Meera says no, instinctively. Then she hangs up and opens Instagram. She sees the comments: “Randi,” “Characterless,” “Chhapri,” “Her father must be so ashamed.” She sees a meme that has turned her face into a reaction sticker. She sees a tweet that says, “If she were my daughter, I would send her to a village for two years.”
The phrase “code of conduct” implies that what happened was a breach of rules, not a breach of privacy. The college principal, a woman in her sixties, calls for a “special meeting” of the Discipline Committee. No one asks who filmed the video or why it was shared. Meera says no, instinctively
The boy, let’s call him Arjun, fares slightly better—because the internet is a patriarchal place. He receives DMs calling him “lucky” and “beast.” A few men ask him for “tips.” But his father also sees the video. His father does not cry; he says, “This will affect your placements. Companies do background checks.” She sees a tweet that says, “If she
She vomits. Then she deletes her Instagram, her Facebook, her Twitter, her Snapchat. But the video is already archived on a dozen “meme pages” that specialize in leaked college content. It will never be deleted. The boy, let’s call him Arjun, fares slightly
News channels pick it up. A debate is held on Times Now: “Love in Public Places: Freedom or Obscenity?” A male panelist in a navy blazer says, “I’m not a prude, but there is a time and place.” A female panelist, the token progressive, says, “The crime is the filming, not the act.” The host cuts her off for a commercial break.
It begins, as these stories often do, in a liminal space of a North Campus college—perhaps Miranda House, perhaps Ramjas, perhaps a staircase near the Arts Faculty library. The time is always “after hours,” when the fluorescent lights of the corridor cast a sickly yellow glow. A boy and a girl, both around nineteen, sit close. Their crime? A hand resting on a knee. A whispered joke that leads to a laugh. A kiss on the cheek that lasts a second too long.
Newspapers publish think pieces titled “The Delhi University Video: A Mirror to Our Hypocrisy.” The argument is symmetrical: yes, the leak is wrong, but young people must also exercise “situational awareness.” The word “privacy” is used seventeen times. The word “consent” is used twice.