top of page

By:

Bhaskar Nath Biswal

13 May 2026 at 8:30:30 pm

Dialogue, Not Disruption

The Union government’s latest initiative, the 'One Day, One University' programme, aims to deploy Union Ministers to higher education institutions across India on a daily basis to interact directly with Generation Z. As reported, this ambitious initiative seeks to create a direct channel between top policymakers and youth, allowing ministers to listen to student concerns, understand youth perspectives on national matters and raise awareness about government welfare schemes designed for...

Dialogue, Not Disruption

The Union government’s latest initiative, the 'One Day, One University' programme, aims to deploy Union Ministers to higher education institutions across India on a daily basis to interact directly with Generation Z. As reported, this ambitious initiative seeks to create a direct channel between top policymakers and youth, allowing ministers to listen to student concerns, understand youth perspectives on national matters and raise awareness about government welfare schemes designed for students. Spearheaded by Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi and Youth Affairs and Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, the program reflects a clear desire to engage young citizens where they are. Across the country’s vast educational ecosystem, spanning over 1,300 institutions including central, state, deemed and private universities, this direct reach initiative carries immense potential, provided it is executed with care for the core mission of academic institutions. The Promise of Direct Dialogue At its core, the policy holds significant promise. For decades, a noticeable disconnect has existed between policymaking hubs in New Delhi and the everyday realities experienced by students across various states. Having a Union Minister step onto a campus offers students a rare platform to present their views directly to those who formulate policy, bypassing administrative bureaucratic layers. Furthermore, such visits provide a valuable opportunity to inform students about relevant government schemes, grants and youth programs that might otherwise go unnoticed. When executed as a genuine, two-way exchange, this initiative can foster civic engagement, make young citizens feel heard and offer leaders direct insight into the aspirations, anxieties and constructive ideas of the nation’s youth. The Practical Bottlenecks on Campus While the intent to build bridges with youth is commendable, the operational realities of university campuses present serious practical challenges. Educational institutions are already grappling with frequent disruptions. Universities routinely organize a multitude of events, seminars, workshops and ceremonial functions every week or fortnight. Each event consumes critical academic working days and leads to lost instructional time, placing students and faculty under continuous pressure to complete syllabi and maintain research schedules. When a high-profile dignitary such as a Union Minister visits, these disruptions multiply significantly. University authorities often become absorbed in protocol preparations for three to four days prior to the event. Infrastructure maintenance, security reviews, venue setup and administrative meetings take precedence over regular academic duties. Furthermore, ministerial visits rarely occur in isolation; a considerable entourage of followers, security detail, party cadres and administrative staff typically accompanies them. The resulting commotion, heightened security cordons and elaborate stage arrangements convert a seat of learning into a temporary hub of political event management. These grand gatherings consume substantial public funds, precious time and administrative energy, often overshadowing the very objective of meaningful dialogue. Charting a Pragmatic Path Forward To achieve the genuine goals of the 'One Day, One University' initiative without compromising academic integrity, a fundamental shift in approach is required. The focus must pivot from grand public spectacles to understated, highly productive interactions. First, meetings between ministers and students should be stripped of high formal arrangements and stage-managed formalities. The emphasis ought to be on substantive conversation rather than ceremonial grandeur. To ensure academic schedules remain undisturbed, ministers should interact with students outside regular class hours, preferably in informal settings such as campus hostels, common rooms or university canteens. Such an unpretentious atmosphere encourages candid, unscripted feedback from students while keeping normal lecture hours intact. Second, official briefings with university authorities such as Vice-Chancellors, department heads, and faculty representatives should be conducted in closed meeting halls either strictly before or after scheduled academic hours. Closed-door interactions free from media grandstanding allow university leaders to present ground-level administrative, financial and infrastructural challenges accurately. Digital Feedback Channels: A Prevention Strategy To ensure that student voices are captured continuously without relying solely on physically demanding events, the government should establish official online feedback portals. Managed directly by the concerned ministry or designated nodal officers, these digital platforms would allow students, researchers and faculty members to submit their views, grievances and policy ideas in real time. Providing an accessible, transparent and direct line of communication with decision-makers serves as a vital safety valve for youth sentiment. By giving Generation Z a reliable digital avenue to express their perspectives and see their concerns acknowledged, the administration can proactively address dissatisfaction, thereby significantly reducing the need for students to take to the streets in disruptive rallies or public protests to make their voices heard. (The writer is a former college Principal and Founder of Supporting Shoulders, an Odisha-based non-profit Trust. Views personal.)

Gun Violence in America

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Gun Violence in America

On December 16, 2024, tragedy struck Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student, Natalie Rupnow, fatally shot a fellow student and a teacher before taking her own life. Six others were injured, with two in critical condition. This devastating event is a grim reminder of the United States' ongoing struggle with gun violence, particularly in schools.


A Long History of Gun Ownership in America

The issue of gun violence in the United States cannot be discussed without acknowledging its deep-rooted history of gun ownership. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1791, which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Initially, this amendment was intended to empower citizens to form militias for self-defense during a time when standing armies were distrusted. Over the centuries, however, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved. Today, it is often cited as a justification for individual gun ownership, a concept reinforced by landmark court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which affirmed an individual's right to own firearms for self-defense.


Gun culture is deeply ingrained in American society, with nearly 400 million firearms in civilian hands—more guns than people. This level of accessibility, coupled with a powerful gun lobby led by organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made significant legislative reform difficult.


Gun Violence in Numbers

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), firearms cause approximately 40,000 deaths annually in the United States—equivalent to 109 deaths per day. This figure includes homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Among children and teenagers, firearms are now the leading cause of death, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.


School shootings are a particularly horrifying aspect of gun violence in America. Since 1990, there have been over 800 incidents in K-12 schools, resulting in more than 500 deaths and over 1,000 injuries. High-profile tragedies such as the Columbine High School massacre (1999), the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (2012), and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School attack (2018) have shocked the nation and the world, yet meaningful reforms remain elusive.


A Global Comparison

The United States stands out among developed nations for its high rate of gun violence. In countries like Australia, Canada, and much of Europe, strict gun control measures have significantly reduced firearm-related deaths. For example: By contrast, the firearm-related death rate in the United States is 12.2 per 100,000 people, significantly higher than other developed nations. The prevalence of guns and the lack of uniform gun control laws contribute to this disparity.


Challenges in Addressing Gun Violence

Efforts to reduce gun violence in the U.S. have faced significant obstacles. One of the most notable is the prohibition of federal funding for gun violence research. In 1996, Congress passed the Dickey Amendment, effectively barring the CDC from studying gun violence as a public health issue. Although the funding ban was partially lifted in 2019, its legacy has left the country with a limited understanding of the causes and solutions to gun violence.


Advocates have long called for measures such as:

• Universal Background Checks: Closing loopholes in gun sales to ensure that all firearm purchases are subject to background checks.

• Safe Storage Laws: Requiring gun owners to store firearms securely to prevent unauthorized access.

• Bans on Certain Firearms: Prohibiting the sale of assault-style weapons, which are often used in mass shootings.


The Debate Over Gun Rights and Reform

The debate over gun control in the United States often pits the rights of gun owners against the need for public safety. Opponents of stricter gun laws argue that restrictions infringe on constitutional rights and fail to address the root causes of violence, such as mental health issues. Proponents, however, point to the success of gun control measures in other countries and the overwhelming public support for policies like background checks.


A Way Forward

Despite the challenges, there is growing momentum for change. Grassroots organizations, survivors of gun violence, and some lawmakers are advocating for comprehensive reforms. The Madison school shooting serves as a stark reminder of the urgency of these efforts. As the nation grapples with its gun violence epidemic, it must look to both its history and the experiences of other countries to find a path toward a safer future.


(The author is a resident of US. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page