From strictly neutral perspective, it was the wokes who starts the divisions in NLUs, not the conservatives. I can give you examples of invitees cancelled by wokes but there are no examples of conservatives cancelling anyone.
Just like there is "Sanskritisation", where lower castes copy upper castes, there is also "Woke-isation" in NLUs. Students of elite NLUs like NLSIU and NALSAR copy the wokeism of America colleges, then NLUs of the next strata like NUJS and GNLU copy NLSIU and NALSAR, and then eventually all NLUs follow. So you will have HNLU Raipur students not writing papers on mining and deforestation in Chattisgarh, but papers like "Should the Indian Copyright Act be more Trans-inclusive?".
No, you ignoramus. It only applies to even those people depending on a certain timeline. Currently the Sikhs coming from Afghanistan can't avail of it as it stands now.
A large number of NLU grads tend to be drawn to either of the two extremes of Left and Right. There is a lack of vocal Centrists in academia as well. Although the vast majority of people tend to be Centrists, they tend to be less vocal.
Lol people are actually scared of speaking to the wokes on campus. No idea what they'll use against you. My guard is always high about each and every word I utter and I wait for the conversation to end. I used to love people before.... now I'm just like meh.
Specific to the CAA - no one has denied that a law which gives refuge to targeted communities is needed. Shashi Tharoor had also introduced a private member's bill which would give protection to refugees in accordance with international law.
The CAA as a legislation is inherently flawed. The example you speak of - the violence in Bangladesh, does not apply. There is a very specific cutoff date, and only people who have come in to India before that date (in 2015) would be able to take benefit of the CAA.
Further, it doesn't account for atheists. Atheists have LITERALLY been hacked into pieces with axes in Bangladesh. However, they either have to go against their beliefs and go against their beliefs and call them a hindu (if they arrived in India before the cut off date) or take a hike if they were born into a Muslim household (regardless of when they arrived in India). So much for the CAA bullshit.
Goes without saying it won't apply to the Sikhs in Afghanistan who were targeted some time back or any other community that may be targeted by the Talibs now.
Tldr; take a hike and employ some of your legal acumen
Not a woke or a RWer or a leftist or a centrist or any -ist, but my two cents on the difference between leftists and wokes.
Leftists have a very different perception of the economy, society, life etc which is much more radical and beyond the comprehensive of wokes. I don't particularly agree with them on most things but I appreciate their perspective and intentions.
Wokes on the other hand are just people who are radicalised through Instagram and are blindly anti-establishment and anti-anything-majority says or believes. They are controlled by the Instagram algorithm and are in complete denial about reality. One can have a decent conversation with a well read leftist but one counter argument with a woke and they'll go around outraging on social media about how someone attacked them verbally with elitist arguments and how they feel unsafe in society as a lists out ten different identities. After taking a couple of victims, the woke creates an atmosphere of fear around thenselves and no one dares counter them or their sacrosanct perspectives. And the proliferation of these hyper sensitive individuals slows causes the death of debate and discussion. It usually stems from a place of insecurity which mixed with a desire for constant attention on social media ends up creating really dangerous individuals. But unfortunately most leftists nowadays are engulfed by the woke movement due to the common factors in approach to fee things.
I miss having people from across the political spectrum with whom one could have a conversation without it turning into a fight.
From a centrist here, you too exactly use these illogical arguements to counter the right wing arguements. While the right wing person used whataboutery to present their views, you are presenting opinions as facts. It is very clear Muslims in India are much better placed than Hindus in Bangladesh, a Hindu in Bangladesh can never aspire to be the head of the state, a lot of human right reports have clearly questioned Bangladesh for their human rights record. While muslims in India suffer atrocities atleast there is a voice which in represent their views, Hindus in Bangladesh dont even have sufficent representation in parliament too. Let us atleast be proportional in our arguements, I belive that if we actually make proportional arguements there is a lot everyone can agree than cancelling each other.
Academics around the world are actually asking for inclusion of humanities papers in STEM courses, and here we have a know-it-all lacking any qualification arguing in the opposite.
My seniors used to tell me that my college used to be a very hospitable place. They still adore the place and have many happy memories here. It's no longer fun or happy. Even discussions when we used to go out before the pandemic were all political ones. No one knows what to talk other than this all the time. It's a toxic mess with people just waking up every single day to attack each other on social media. Most of their hatred on political grounds has sunk into personal relationships. I just want to graduate and get away from all of these people as soon as possible.
You demonstrate perfectly why the RW get laughed at because of their illogical arguments. For instance, your point about the Bangladesh incident. The Left don't have a problem with granting asylum and citizenship to persecuted Hindus, you have a problem with giving the same treatment to persecuted Muslims, who just like the Afghan refugees, face equal or bigger problems. The party you support wishes to dictate national governance policy based on religion, which is reprehensible to any educated individual. As for the incident itself, I don't know which places you get your info from, but the Bangladesh government has till date shown a lot more compassion and prompt action for the affected people there, compared to what the government that you support shows for the Muslims here when they face lynching and persecution. The biggest problem with you is that you consider the Left to be a homogenous whole and try to hold them accountable for every incident that they don't outrage about, while at the same time holding yourself to a different standard entirely. I can see that clearly, and I am not even a Leftist myself.
Rational or not, their freedom to speak is not up for debate according to your standards of morality and world view. It's up to the people listening to that conversation to make it. Stifling your voice because it doesn't suit my standards of morality doesn't make sense, yes?
Is status quo perfect? No. But is the way ahead to stifle the voices of the status quo-ists to establish a new order? No.
Sensitise. And give the person to make the choice on whether to agree with the approach or not. And make peace with it even if they don't. You're there to sensitive not convince. Howsoever horrible you think their world view is, there still entitled to is as individuals with free will.
The divisions are 100% the fault of the left. They are too arrogant and censor everyone they disagree with. Classic example: the Covid lab leak theory. Now it seems this could be the real reason after all.
Then look at CAA. The killings in Bangladesh prove it is needed. NUJS cancelled a GOVERNOR who is a SENIOR ADVOCATE because he supported it. But why not cancel Harish Salve then?
Look at Wikipedia too. They BANNED the Daily Mail from being cited. But it was the NYT that published the FAKE NEWS about WMD in Iraq, when there were no WMD at all.
Also, someone mentioned Trump. FACT: the only person who was shot on 6 Jan was an unarmed Trump supporter.
The whole country is a 'safe space' for BJP supporters. What else do you want, exactly? If you support inhuman behaviour and irrational practices, others will have to ignore that and praise you?
If you support a party that's well known for certain activities and lines of thought and then say that you harbour a different line of thought, then you cannot be expected to be taken seriously. That's how rationality works, unfortunately.
It happens when you have ZERO Actual Diversity. You end up with people who have a Homogeneous view of what constitutes diversity. The CLAT is biased to Upper Middle Class and Upper Class Liberals. They can only look at America and the West for their ideas cause their families have kept them insulated from the realities of the east.
When you mix these people who form the Merit Cadre with the EWS and other Cadre (people with real lived life experience of oppression) the people who claim they are there on "Merit" will need to go above and beyond to placate their guilt (that comes from privilege) and at this point they turn Woke.
It is disgusting to see a Privileged Class pontificating. When this happens those who have actually struggled in life, flip them off by turning Anti Woke.
Moreover I know a lot of BJP supporters (oh what a sin!) who actually are pro-LGBTQ+ rights. But they still hate wokes who occupy most of the conversations around these spaces for the very fact that their extremely biased and do not hear the other side. They're as liberal as any hyper-woke individual but they have their own reasons for supporting a particular party and have differing socio-economic views stemming from their background. Not saying that the right is all perfect either. But unfortunately it's a common practice to demonise them and gaslight through the "with me or against me" argument. Safe space working for just one side of the spectrum is just a toxic space masquerading as a safe space.
I think this is just a few loud voices making noise tbh. and of course, it is worse at law schools because students are so immature. The reality of the matter is- when you ask people about their position on specific policies , most people would express a range of opinions that swings from "left" to "right". it is only when you start with the tribalism to give people a sense of their identity in a group that you start getting into trouble. there are no "wokes" and no "rws" and "trads"? what the hell does that even mean? There are just whiny children seeking to define themselves with a tribe. you don't agree with someone on their politics? tough shit that's how the world is. You either engage with them openly and honestly, or you let them go their merry way. What is this cancel stuff? how can you cancel a person? twitter/facebook/insta is not a real place. best to not get drawn into the culture war stuff yourself, limit your exposure and focus on actually engaging deeply with bona fide arguments from all sides.
Please give us an example of an 'academic' remark critical of the LGBTQ community. I'm interested to see what sort of academic theory can pose criticism to an entire community for their very existence.
Things at your institution, bro, are getting out of hand. And it's the first time I've seen the left bully the right. (...) and the rest of the trolls have gone overboard with the trolling. It's my daily soap, and I receive updates all the time.
My personal observation is that things got worse during the recent US presidential elections. I'd suggest watching documentaries on how Facebook and Instagram polarized the population through its algorithm around that time to ensure people were plugged to it endlessly. If anyone observed, things got very very ugly around that time. I lost several friends over political arguments which nowadays are themed around "with me or against me".
I am sorry I am not from an NLU, but similar extremes have emerged in my university too and I had a suggestion to make.
I think that a two-credit course should be mandated in first year to introduce and teach students about the principles of safe space, tolerance, dialogue, and coexistence regardless of where one or the other side falls on the spectrum. Since the Prof. Shruti Pandey incident, there has been a raging discussion at my institution about the meaning and boundaries of safe space. Students argue that if Professor Shruti Pandey and her remark are entitled to a safe space, then an academic remark critical of the LGBT community (and their existence) must also be included in the same. Students have also complained about the inherent bias in sociology, political science, and jurisprudence texts and syllabuses. While I am not willing to comment on the merits of these arguments/claims/complaints, I believe that a proper core course in first year addressing these potential issues would have been very beneficial. We had workshops but I do not think they were enough. The issue is that no one on either side of the ideological divide is tolerant. Everything is about labelling the other as islamo/hindu/homo/indic phobic and nobody is actually sitting and talking it out like law students are supposed to.
Such a division always existed, but it was never this bad. Now you have have a situation where a woke will never speak/hang out/play sports with a trad and vice versa. Classroom debates regularly turn into ugly personal slanging matches. Guests invited by one side are opposed and cancelled by the other side. Professors are rated in faculty feedback forms on the basis of their ideology rather than knowledge of the law. Moot selections, sports selections, quiz and debate selections: everything is now turning into fights between trads and wokes. Open social media fights are taking place with toxic abuse from all sides. Unfortunately, these divisions are hampering efforts of students to be united and demand accountability from VCs and admin.
When, why and how did things get this bad at our NLUs? Also, is there a way out?
There needs to be ideological diversity in faculty.
The CAA as a legislation is inherently flawed. The example you speak of - the violence in Bangladesh, does not apply. There is a very specific cutoff date, and only people who have come in to India before that date (in 2015) would be able to take benefit of the CAA.
Further, it doesn't account for atheists. Atheists have LITERALLY been hacked into pieces with axes in Bangladesh. However, they either have to go against their beliefs and go against their beliefs and call them a hindu (if they arrived in India before the cut off date) or take a hike if they were born into a Muslim household (regardless of when they arrived in India). So much for the CAA bullshit.
Goes without saying it won't apply to the Sikhs in Afghanistan who were targeted some time back or any other community that may be targeted by the Talibs now.
Tldr; take a hike and employ some of your legal acumen
Leftists have a very different perception of the economy, society, life etc which is much more radical and beyond the comprehensive of wokes. I don't particularly agree with them on most things but I appreciate their perspective and intentions.
Wokes on the other hand are just people who are radicalised through Instagram and are blindly anti-establishment and anti-anything-majority says or believes. They are controlled by the Instagram algorithm and are in complete denial about reality. One can have a decent conversation with a well read leftist but one counter argument with a woke and they'll go around outraging on social media about how someone attacked them verbally with elitist arguments and how they feel unsafe in society as a lists out ten different identities. After taking a couple of victims, the woke creates an atmosphere of fear around thenselves and no one dares counter them or their sacrosanct perspectives. And the proliferation of these hyper sensitive individuals slows causes the death of debate and discussion.
It usually stems from a place of insecurity which mixed with a desire for constant attention on social media ends up creating really dangerous individuals. But unfortunately most leftists nowadays are engulfed by the woke movement due to the common factors in approach to fee things.
I miss having people from across the political spectrum with whom one could have a conversation without it turning into a fight.
1. Increase the weightage on maths and logic in the entrance test. Make the maths section tougher.
2. Split the batch into 1/3 BBA LLB, 1/3 BSc LLB, 1/3 BA LLB. The first two batches will have no humanities subjects.
You will see the clout of wokes reduce like anything.
Is status quo perfect? No. But is the way ahead to stifle the voices of the status quo-ists to establish a new order? No.
Sensitise. And give the person to make the choice on whether to agree with the approach or not. And make peace with it even if they don't. You're there to sensitive not convince. Howsoever horrible you think their world view is, there still entitled to is as individuals with free will.
Then look at CAA. The killings in Bangladesh prove it is needed. NUJS cancelled a GOVERNOR who is a SENIOR ADVOCATE because he supported it. But why not cancel Harish Salve then?
Look at Wikipedia too. They BANNED the Daily Mail from being cited. But it was the NYT that published the FAKE NEWS about WMD in Iraq, when there were no WMD at all.
Also, someone mentioned Trump. FACT: the only person who was shot on 6 Jan was an unarmed Trump supporter.
When you mix these people who form the Merit Cadre with the EWS and other Cadre (people with real lived life experience of oppression) the people who claim they are there on "Merit" will need to go above and beyond to placate their guilt (that comes from privilege) and at this point they turn Woke.
It is disgusting to see a Privileged Class pontificating. When this happens those who have actually struggled in life, flip them off by turning Anti Woke.
I think that a two-credit course should be mandated in first year to introduce and teach students about the principles of safe space, tolerance, dialogue, and coexistence regardless of where one or the other side falls on the spectrum. Since the Prof. Shruti Pandey incident, there has been a raging discussion at my institution about the meaning and boundaries of safe space. Students argue that if Professor Shruti Pandey and her remark are entitled to a safe space, then an academic remark critical of the LGBT community (and their existence) must also be included in the same. Students have also complained about the inherent bias in sociology, political science, and jurisprudence texts and syllabuses. While I am not willing to comment on the merits of these arguments/claims/complaints, I believe that a proper core course in first year addressing these potential issues would have been very beneficial. We had workshops but I do not think they were enough. The issue is that no one on either side of the ideological divide is tolerant. Everything is about labelling the other as islamo/hindu/homo/indic phobic and nobody is actually sitting and talking it out like law students are supposed to.
When, why and how did things get this bad at our NLUs? Also, is there a way out?