking abilities as envisaged by our founders, shunning our sense of entitlement as I think of it, and having fidelity to some idea of truth as the Vice Chancellor had once outlined. In this campus where we have unanimously maintained a conspiracy of silence, this Town Hall shot from the pistol of truth. Have we been truly applying our critical thinking abilities, what we pride ourselves on, outside the classroom to try to understand the ineffable impact of our actions?
There have also been absurd arguments made about why the law enforcement agencies cannot protect our rights, or why there cannot be a bar inside campus if we aren’t allowed to go out. However, to expect the law enforcement agency to protect the rights of those who are breaking the law themselves or to ask for a bar, reeks of a typically Ashokan sense of entitlement. There seems to be no need to remind people what the law is however, what needs to be explained is a simple Latin legal maxim: “Dura Lex Sed Lex”. The Law is harsh, but it is the Law. And the Wheel of Law depicted on the Ashokan pillar demands of us to abide by it.
The entire SSP story ultimately boils down to a dichotomy of pleasures and principles. We all want to indulge ourselves in the pleasures of going out and kicking back after the end of a tiring week of academic work. And yet all of us know about the consequences on a principled level. Integrity as envisaged by the Emperor in who’s name we get our degrees would expect that we stand by our principles, since those are our true moral obligations. As Jefferson would have said: “In matters of Principles, stand like an Ashokan Pillar.”
This article was a speech delivered by Opinions Editor Sparsh Agarwal at The Mauryan Debates on the topic ‘Are Ashoka students living up to Emperor Ashoka’s Ideals?’
edict backup 