In recent years, Delhi University has experienced repeated cases of unwanted male interference, which has resulted in sexual harassment events and disruptive actions like “cat-calling” and “sloganeering” in its prestigious women’s institutions. The University has proactively released recommendations and standards to be adhered to by all colleges in order to manage “safety” and “Security”, especially during events and festivals that may draw in outside people.
The University revised these notices three times between April 2023 and January 2024, in anticipation of and preparation for the upcoming college fest season. These updates signify the institution’s commitment to fostering a safe and respectful environment for all students, especially within spaces designated for women’s education and empowerment. By updating and strengthening these policies, DU hopes to fulfil its obligation to safeguard students’ welfare and dignity, making sure that their time in school is free from harassment and unjustified interference.
The proposed recommendation may initially appear to be a prompt and comforting solution to a serious problem. Such actions seem required because of the ongoing trespassing events at women’s universities, which have created a sense of urgency. The advice is also seen as a possible way to counteract the arrogance that certain males display in environments intended for women.
It is crucial to remember that many colleges have already implemented a number of the suggested measures, including installing CCTVs, permitting pre-registration via Google Forms, and designating security guards. There are still cases of infractions in spite of these current precautions. Sadly, some people who legitimately enter college property have been found to be the attackers in assaults. In this case, the issuance of a No Objection Certificate doesn’t seem to be doing anything to stop the objectification of the female body within a patriarchal framework and the exploitation of women’s spaces.
Implementing the guidelines poses significant challenges, especially considering the need for extensive security measures and the generation of sufficient funds, which may be challenging in the post-Covid era. Resource shortages and budgetary constraints are inevitable. The meticulous recording and documentation of all potential participants not only prove to be a tedious task but also add strain to an already overburdened administration.
Drills may prove ineffective, given the possibility of a higher turnout of outsiders on the actual event day compared to drill days. Ensuring well-lit surroundings near the venue becomes a substantial logistical challenge. The process of obtaining an NOC involves navigating through bureaucratic red tape and grants the state direct control over the independent activities of students, particularly women and other marginalized groups in these colleges. Consequently, the list’s short-term value and utility are evident, but its sustainability in the long run seems questionable.
All DU campuses, coeducational or not, are expected to follow the principles, but strict adherence is especially stressed in women’s colleges under the pretext of “safety” and “Security”. Sadly, even with these precautions taken, trespassing at women’s universities persists, underscoring a persistent problem with a foundation in male entitlement.
Women’s colleges are exposed since there isn’t a procedure in place to deal with and rectify this inappropriate male behaviour. The “advisory,” which throws all of the burden for “safety” and “Security” on the victims—women, other gender minorities, or marginalised people—rather than holding the offenders accountable, blatantly displays the prevalence of patriarchy.
The guidelines stipulate that the college and its authority bear full responsibility for any incidents that occur. This seems like an attempt to evade legal accountability altogether. Once the college issues an NOC, the burden of outsider transgressions falls on the transgressed party, leaving no room to hold individuals or wrongdoers accountable for crossing boundaries or disregarding them. While the college must acknowledge its organizational shortcomings, primary liability should rest with the police and the perpetrators of such transgressions.
The effectiveness of security measures in ensuring “safety” and “Security” is evidently questionable. Many stakeholders, especially students, rightly argue that true freedom is unattainable within a confined space surrounded by high fences. The looming threat from the external environment suggests that the barriers of “security” are susceptible to the persistent energy outside.
Historical evidence consistently indicates that escalating security measures do not alleviate violence; instead, they seem to intensify the undercurrents of unrest. Attempting to address patriarchal arrogance by erecting higher fences and obscuring the presence of women and other minorities only serves to reinforce the patriarchy’s conviction in its dominance, fostering a climate of increased submission. Consequently, the concept of “freedom” becomes a mere illusion under these circumstances.
The primary goal of University administration and law enforcement agencies should extend beyond merely ensuring the “safety” and “Security” of educational spaces. The current list of advisories is criticized for its oppressive nature and perceived patriarchal hypocrisy.
Instead of prioritizing gender sensitization and educating men on decency and respect for boundaries, the emphasis seems to be on “securing the sanctity of women and other vulnerable groups” by imposing limitations, while neglecting to acknowledge the culpability of the individuals responsible for misconduct. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that the advisory holds significance, considering that colleges alone may struggle to manage the escalating burden of male aggression.
