History Department of Shri Shikshayatan College

The Department of History, Shri Shikshayatan College, organized an engaging and intellectually stimulating special lecture on “Record-Keeping and Archives Management in India Down the Ages” on 25th May 2026. The session was conducted by Smt. Bidisha Chakraborty, Retired Chief Archivist of the West Bengal State Archives, whose insightful lecture offered a fascinating glimpse into the evolution of archival practices and the importance of preserving historical records across generations.

The programme was compered by Anchita Roy (Semester II), while Smt. Bidisha Chakraborty was formally introduced by Aashna Kadir (Semester IV). Through her lecture, Smt. Chakraborty highlighted the indispensable role of archives in safeguarding administrative, cultural, and historical memory. She further elaborated on the methods of archive management, preservation of fragile documents, cataloguing systems, and the challenges associated with maintaining historical records in contemporary times.

The lecture was followed by an interactive Question and Answer session, during which students and faculty members actively participated with great enthusiasm and curiosity, making the session all the more enriching and engaging. The insightful exchange of ideas transformed the lecture into a lively academic interaction beyond the boundaries of a conventional classroom discussion.

The session concluded with a formal vote of thanks delivered by Fozia Rehman (Semester VI), marking the end of a memorable and thought-provoking academic event organized by the Department of History.
Reel & Content Courtesy: Anushka Sharma

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” — Martin Luther King Jr.

On 1st April, the Department of History hosted the 8th edition of its Inra- Departmental Debate Series on the motion:
*“This House Believes That Black Lives Matter Represents the Second Civil Rights Movement.”*
Speaking for the motion, Devarnava Mukherjee argued that Black Lives Matter represents a modern continuation of the Civil Rights Movement, drawing parallels between the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. and the activism of Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi. The speech highlighted how BLM confronts systemic racism embedded within institutions such as policing, education, housing, and governance, while also emphasising the movement’s global influence and relevance in contemporary society.
Speaking against the motion, Soumili Ghosh questioned whether BLM can truly be considered the “Second Civil Rights Movement,” pointing to significant differences in leadership structure, organisational unity, legislative focus, and political methods. The argument further examined the contrast between the coordinated framework of organisations like the NAACP, SCLC, SNCC, and CORE and the decentralised nature of BLM.

What ensued was not merely a debate, but a day of intellectual vigour, eloquent dissent, and spirited historical inquiry.
Where do you stand on the motion? 👀




Caption and Video editing by: Fozia Rahman and Deepanjali Singh
Pictures and Videos captured by: Palak Agarwal and Rituja Dey

The Department of History successfully conducted the Sixth Debate in its Intra-departmental debate series on 30.03.2026, encouraging students to critically engage with the themes of decolonisation and the Cold War, and to reflect on the complexities of neo-imperialism in the Post-colonial World.

Speaking for the Motion (Soumili Bera):
Speaking in favour of the motion, Soumili Bera argued that decolonisation, although presented as a process of granting independence, often resulted in the emergence of neo-imperialism. She highlighted that former colonial powers continued to exert control over newly independent nations through economic dominance, political influence, and cultural dependency. According to her, institutions such as global financial systems and multinational corporations became new instruments of control, replacing direct political rule. She emphasized that many post-colonial states remained dependent on former colonial powers, which limited their true sovereignty and development.

Speaking Against the Motion (Deepanjali Singh):
Speaking against the motion, Deepanjali Singh contended that decolonisation was a significant and necessary step toward freedom, self-determination, and nation-building. She argued that while challenges persisted after independence, it would be incorrect to equate decolonisation with neo-imperialism. Instead, she highlighted the agency of newly independent nations in shaping their own political, economic, and social systems. She further stated that global cooperation and interdependence should not be mistaken for imperial control, and that many countries have successfully progressed after decolonisation.

The Department of History successfully conducted the fifth debate in its intra-departmental debate series on 24.03.2026, that encouraged students to critically reflect on one of the most significant geopolitical transformations of the 20th century.

Motion: This House Believes that the Dissolution of the USSR Was the Greatest Geopolitical Catastrophe in the 20th Century.

Speaking for the motion, Srijayee Sarma argued that the Dissolution of the Soviet Union marked a profound geopolitical catastrophe with far-reaching consequences. She emphasized how the sudden dissolution of a major superpower led to political instability, economic crises, and the emergence of multiple independent states struggling with transition. She highlighted on the conflicts in regions such as Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and argued that the end of the Soviet Union disrupted global balance and intensified uncertainties in international relations.

Speaking against the motion, Aheli Dey argued that the Dissolution of the Soviet Union cannot be considered the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century. She emphasized that its collapse brought an end to many costly indirect conflicts associated with the Cold War, reducing prolonged global tensions. It also weakened the arms race that had been draining resources worldwide for decades. She further noted that the Soviet Union had long suppressed the general public and national aspirations, and its disintegration allowed several nations to assert their independence. She further argued that other 20th century events, such as World War II, were far more catastrophic in terms of human and material loss.

The debate highlighted different perspectives on the significance of the Soviet Union’s collapse in global history. It showed how the same event can be seen as both a crisis and an opportunity. The discussion encouraged critical thinking and deeper historical understanding.





Caption and Video editing by: Adrija Adhikari and Rituja Dey
Pictures and Videos captured by: Palak Agarwal and Rituja Dey

The Department of History successfully conducted the fourth debate in its intra-departmental debate series on 24.03.2026, that invited students to critically examine one of the most debated issues in modern global history.

Motion: “This House Believes that the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan Was the Root Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict.”

Speaking for the motion, Ruposhree Raksh*t argued that the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine laid the foundational basis for the Arab-Israeli conflict. She highlighted how the division of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, without adequate consensus among local populations, intensified communal tensions and set the stage for prolonged hostilities. She further highlighted the present developments, noting how ongoing tensions in the region continue to escalate into broader conflicts such as the recent Israeli strikes on Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure and the resulting regional retaliation, demonstrating contemporary geopolitical crises and instability across the Middle East.

Speaking against the motion, Tannu Prasad contended that the origins of the conflict predate 1947 and cannot be attributed to a single event. She pointed to factors such as the Balfour Declaration, British colonial policies, and growing nationalist movements among both Arabs and Jews. She argued that while the partition plan acted as a catalyst, it was part of a longer path of political, social, and territorial disputes. The continued relevance of the conflict, she noted, lies in its deep-rooted historical complexities rather than any singular cause.

The debate highlighted the complexity of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the difficulty of identifying a single cause. Both sides presented strong arguments, drawing from historical events and present-day realities. It showed how history is shaped by multiple factors and interpretations.The discussion encouraged critical thinking and deeper engagement with global issues.