&w=3840&q=100)
DU panel's decision to drop PG papers on Islam, Pakistan, China sparks row
A Delhi University panel's decision to drop proposed postgraduate Political Science papers on Islam, Pakistan, and China has failed to find consensus among the members.
While some called it ideological censorship, those who supported the decision termed it a step towards making the syllabus "India-centric" and free from bias.
In its meeting on Wednesday, DU's Standing Committee for Academic Matters directed the removal of four elective papers -- Islam and International Relations, Pakistan and the World, China's Role in the Contemporary World, and State and Society in Pakistan. A fifth paper, Religious Nationalism and Political Violence, will be reviewed in the next meeting on July 1.
Opposing the decision, committee member Professor Monami Sinha said such changes undermine critical thinking and reflect a push to dilute controversial but academically relevant content.
"We argued that it is imperative to study Pakistan and China in detail. Ignoring these geopolitical realities would be academically short-sighted," she said in a statement.
She also flagged the removal of references to caste, communal violence, and same-sex relationships in revised syllabi for Sociology and Geography.
However, Professor Harendra Tiwari, also a member of the committee, supported the changes, calling the syllabus "agenda-driven" and lacking in balance.
"Why only a paper on Islam and International Relations? Why not on Hinduism or Sikhism? We want a syllabus that serves students and our nation," he told PTI.
He added that the dropped papers will not be reinstated unless the revised syllabus aligns with an "India-first" perspective.
The next committee meeting on July 1 is expected to see further debate on the syllabus.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Amid opposition protests, EC starts Bihar rolls revision
NEW DELHI/PATNA: Disregarding opposition parties' protests against its move to conduct a special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar - requiring submission of citizenship proof by electors enrolled after 2003 - Election Commission has started the exercise in the state's 243 constituencies, with 98,450 booth level officers set to conduct door-to-door verification over the next one month. EC will treat the state's 2003 electoral roll - which has listed 4.9 crore electors - as probative evidence of eligibility, including pres-umption of Indian citizenship unless it receives any input otherwise. Voters must submit from set of 11 government documents to prove eligibility Any person whose name is not recorded in the 2003 roll will be required to submit from among a set of 11 eligible government documents to establish his/her eligibility as an elector. As of date, Bihar has around 7.9 crore electors. EC on Saturday justified the purpose of SIR by citing Article 326 of the Constitution, which specifies that only Indian citizens above 18 years of age and ordinary resident in that constituency are eligible to be registered as electors. To justify the timing, EC sources said Section 21(2)(a) of Representation of the People Act, 1950, and Rule 25 of Registration of Elector Rules, 1961, make revision of electoral roll mandatory before every election/byelection, unless otherwise directed by EC for reasons to be recorded in writing. EC's statement on pursuing SIR in Bihar as per schedule, came a day after opposition INDIA bloc's members criticised the timing of the revision and alleged that the exercise was a veiled attempt to disenfranchise sections of the electorate in order to favour the ruling alliance. "The Constitution is supreme. All citizens, political parties and EC follow the Constitution," the poll panel said, while asserting that "all activities relating to SIR (in Bihar) are progressing well as per schedule". Printing and door-to-door distribution of new enumeration forms for the existing electors has already started in each of the 243 assembly constituencies of the state. Of the existing electors in Bihar, 4.9 crore already figure in the 2003 electoral roll, and will simply have to fill the enumeration form and submit it to the BLO. For those not in the 2003 roll, citizenship proof will be collected along with the enumeration form.
The Hindu
6 hours ago
- The Hindu
Government should take Opposition leaders into confidence on Trump's claims of ‘opening up' India: Congress leader Anand Sharma
Senior Congress leader and former Union Commerce Minister Anand Sharma on Saturday (June 28, 2025) urged the Government of India to clarify and take Opposition leaders into confidence regarding U.S. President Donald Trump's claim on 'opening up' India by signing a 'very big' trade deal soon. The India-U.S. trade deal should be mutually rewarding and not 'suboptimal under pressure', Mr. Sharma said in a series of posts on X. 'President Trump's claim of sweeping Indian tariff concessions in the proposed trade deal and 'opening up' India needs to be clarified by the government and leadership of Opposition parties be taken in confidence,' he said in a post. Mr. Sharma said India's national interests must be protected, and it must also continue to uphold and strengthen a rules-based multilateral trade regime and honour World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements. 'It is equally important that India engages the partner countries and major trading blocs and regions: EU, ASEAN, African Union, GCC and LAC to deepen market access and trade,' Mr. Sharma added. The former Union Minister's comments come a day after his party colleague Jairam Ramesh had taken a dig at the government, saying it seems that India 'gets to know decisions of great importance to it from the White House'. 'As is now becoming evident, India has to get to know decisions of great importance to it from the White House in Washington D.C.,' Mr. Ramesh had said in an X post on Friday (June 27, 2025).
Hindustan Times
7 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Clearing the fog on the state of India-US relations
'The administration is bullish on India' is how a senior US official put it to me last week in Washington D.C. This sentiment would seem at odds with the broader reporting on the US-India relationship. In a Financial Times newsletter on India, one writer argued that the Indian Prime Minister (PM) 'made the mistake of counting on his warm personal connection with Trump'. The general assertion being that the Indian government has mortgaged this crucial relationship to 'personal friendships' alone. Others suggest that the US President's recent luncheon with Asim Munir, the recently decorated Pakistani Field Marshal, and his 'sneaky attempt' to bring PM Narendra Modi and Munir into the same room in the White House is 'threatening the future of US-India partnership'. Structures like TRUST were created for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives. (REUTERS) Between social media and popular reporting, it would seem as though this relationship has been iced. Yet, in meetings with over 30 officials, experts, think tankers, and industry representatives last week, the story that emerged was diametrically opposed to the one that has been paraphrased above. Modi's engagements with Trump matter more than it is perhaps realised. It clearly provides a political basis of what can be achieved between the two countries, even at this time of shrinking administrative capacities in the US, and the many unplanned shifts in the bureaucratic body politic. To be sure, you could start the week with a meeting with official X and end up receiving a phone call from his/her successor the next day. Yet, what was clear to me was that the vision laid out by the two leaders in a lengthy joint statement following PM Modi's meeting with President Trump in February, guides the different contours of the relationship at the functional level. Notwithstanding the game of political catch between outlandish tweets and measured official responses, the guidelines for those moving the relationship across government and the private sector are more or less clear. First, there is a concerted effort to realise outcomes in the strategic technology partnership between the two sides. Under the banner of TRUST (Transforming the Relationship Utilising Strategic Technology), the administrative State and technology companies between the two countries are working towards outcomes to do more on pharmaceuticals with the view to de-risk the production of key ingredients from China; fuse infrastructure partnerships between firms invested in the present and the future of Artificial Intelligence (AI); and actively looking for ways to cooperate on extracting and processing critical minerals. The latter needs work, but the zest to find the right compact is real. Second, American private sector actors are preparing the ground to sell different kinds of reactors to meet India's nuclear energy needs. They are, at this time, hoping that the proposed legislative changes to the Indian Civil Nuclear Liability Act 2010 streamline liability clauses in consonance with global standards — delinking liabilities on suppliers and operators. Further, they remain hopeful that changes to India's Atomic Energy Act would allow private sector participation to meet India's nuclear energy needs. This is a top priority for the White House and the US President. This was made clear in several exchanges. This is 'unfinished business' following the conclusion of the 2008 US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, as one Washington insider put it. My own sense is that progress on this front is almost as important as the conclusion of the first tranche of the trade deal between the two countries. The first tranche of this deal needs to be completed by July 9, when the US President's 90-day pause on 'reciprocal tariffs' ends. Officials suggested that there is a fair chance that the first tranche of the deal with India will be completed by this deadline. 'The trickier parts will come later,' they made plain. Third, efforts across bureaucracies in Washington D.C. that deal with India are almost uniformly focussed on the Quad Leader's Summit in October or November, which provides an opportunity for another bilateral between the two leaders. 'Deliverables' is the name of the game. Yet, at least some of the deliverables need to be real. The ongoing process is less about padding a joint statement and more about searching for right-sized deals. There is a fire in the system to make something happen by the time the leaders meet, including a considerable push to realise new AI infrastructure partnerships. 'India and Brazil are the two most important countries for the US when it comes to data centres,' as one technocrat stated. 'We need to get this right on both sides', the official made plain. In the US, this would mean producing revised rules for export controls that make it easier to access chips from the US into India. In turn, India will possibly need to negotiate certain guarantees to make sure that the chips are not off-shored. Moreover, there is a significant push to deregulate the data centre market in India, and streamline processes to encourage the expansion of AI infrastructure in India. None of this will be easy. Deregulation takes time. Negotiating guarantees can be cumbersome and is a process that cuts across several administrative buildings in and across New Delhi and other Indian states. If Indian officials conclude that data centre investments are an advantage for India, this is the bureaucratic work that will be required to realise this unique moment. It is exactly why structures like TRUST were created, for top political leaders to monitor progress on crucial initiatives. The enthusiasm for investments and partnerships will not last long. This also might be kept in mind. This is a zero-sum play. In sum, while there is little doubt that Munir, Pakistan, Twitter exchanges, and the politics that shape these expressions and incidents to an extent inform the current state of US-India ties, at times exercising officials on both sides, it is also plainly clear that the functional relationship — which produces material results — is one that is working to produce outcomes, and not without the direction of the political leadership. Rudra Chaudhuri is director, Carnegie India. The views expressed are personal.
