Students at Jamia Millia Islamia have protested for 17 days, with some on hunger strike, demanding that the students' union be restored. The university has promised elections within 15 days of the union constitution being approved and says protesters damaged property, while students say there is no written timeline.
Why it matters: The protest at a major central university raises questions about campus democracy, student discipline and the right to protest in Delhi.
Winding down: no new coverage since 28 Oct. It will be archived on 4 Nov unless new coverage appears.
This matter is before the courts or under investigation. Nazariya reports what was said and alleged; it does not decide guilt or the outcome.
Based on 9 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 4 of 15 (Hindustan Times, The Hindu, India Today, Dainik Bhaskar).
Outlets report the same events and both sets of claims. They differ mainly in whether they stress the vandalism allegations, the unmet timeline demand or the political and outside support.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Covers students' demand for union polls and civil-liberty concerns, giving space to protesters and solidarity groups, with the university's damage claims also reported. Mild lean on campus democracy and dissent.
Why: Interview gives NSUI chief unchallenged space to call the administration BJP-backed and the protest wrongly branded anti-national. It stresses civil liberties and student rights and leans left, with a one-sided, critical stance.
Why: Centres students' demand for restored union elections, civil-liberty and democratic-space concerns, and critiques of campus security; sources are mostly protesters and left student groups. Union govt role is indirect, so stance is mildly critical.
Why: Balanced campus protest report giving both administration and student/SFI claims; VHP 'anti-India' line is attributed, not own voice. Touches student rights mildly, no clear ideological tilt.
Why: Campus democracy and student-rights angle, with protesters and civil society getting most space, but the article reports the university's order and facts evenly. Mild civil-liberties lean, no loaded wording.
Why: Covers a campus protest over student union polls with both minister and student voices; touches civil liberties lightly (detentions, closures) but stays balanced, so near the centre.
Why: Balanced account of campus protest; gives both university and student claims. Touches civil liberties lightly but no clear framing or loaded wording, so near centre and neutral.
Why: Mostly balanced account of campus unrest; leans slightly on official and administration framing of violence, but also carries student demands and SFI complaints. Mild security-order tilt.
Why: Campus protest report with university allegations and student and NSUI counter-claims; no clear policy or ideological framing on the rubric's dimensions, and balanced sourcing.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.