The Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) on Tuesday said it would continue with its approach of “agitation that leads to a solution”, an approach it claimed had proven successful over the past four years it has been in power at the Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU).
The organisation released its manifesto ahead of the September 12 DUSU polls saying the students had no alternative to the ABVP as the National Students’ Union of India had no achievements to show for it.
The ABVP claimed to have played a pivotal role over the years in raising and solving the issues and demands of the student community and would continue to do so.
ABVP national media convener Saket Bahuguna said the roll-back of the four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP) was a remarkable example of the ABVP’s struggle for DU students.
Admission process
The ABVP manifesto focuses on a more transparent and student-friendly admission process. It has proposed that students from rural backgrounds be given concessions in admission, and has demanded more transparency in sports, ECA and other quota admissions. It has promised to ensure that the Central Placement Cell and the Internal Complaints Committee against sexual harassment are made more effective.
The ABVP has also promised to continue its demand to make North Campus a compact campus, besides demanding a police booth near every hostel/college and to make sure there are female police officers present at every booth.
It has promised to ensure increased patrolling by PCR vans around colleges and girls’ hostels. The ABVP has also demanded that a student insurance scheme be brought in so that every student gets a cover of ₹5 lakh by paying a premium of ₹1 per day.
Lyngdoh Committee
The ABVP said the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations should be reviewed as they are not suited for an election the scale of DUSU. The organisation said the candidates are given very little time to reach out to over one lakh students and therefore having a paperless campaign was not possible. The ABVP also said the ₹5,000 limit on expenditure per candidate was unrealistic.
