top of page

By:

Kuldeep Ambekar

22 September 2024 at 10:02:18 am

New Names, Old Realities

Renaming hostels may soothe stigma, but it does little to fix the conditions that define students’ lives AI generated image Pune: Recently, the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department decided to excise the term ‘Backward Class’ from the names of its government hostels and rechristen them after revered historical figures. While the move to replace them with names that evoke dignity and achievement is, on the face of it, a step towards psychological emancipation, it is also a reminder...

New Names, Old Realities

Renaming hostels may soothe stigma, but it does little to fix the conditions that define students’ lives AI generated image Pune: Recently, the Social Justice and Special Assistance Department decided to excise the term ‘Backward Class’ from the names of its government hostels and rechristen them after revered historical figures. While the move to replace them with names that evoke dignity and achievement is, on the face of it, a step towards psychological emancipation, it is also a reminder of a familiar tendency in public policy: to mistake symbolism for substance. Across Maharashtra, more than 400 such hostels house thousands of students from rural, tribal and economically weaker backgrounds. For many, these institutions are not mere lodgings; they are the first foothold in an unfamiliar urban landscape, the fragile bridge between deprivation and opportunity. If India’s promise of social mobility is to mean anything, it must begin in places such as these. Sobering Reality But the reality within their walls is sobering. In numerous hostels, access to clean drinking water remains erratic; during the punishing summer months, students rely on water tankers. Sanitary facilities are often in disrepair, with broken drainage systems and irregular cleaning. Food, a basic determinant of health and cognitive ability, is frequently reported to be of poor quality, nutritionally deficient and sourced from substandard supplies. Regular health check-ups are rare, and medical emergencies are handled with alarming uncertainty. These are not minor administrative lapses. They strike at the heart of what ‘social justice’ purports to achieve. A system that promises uplift but delivers neglect risks entrenching the very inequalities it seeks to erase. The contradictions extend beyond infrastructure. In the name of safety, some hostels lack even basic surveillance, while others deploy it in ways that constrain students’ autonomy. Communication between staff and residents is often strained, marked by indifference rather than empathy. Urban hostels, predictably, fare somewhat better. Rural ones lag far behind, reflecting the broader unevenness of state capacity. More troubling still is the creeping culture of control. Under the guise of discipline, students are discouraged and sometimes explicitly threatened from participating in social or political movements. This is a sharp departure from the historical role these hostels once played. They were incubators of ideas, crucibles of leadership and, at times, engines of social change. It was in such spaces that B. R. Ambedkar’s exhortation of “Educate, Agitate, Organize” found its most fertile ground. Education, in this conception, was never meant to be a narrow accumulation of degrees. It was a means to awaken critical consciousness, to challenge hierarchy and to imagine new social arrangements. To strip hostels of this spirit while polishing their names is to honour Ambedkar in form while neglecting him in substance. The government’s decision to rename these institutions after great icons underscores this tension. Names can inspire, but they also impose a standard. A hostel that bears the name of a social reformer or national leader implicitly promises to embody the values associated with that figure. When the infrastructure falls short, the tribute rings hollow. Meaningful Reforms What, then, would constitute a more meaningful reform? The answer is neither obscure nor prohibitively expensive. Dedicated funding for infrastructure upgrades is a starting point. Annual social audits could ensure accountability, while student representation in management would bring much-needed responsiveness. Regular health services and counselling, nutritional monitoring of meals, and access to digital libraries and competitive-exam guidance would transform these hostels from mere shelters into genuine platforms for advancement. The sums involved are modest when set against the scale of public expenditure. Governments routinely announce schemes worth thousands of crores. That a comprehensive plan to improve institutions affecting thousands of vulnerable students has yet to materialise suggests a failure not of resources, but of prioritisation. To be sure, language is not trivial. The removal of a term that connotes backwardness may, over time, chip away at internalised hierarchies. But it cannot substitute for clean water, safe sanitation or intellectual freedom. Nor can it compensate for a system that disciplines initiative rather than nurturing it. The deeper question is whether social justice is understood as a matter of optics or outcomes. If it is the former, then renaming hostels is progress enough. If it is the latter, then the task is far more demanding. It requires policy-level resolve, administrative competence and, above all, the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the state of public institutions. For now, the risk is that the signboards will change while the lived experience remains stubbornly the same. Maharashtra’s students deserve better. A hostel, after all, is not merely a place to sleep. It is a university of life that shapes aspirations and builds resilience.

Sacred Attire

Updated: Jan 30, 2025

The Siddhivinayak Temple Trust’s recent decision to implement a dress code prohibiting short skirts, torn jeans and other revealing attire is a necessary move to uphold the sanctity of religious spaces. Temples are spiritual spaces where devotees seek solace, offer prayers, and connect with the divine. Temples are not mere tourist attractions but sacred sanctuaries. The least that visitors can do is dress accordingly.


The Jagannath temple in Puri, Odisha, and the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan have already implemented similar rules, reflecting a growing recognition that religious spaces require a modicum of decorum. In the case of Siddhivinayak, the temple attracts thousands of devotees daily, many of whom have expressed discomfort over attire that they feel clashes with the temple’s spiritual ambience.


Few would question the need for decorum in a courtroom, a government office, or even an upscale restaurant. Yet, when religious institutions enforce dress codes to preserve their sanctity, a chorus of indignation often rises in the name of personal freedom, with such ‘critics’ arguing that such rules reflect moral policing or an imposition of traditionalist values.

But this argument confuses religious sanctity with public space liberalism. No one is being compelled to enter the temple, and those who do should respect the customs that govern it. Even in non-Hindu religious spaces, dress codes are the norm. One does not enter a gurdwara without covering their head, nor a mosque or church dressed in attire deemed unsuitable for prayer. The sanctity of a religious institution should not be sacrificed at the altar of modern whims.


To dismiss this as an encroachment on personal liberties is to misunderstand the nature of such spaces. Religious sites operate under different expectations than public thoroughfares or commercial hubs. They are designed for reflection, devotion, and ritual. While Indian society has rightly evolved towards greater personal freedom in many spheres, faith-based institutions must be allowed to maintain traditions that are integral to their identity. The temple trust has made it clear that its goal is not to impose regressive restrictions but to ensure that all visitors feel comfortable and that the sanctity of the temple is upheld.


Moreover, the argument that religious sites must remain entirely open-ended in their dress codes simply does not hold water. Many of the people who object to these restrictions would scarcely question the need for appropriate attire at a formal event or while meeting a dignitary. The principle is the same -respect for the setting dictates the mode of dress. Those who seek to frame this as a battle between liberalism and conservatism fail to grasp that such measures are about propriety, not repression.


In an era where the lines between cultural expression and decorum are increasingly blurred, it is worth remembering that not every rule is an infringement on liberty. If people can abide by dress codes in secular spaces, they should extend the same courtesy to places of worship.

Comments

bottom of page