A girl from northeast was found dead in Delhi, NO FIR even after 24 Hrs #Vaw #WTFnews


The Moral Trumpets of Delhi Police

Neha Dixit, May 30, 2013, Newsclick

Delhi police trips on misogyny and prejudice yet again in investigating the death of Reingamphy, a 21 year old girl from Northeast who was found dead in Delhi on May 29

Fresh mangoes were carefully laid on the kitchen slab next to the pressure cooker on the gas stove. The phone charger was still on. Shoes, all types, flip flops, ballerinas, slip-ons were neatly displayed on a small cane rack. This small cane rack, found in the households of all newcomers in Delhi, is symbolic of the aspirations and enthusiasm with which people flock to the national capital.

                                                                                                                           JOURNEY INTERRUPTED: Reingamphy’s clothes and toiletries stacked in a corner

Reingamphy, 21, was found dead in this two room ground floor flat in B Block, Chirag Dilli at 2 pm on May 29.

Yesterday, the police broke open the bolted door after Reingamphy did not respond to the repeated calls by her landlord. She was found lying on the bed with injuries on her face, nose and toes with the cell phone still in her hand.

Her cousins, who live in South extension, informed the Malviya Nagar Police station about the incident. It’s been over 24 hours and the police is yet to register an FIR. The investigating officer Dinesh Singh declared last evening, “Nature of wounds suggests that a portion of body may have been eaten up by rats. The mattress was on the floor and we have also found rat droppings in the adjoining flat. Prima facie it appears to be a case of suicide.”

The police’s assumption is based on the fact that empty wrappers of Spasmocip Plus (16 tablets) and Meftal-Spas (12 tablets) were found in the dustbin. These tablets are used for treating stomach cramps. Binalakshmi Nepram founder of the NGO, Manipur Women Gun Survivors Network informs, “We have been told by the SHO, Vijay Pal, that these girls from northeast work in spas and that’s why these incidents take place.” The SHO Vijay Pal also told Reingamphy’s cousins that the FIR will only be registered after the post mortem is conducted.

CUT SHORT: Bloodmarks on the floor of the room where Reingamphy was found dead

Reingamphy came to Dellhi from Ukhrul district in Manipur over a year back. Living on a monthly rent of Rs 7,000, she was indeed working at a spa in South Delhi till sometime back.

The police’s apathy and prejudice in Reingamphy’s death probe is a reminder of the murder of Ramchanpy Hongray’s murder around the same time in 2009. Incidentally, both of them belong to the same ethnic minority called the Tangkhul Naga tribe. Ramchanpy was found burnt to death in the kitchen of her Munirka house. Her stalker, Pushpam Sinha, was pursuing PHD in Wave Mechanics from IIT Delhi. When Ranchanpy opposed his sexual advances and threatened to complain to the police, Pushpam thrust her on the gas stove and burnt her to death. Says Bina Lakshmi, “Even before the post mortem was conducted in Ramchanpy’s case, the police declared it an accident claiming that the gas cylinder blasted while she was cooking which led to her death. They are trying to insinuate the same in Reingamphy’s case.”

Reingamphy’s parents, poor farmers in a remote village in Uhkrul district in Manipur Delhi have been informed about their daughter’s death but are too old to come down to Delhi. Her cousin, Thotriethan, who is currently following up with the police investigation proceedings says, “The main door was shut even when the back door of the house was open. The police have chosen to turn a blind eye to it.” Allegedly, the landlord’s brother-in-law was stalking her.

The SHO Vijay Pal and Investigating officer Dinesh Singh have refused to speak on the record. The post mortem is being conducted at AIIMS.

Reingamphy’s death is a bleeding cue. A cue for the misogynist, moralistic, prejudiced attitude of the police. Towards single women, those from the northeast and otherwise who are clubbed as ‘loose women’ who ‘deserve it.’ It is also an attempt to dissuade women from remote parts of the country to think of exploring another life in a big city. And most importantly, it is a telling tale of the brazenness with which the police violate laws by not even registering an FIR and say ‘they work in spas and that is why it happens.’

 

Say goodbye to the Delhi University you knew


The proposed four-year undergraduate programme will stratify society even more effectively than the current system
G. Sampath, Livemint
A file photo of Dinesh Singh, vice-chancellor of Delhi University. Photo: HT
A file photo of Dinesh Singh, vice-chancellor of Delhi University. Photo: HT
Delhi University (DU) is in turmoil. Vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh wants to scrap the existing three-year undergraduate degree course and replace it with a four-year undergraduate programme from the academic year starting July 2013.
A large number of faculty members and students are opposed to the very idea of converting to a four-year system. An even larger number are upset by the haste and secrecy with which the vice-chancellor is pushing through far-reaching changes in the curriculum.
It would be misleading, however, to see the proposed change as a manifestation of one man’s hubris. Singh’s endeavour is an important but still minor sub-plot in a larger narrative of transition, both within and outside the university. The central theme of this narrative is privatization.
Traditionally, in higher education, there has always been a clear demarcation between the two kinds of higher education: vocational training, which equips you with skills for the job market, and a broad liberal arts education that equips you with competencies so you can function as a politically mature citizen in a functioning democracy.
What the Delhi University vice-chancellor’s mutant baby, the four-year programme, will do is to jumble up the two and spit out quarter-graduates, half-graduates and almost-graduates who will have no option but to join some private institution or the other to skill themselves up into employability. Unless, that is, they are happy to be the bottom feeders of the labour pool.
As a DU lecturer pointed out (he did not want to come on record for fear of reprisals from the academic henchmen of the friendly neighbourhood vice-chancellor), the biggest impact of the proposed system would be a two-fold stratification—within academia and without—along class lines.
The internal stratification will be achieved through the “exit points”, which many DU academics have termed “social apartheid”. Basically, a student can opt out of the four-year programme after two years with an Associate Baccalaureate, or after three years with a Baccalaureate (the equivalent of a pass course). To get an Honours degree, you will have to spend a fourth year in college—one more than at present—which will obviously cost more money. In other words, the most important determinant of an Honours degree is your paying power and not merit.
The DU lecturer explains this with an example. “Let’s take two students, A and B. A is poor but brilliant. B is rich but academically weak. In the current system, A can get admission into a three-year Honours course on merit. If she can rustle up the tuition fee, at the end of three years, she will be an Honours graduate. B, given her low percentage, will simply not get admission into a DU Honours course. If she wants to do an Honours course, her only option is to do it in one of the expensive private universities by paying a few lakhs.
“But in the proposed FYUP (four-year undergraduate programme), both A and B will get in. Given her financial and other vulnerabilities, it is very likely that A will opt out after three years with an inferior degree, while B will emerge with an Honours after four years, thanks to her financial staying power.”
The new model will thus stratify society even more effectively than the current system, which is already a stratifying tool, heaping more privileges on the privileged, which universities generally tend to do (a phenomena well documented by sociologists such as Pierre Bourdieu). That was internal stratification.
Once these pseudo-drop-outs (or drop-outs-with-certificates) go out into the real world, they would obviously not be able to compete for opportunities with those who completed the four-year course. They would thus become the next lot of subalterns in the knowledge economy. And the elite would enjoy the benefit of a legitimizing ideology—university-certified merit—to justify the widening economic disparity and their own entrenched privileges.
All said and done, education is the most powerful tool for social mobility available to a citizen today. It is therefore the responsibility of any nation that believes in the ideal of an equitable society to make this tool available to every citizen. It was this vision of education as a social good that inspired independent India’s first National Education Policy, based on the Kothari Commission Report of 1966. But contemporary India’s ruling elite seems less interested in social equity than in securing its privileges for succeeding generations.
So there is a simple reason for the haste and secrecy, not to mention the climate of fear that has marked the preparations for the DU vice-chancellor’s introduction of the four-year programme: it will not survive a process of democratic debate and pedagogic scrutiny.
DU is probably one of the few public universities left in the country today that can give private universities a run for their money. It represents the best of the old regime. Its continuing pre-eminence lends credence to the argument that a state institution can deliver quality education on par with global standards of excellence. Therefore, as was done with Air India, it is necessary to destroy it in order to make a watertight case for handing over higher education to private capital. Why else would you add an entire year to an undergraduate course, increase the workload on teachers, overburden the exam infrastructure to breaking point, and yet refuse to fill the 3,000 odd vacant teaching posts, or invest even a wee bit on university infrastructure?
The vacant teaching posts will be filled, if at all, and infrastructure will be improved, if at all, when DU welcomes private investment, if at all – not before. In the meantime, as the four-year programme unleashes chaos and confusion, as it will, the best of the faculty and students will abandon DU and migrate to other alternatives, which will be—no points for guessing—private universities.
Recently, I was surprised to discover that two eminent sociologists who I was used to identifying as DU academics are now faculty at OP Jindal Global University and Shiv Nadar University, respectively. I’m sure there are sound reasons—and academic ones—why they found DU less attractive than these private universities. But it should surprise nobody if, over the coming months and years, the best of DU’s remaining academics—including all the Marxists—follow suit, and end up at one or the other of the private universities.
Of course, all this makes eminent sense from the perspective of the market. After all, how can DU get away with charging Rs.16,000 or less for a course that a private university might sell for Rs.2 lakh, and that too with faculty far less distinguished than DU’s?
Once DU is taken care of, it would be much easier to replicate the academic mutation in the rest of the state universities. DU’s agitating teachers are battling not a misguided, authoritarian vice-chancellor, but the larger agenda of privatization, of which he has made himself a convenient tool. As things stand, the odds are in favour of the vice-chancellor and against the survival of DU as we know it.
Comment E-mail Print

 

#India – Disastrous Consequences of Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) of DU


Inline image 1

 Delhi University, a premiere public funded central university, is a coveted higher education institution for millions of students across the country for itsaffordable high quality education. This status of Delhi University has been seriously threatened by the forced and mindless implementation of the FYUP by the DU VC Dinesh Singh. In spite of serious concerns raised by numerous noted intellectuals and teachers about the academic and pedagogic flaws of the FYUP, the VC has remained intolerant to all concerns and has repeated the rosy dreams and false claims of “employability” flexibility” and multidisciplinary approach” of the FYUP. It is high time we make an honest factual assessment of the dark reality lurking behind the false claims made by the FYUP because it is the students who will suffer from these changes in the University.

It is significant that ALL the established decision-making and course-making norms of DU have been bypassed in the unseemly haste to push through the FYUP. The FYUP goes against the National Curriculum Framework – but such a major change is being bulldozed through in spite of the opposition of the most respected educationists and academic voices of the University and the country. And the VC who is projecting himself as a ‘flexible modern reformer, is so scared of debate that he took pains to systematically deny the DUTA any venue inside the University to hold meetings and GBMs on University premises! A new low for campus democracy was reached on 12 May when the venue for the DUTA GBM in a college was cancelled at the last minute.       

How FYUP adversely affects the lives of Students

1.     To get an honours degree the student will have to bear the financial burden of an extra year. The VC sheds crocodile tears for the economically deprived sections but conveniently forgets that thousands of students are forced to spend an exorbitant amount of 10-12000 rupees per month in food and lodging over and above the college fees while studying in DU. With the FYUP, students will have to bear this extra amount for another long year for a degree which students from other universities will complete in three years.

2.     The students’ entry into the job market will be delayed by a year and the DU 4 year graduates will lose the precious opportunity of appearing in competitive exams for a year.

3.     Since FYUP is at variance with the National Curriculum Framework of 10+2+3, students emerging from DU with 2, 3 and 4-year certificates will face serious incompatibility in proving “equivalence” while joining other courses, institutions and Universities.

Is there enough class room space to accommodate the 54000 new students who will enter the university with the addition of an extra year? It is a well known fact across the colleges of DU that the colleges are suffering from serious shortage of space and more often than not fails to accommodate all the students under the 3 year programme. After the OBC expansion the funds received by the corrupt DU administration has been criminally wasted in mindless beautification drives without any attempt to enhance class room and laboratory space in the colleges. The VC has been responding with absolute irresponsible nonchalance when ever this issue has been raised. Can we allow the students to suffer academically when such primary infrastructural requirements like classrooms are not adequately met?

Teachers: What is even more alarming is the fact that DU is running severely short of teachers. With not a single appointment in last 3 years there are 5000 permanent posts lying vacant across the 80 colleges of DU. The show is managed by Ad hoc teachers whose job insecurity and rampant exploitation has made DU a most unequal university. The VC has developed the habit of rabidly slandering the teachers for raising genuine concerns about the shortcomings of FYUP while turning a blind eye to the glaring inadequacies with which the DU teachers are struggling daily. Can any University function in a sane manner when the majority of teachers are contractualized and are in a constant flux with no job security?

Dangers of Multiple Exit Degrees in FYUP

In the 3 year model DU offered two different programmes, 1) The BA, BSc, B.Com (Programme) courses and 2) BA, BSc, B.Com (Honours) courses.The Programme course and the honours courses were two separate courses with different curriculums, coherent and complete in themselves, offering the students with the choice to decide their courses according to their future career plans. The FYUP offers one single integrated course with a single “fit for all” curriculum with multiple exit points after 2 years (diploma degree), 3 years (bachelor Degree) and 4 Years (honours degree). This is disastrous for students for two reasons:

1.     Unlike a student from the 3 year programme who will have a complete degree in their hand the student from FYUP who exits after 2 years and 3 years with Diploma and Bachelor degree respectively will have an incomplete degree where s/he will only complete a certain number of courses of the entire 4 year programme. {2 year diploma will do 11 FC + 8 DC1+ 2 DC2+ 3 AC + 4 IMBH/CA course and 3 year Bachelor will do 11 FC + 14 DC1+ 4 DC2+ 5 AC + 8 IMBH/CA courses of the entire FYUP package of  11 FC + 20 DC1+ 6 DC2 + 5 AC + 10 IMBH/CA courses} The biggest concern is that the diploma and bachelor students will do a far lesser number of main discipline (DC1) courses.

2.     The FYUP programme will institutionalise the already existing high drop-out rate among DU students. The VC admitted as much in his Walk the Talk interview, where he said that 12% students drop out of DU without any certificate; the FYUP programme will equip such students with some certificate! Instead of seeking to correct the drop-out problem and ensure that students get a holistic and complete education, the multiple exit system is giving a ‘golden handshake’ of sorts to the students who, usually due to social and economic marginalisation, are dropping out.

3.     The biggest fallout will be in terms of the employability of the Diploma and Bachelor degree students who will exit after 2 and 3 years because they will be considered as students who failed to complete the entire 4 year programme. The multiple exit points of FYUP are therefore an open invitation to social discrimination among students.

4.     Instead of correcting existing the social-economic hierarchical divisions and ensuring that universities are an engine of social mobility, the FYUP programme will instead reproduce, perpetuate and justify these divisions: in effect saying, let the socially and economically weaker students get the ‘drop-out’ degrees and are thus available for lower-paid jobs, while only those who have the financial ability to sustain education for an additional year will have the privilege of getting higher-end jobs requiring the ‘Honours’ qualification.

Degradation of Curriculum

1)Foundation (faltu) Courses: The 10+2 students who enter DU after specializing in either arts, commerce or science to pursue further specialization in the specific stream or subject of his choice will now have to study 11 compulsory basic school level foundational course like maths, geography, business entrepreneurship, computer skills in their first 2 years. A student who has left maths or business entrepreneurship and wants to study a completely different subject will be forced to do all the 11 courses which are school level in nature. Doesn’t such an imposition of as many as 11 compulsory courses make the FYUP more rigid rather than more ‘flexible’ as claimed by the VC? One wonders how will doing school level courses guarantee employment in this highly competitive world where employers are looking for even greater amount of specialized knowledge and skills from their employees. Is the VC saying that a student who enters DU with the desire to develop himself/herself for knowledge-based high skilled jobs through the graduate course, should now be happy with the level of knowledge required for low-skilled and least-paid jobs alone?

2) Lower emphasis on Main discipline courses: In the 3 year model the honours subject papers which the student wanted to specialize constituted 75 % of the entire curriculum. IN FYUP with the student will do only 18 main discipline courses in 4 years while s/he will be loaded with 24 non-main discipline courses? (11foundation (faltu) courses + 5 extracurricular + 8 CA and ‘Integrated Mind Body Heart’ course) What is the point of burdening the student who wants to specialize in a specific subject with so many nonsensical courses?

3) Reduction of classes: The FYUP has reduced the number of weeks of teaching from 15 to 12.

In the previous model every paper with 3 units each was given 5 classes per week (roughly two classes /unit). In FYUP every paper has 4 units with only 4 classes (1 class/ unit). The VC should explain what great academic rigour will be accomplished by reducing teaching time in the university.

4) Training in Writing: In the 3 year annual model every student had to write 3 assignments and 1 project for each and every paper. This trained them in academic writing, enhanced their scholarship and gave them opportunity to do independent research. In FYUP students will not write a single assignment in the course of 4 years and only do 1 group presentation (7-8 students doing 1 presentation) for every paper. And yet the VC makes tall claims about developing skills and research potential of students.  

School of Open Learning

The VC has made ominous pronouncements in his TOI interview against the School of Open Learning which runs correspondence courses for students who cannot afford regular college education. The SOL will not come under the FYUP and therefore poor students who study in courses of SOL will not be able to join the regular course even if they perform well in their studies. This is a clear discrimination against the students of SOL who are ascribed the status of second class citizens within the same university. While there is need to address the problems of SOL it is absolutely anti-student to covertly derecognize the degree that this institution awards to lakhs of students.

With such glaring flaws and discriminatory content the FYUP will destroy the very basis of egalitarian quality education in DU. The stated aim of FYUP to judge education by economic value is the sweet coated poison that will pave the way of reducing DU into a private teaching shop that churns out semi-skilled students as a reserve army required for low-end jobs in the mushrooming corporate sector which subsists on ‘flexible’ low-paid labour. The FYUP actively institutionalises drop-outs and discourages students from pursuing higher learning and developing critical faculties which ought to be main aim of higher education as a social good in a developing country like ours.

We call upon all democratic sections of society to resist the disastrous anti-student, anti-academic ‘reforms’ of FYUP in Delhi University.

LDTF                               AISA

(Left and Democratic Teachers’ Forum)                                                     (All India Students’ Association)

Contact: 9868034224                                                                                   Contact: 9213974505

             9868337493                    

 

Delhi University to get biometric attendance system by January 2013


By NEHA PUSHKARNA

PUBLISHED: 21:24 GMT, 4 November 2012 | UPDATED: 21:25 GMT, 4 November 2012

Teachers may have mixed views, but Delhi University is going to introduce a biometric system for recording their attendance within the next two months.

The executive council on Saturday ‘authorised’ the vice-chancellor to take appropriate steps regarding the long-standing issue of teachers’ attendance in colleges and departments.

Now with a go-ahead from university’s highest decision-making body, the vice-chancellor is planning to usher in the new system by January.

DUTA members protest against the university's vice-chancellor (file picture)DUTA members protest against the university’s vice-chancellor (file picture)

“The EC has unanimously authorised me to take measures in respect of teachers’ attendance. It should be up by January,” vice-chancellor, Professor Dinesh Singh, said.

The biometric system has been in the pipeline for last three years, though opposition from teachers had put it on the backburner.

However, a PIL in the high court following an affidavit from the university in September had made it clear that recording the attendance of teachers was inevitable now.

“The V-C has received feedback from students saying that a large number of teachers still do not attend classes regularly. The biometric system is necessary to make them fall in line,” a senior DU official, said.

The V-C has been making surprise rounds of colleges to find out what the real situation is.

“In fact, the registrar’s office keeps an eye on the teachers who have been protesting outside V-C’s office for last three weeks,” the official said.

The biometric devices will be installed in all colleges and departments in the coming weeks. They can record teachers’ attendance by matching their fingerprints or retina with the records in the databank.

“Teachers of DU are scandalised by the manner in which the executive council, despite opposition from the elected members, has allowed itself to be completely subverted and misled into abdicating its own statutory responsibility,” a statement released by DU Teachers’ Association, said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2227758/Delhi-University-biometric-attendance-January-2013.html#ixzz2BNM0Hl2X
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Delhi University bans rallies after molestation


, TNN | Sep 2, 2012,

NEW DELHIDelhi University decided to crack down on rallies and demonstrations on the campus after a complaint of molestation during one such event on Friday reached vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh on Saturday. In a terse, one-line order, the proctor imposed a “ban” which is being seen by large sections of the university community as undemocratic.

“In the light of the reported incident of eve-teasing and disturbing harmony in the campus during the student rallies, the university has decided to ban all rallies and demonstrations of any kind within the Delhi University campus till further notice,” said the order.

The complaint was made by an Indraprastha College student. At an interaction with the V-C on Saturday, other students from the college also raised the issue. The student was travelling by rickshaw near the Arts Faculty when she was molested, allegedly by some participants of the rally organized by National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) though the organization has denied that the miscreants were their members.

The “ban” has raised the hackles of both students and teachers. “I condemn the molestation and demand an investigation into it. I also condemn the ban and this behaviour of the university. It is shameful and undemocratic,” said Amar Deo Sharma, president, Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA).

The student bodies seemed to be united in their opposition to the ban. Both Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) and All India Students’ Associaion (AISA) declared it undemocratic and asked why campus security can’t be more effective. “The fact is that the administration is inefficient when it come to these situations. Why couldn’t they identify the culprits and take action against them?” asked Sunny Kumar, general secretary, Delhi state, AISA. Rohit Chahal ofABVP wondered why footage from cameras placed on the campus and videos taken by guards and onlookers couldn’t be used to identify the molesters. “the university authorities are running away from their responsibilities. They should’ve taken action only against the culprits,” fumed Chahal.

NSUI denied that the molesters were part of its throng. Its spokesman Amrish Ranjan Pandey said: “Whoever has done it, has done it to ruin our image. We want them punished too.” He condemned the ban.

Apparently, ABVP is planning an “all women” rally on Monday in North Campus to protest against the molestation. And they might even be successful. The police point out – and highly-placed sources in the university agree – that the university has no jurisdiction over the roads. “The students have a right to protest on public roads as long as they do not compromise the law and order situation and have the required permissions. The university restriction is applicable only within the university and respective college premises,” says DCP (north) Sindhu Pillai. “We are trying to build pressure. Security is a great concern and many students have asked us to control these rallies,” said a source.

At the meeting with the VC, the students had said they “wanted such rallies banned”. Prof. Dinesh Singh had said in response that he was trying to work with the police to do exactly that. “I met the police last week and I will meet them again. We want to ban these rallies too,” he had said.

The victim had complained to her college but didn’t go to the police. The case was forwarded to them by the proctor on Saturday. “We have received the DU complaint. This is a serious allegation and we are contacting the victim concerned. We will definitely lodge a case if the girl is ready to file an FIR. We assure her that her safety will be our concern,” said Pillai.

Delhi Police will also be stepping up its presence in North Campus. Besides deploying women cops on bikes, more policemen in plainclothes will be posted outside prominent colleges from Monday. “This is the third incident of criminal instigation ever since the university elections were announced,” said Pillai. “Hence, the hostels too will be well-covered.”

(With inputs from Dwaipayan Ghosh)

Archives

Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists

JAPA- MUSICAL ACTIVISM

Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel

UID-UNIQUE ?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,232 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,792,683 hits

Archives

July 2020
M T W T F S S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
%d bloggers like this: