According to the results announced by the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) election commission early on Monday, April 28, Nitish Kumar of the All India Students’ Association (AISA) secured 1,702 votes to win the post of president. Next was Shikha Swaraj of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), his closest competitor who secured 1,430 votes while the Students’ Federation of India (SFI)-supported Tayabba Ahmed polled 918 votes.

Manisha of the Democratic Students’ Federation (DSF) won the post of vice-president by securing 1,150 votes, ahead of the ABVP’s Nittu Goutham who polled 1,116 votes. The DSF also bagged the general secretary’s post, with Munteha Fatima polling 1,520 votes, ahead of the ABVP’s Kunal Rai who secured 1,406 votes.

What has drawn much comment, analysis and criticism is the ABVP’s clinching the post of joint secretary, with Vaibhav Meena polling 1,518 votes, ahead of AISA’s Naresh Kumar (1,433 votes) and Progressive Students’ Association (PSA) candidate Nigam Kumari (1,256 votes).

This year’s election saw a contentious split in the Left alliance, with the AISA and the DSF contesting as one bloc while the SFI and the All India Students’ Federation (AISF) formed a coalition with the Birsa Ambedkar Phule Students’ Association (BAPSA) and the PSA.

In the midst of this the majoritarian saffron outfit to whom much violence has been attributed on campus ABVP struck gold. Meena’s win marked the first time the ABVP has bagged a central panel post since Saurav Sharma’s victory on the same post in 2015-16. Before that it was in 2000-01 that ABVP’s Sandeep Mahapatra had emerged victorious as president. The ABVP contested the election independently in 2025.

In the March 2024 polls, held after a four-year gap following the outbreak of Covid, the United Left won three of the four central panel posts while BAPSA — which had contested independently — secured one. In that sense, losing a critical post to the ABVP is a matter of concern.

While welcoming and celebrating the victory of its alliance on three central panel posts, AISA also raised concerns over the ABVP’s narrow win for the post of joint secretary and called it a challenge to the Left’s dominance on campus.

Given the low margin of just 85 votes that took the ABVP to victory winning the post of joint secretary, clearly this absence of unity made an impact. Over the past decade and more there has been a serious structural assault on the institution and allegations of corruption in the admission process to ensure BJP loyalists make it to faculty positions and this then, acts as a foothold for the ruling regime on campus. Given that, the fact that the Left has returned to its leadership position in the JNUSU is significant said the AISA said in a statement.

AISA also termed this as the alliance’s victory a mandate against the government’s New Education Policy which, it said, undermined public-funded education and discriminated against marginalised groups.

On the contrary, the ABVP called its victory “a historic shift in JNU’s political landscape” and said it broke the Left’s “so-called red fortress”.

“This victory in JNU is not only proof of the ABVP’s proactive hard work and students’ faith and commitment to nationalist thinking but it is also a victory for all students who consider education as the foundation for nation-rebuilding. This is a democratic revolution against the so-called ideological tyranny established by the Left for years in JNU,” the ABVP said in a statement.

Meena, the newly-elected joint secretary, said, “I am not at all considering this victory as my personal achievement or gain but it’s a massive and fascinating victory of tribal consciousness and the nationalist ideology, which has been suppressed by the Left for years.” “This success is an embodiment of students who want to advance in education by wholeheartedly upholding cultural identity and the spirit of nation re-building,” he added.

The polls, held on April 25, witnessed about 5,500 of the 7,906 eligible students casting their votes. While the turnout was slightly lower than the 73 per cent recorded in 2023, it was among the highest since 2012.

Twenty-nine candidates were in the fray for the four central panel posts and 200 for the 44 councillor seats.

A former student activist from JNU, Banojyotsana Lahiri put it aptly: “JNU elections unlike popular perception are never easy. The administration has systematically closed down every democratic space, they have altered the character of JNU, introduced courses like Management and Engineering, changed the process of selection. Since 2016, after the movement, JNU students had forged a broader unity to fight the ABVP-Admin-RSS nexus. While that was the need of hour at that point, it gave ABVP the whole opposition space to occupy. After 2016, for the first time, the broader left alliance broke this time. AISA-DSF fought separately, SFI-BAPSA-PSA fought separately. Other Left organisations put up candidates too. There was quite a bit of confusion among students. Votes obviously split. And after bitter and resolute struggle finally, AISA and DSF alliance WON three major Central Panel posts and most councillors. ABVP only managed to make dent in Joint Secretary, because of sharp vote splitting between the left forces.” In her opinion now SFI will occupy the opposition space.

There has however been speculation of whether the SFI’s decision not to unite with the wider left has anything to do with a tempered and confused central party line that is not prepared to unite against the RSS-BJP centrally and unequivocally. 

Satarupra, a CPI-M member and former SFI elected leader of JNUSU opined, “Whatever ABVP gained in this election must be analysed thoroughly. Those of us who worked in a JNUSU with similar composition in the central panel posts, and the students, teachers of JNU who survived one of the most notorious attacks of the Sangh Parivaar, exactly 10 years back, knows it well what they are capable of. From the lessons of that time, it is a must to keep a close watch on them as well as to not allow any room to them to attack the university and its students, teachers and staff. In 2015, the Left contested separately and had a fragmented mandate in the union. Despite that, after the election results were declared, instead of a ‘Victory March’, we had a ‘Unity March’. The exemplary unity with #StandwithJNU movement followed later. However, the sheer fact of ABVP won one post in the central panel was enough for the progressive forces to forge a unity from the very beginning. I hope that tradition will continue in the days ahead in spirit and actions. Lastly, what happened in this election needs a deep analysis and the entire Left needs to introspect and be accountable for what unfolded, rather than putting the burden on one organization and singling it out.”

Kavitra Krishnan formerly with the CPIML has singled out the SFI for its failure to forge unity against fascist forces. As have other academics previously from JNU. 

Either way one looks at it, the JNUSU polls are closely watched and do signal a weathercock for how the left works and strategies, nationally. With both the West Bengal and Kerala elections due in 2026, this could mean a different reality from what has been expected under the rather fragile, almost non-existent INDIA alliance.

Related   

“We have come to save public education, shoot us if you will,” feisty JNUSU president Dhananjay challenges Delhi police

When and why JNUSU President Sai Balaji wrote an open letter to PM Modi

Standing Up For JNU

What Exactly Happened in JNU ?

The post Left maintains JNUSU foothold, absence of alliance gives ABVP a chance appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2025, new textbooks released this week have, according to media reports, been designed in accordance with the National Education Policy (NEP) and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2023, which emphasise the ‘integration of Indian traditions, philosophies, knowledge systems and local context into school education.’ Both the NEP, 2020 and the NCFSE 2023 have been widely critiqued on issues related to pedagogy, content and structure.

The newly published NCERT Social Science textbook ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’ reportedly has new chapters on ancient Indian dynasties like the Magadha, Mauryas, Shungas and Satavahanas with a focus on “Indian ethos”. With a government in power that is ideologically geared towards shaping (or manipulation of) of young minds with a particular, majoritarian and sectarian view of the past, the definition of “Indian ethos’ itself as defined by it has come into sharp question.

Such a cut and paste attitude of the present union government has been evident since its first term when inclusive and rational history found the current regime’s displeasure. This government went further in 2022 and removed all mention of religious or caste discrimination from social science NCERT texts.

Coming back to 2025, another new edition in the book (NCERT Social Science textbook ‘Exploring Society: India and Beyond’) is a chapter called “How the Land Becomes Sacred” that focuses on places considered sacred and pilgrimages across India and outside for religions like Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism.

The book has no mention of the Mughals or the Delhi Sultanate.

NCERT officials said that this is only the first part of the book, with the second part expected in the coming months reported DH. However, they are tight-lipped on whether the removed portions would be included in the second part.

The book introduces the concept of “sacred geography”, detailing networks of revered sites such as the 12 Jyotirlingas, the Char Dham Yatra, and the Shakti Pithas. The chapter also explores sacred locations like river confluences, mountains and forests. The textbook claims that while the ‘varna-jati’ initially originally contributed to societal stability, it later became rigid, especially under British rule, resulting in inequalities. This attribution of caste inequity, humiliation and discrimination only to colonial rule while ignoring gross societal practices before (like for instance during Peshwa rule in Maharashtra) is an integral part of the majoritarian right wing narrative!

The Maha Kumbh Mela held in Prayagraj earlier this year is mentioned in the book, claiming that 660 million people participated in the event! The book also includes a chapter on the Constitution of India, noting that there was a time when people were not permitted to fly the national flag at their homes.

Litany of deletions post 2014

In 2022, as reported by Sabrangindia here, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), in 2022, as the school system recovered from the traumas of the online system during the Covid-19 pandemic, the CBSE dropped more topics including ‘democracy and diversity, Mughal courts,’ as well as poems of Faiz Ahmed Faiz from the syllabus. According to a report in India Today at the time, the dropped chapters taught the “Non-Alignment Movement, the Cold War era, the rise of Islamic empires in Afro-Asian territories, chronicles of Mughal courts, and the industrial revolution.” These were a part of the CBSE’s Class 11 and 12 political science syllabus.

Similarly, the group deleted a paragraph from the “Diversity and Discrimination” chapter in the same book that talked about how cleaners, washers, rag-pickers and barbers are considered dirty or “impure”. The paragraph was about how caste rules kept the discriminated castes from taking on work outside of their caste category.

For example, those assigned with picking up garbage or clearing carcasses as per caste rules were not allowed to enter houses of Brahmins or enter temples. The paragraph also talked about how people are kept from drawing water from common wells and how Dalit children are separated from other children even in schools.

Another casualty in the same book is the chapter “Key elements of a democratic government” that covered popular participation, conflict resolution, equality and justice.

In the Our Pasts-I book for Class 6, the chapter on Emperor Ashoka carried a box on Ashoka’ message, from which a reference to Nehru has been erased. The deleted line said, “Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, wrote: ‘His edicts (instructions) still speak to us in a language we can understand and we can still learn much from them’.”

Further, a few paragraphs on Prophet Mohammed were deleted from the New empire and kingdoms chapter in the same book. One of the deleted sentences read: “Like Christianity, Islam was a religion that laid stress on the equality and unity of all before Allah.”

Meanwhile, the Social and Political Life-II book for Class 7, lost characters such as domestic help Kanta, Dalit writer Omprakash Valmiki, and the Ansari family who experienced discrimination over poverty, caste and religion, respectively. Certain introductory content on the Mughal emperors Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb were also dropped from the Our Pasts-II book.

In the Social and Political Life-III book for Class 8, a box was removed from the “Confronting marginalisation” chapter that read, “The term Dalit which means ‘broken’ is used deliberately and actively by groups to highlight the centuries of discrimination they have experienced within the caste system.”

The chapter Weavers, iron smelters and factory owners, on crafts and industries under British rule, has been dropped from the book Our Pasts-III for Class VIII.

“Weavers often belonged to communities that specialised in weaving. Their skills were passed on from one generation to the next. The tanti weavers of Bengal, the julahas or momin weavers of north India, sale and kaikollar and devangs of South India are some of the communities famous for weaving,” a paragraph in the chapter reportedly said.

When these changes were introduced in 2022, academicians and experts such as NCERT’s Textbook Development Committee for Primary Education Chairperson Anita Rampal and National Confederation of Dalit and Adivasi Organisations Chairperson Ashok Bharti, had expressed the opinion that the deletions were made along ideological lines rather than for academic integrity. Speaking to the media, Rampal had even pointed out that the content was changed without consulting the original advisers and writers. On the other hand, Bharti accused the NCERT’s “expert committee” of trying to hide historical facts out of guilt. Both demanded that the group members reveal their identity.

The All India Peoples’ Science Network (AIPSN) too had, in 2022, in a press statement voiced concern about the various changes made “without any academic considerations or academic logic”. It argued, “No consultation with the SCERTs and the education departments of the state governments, school teachers, and the wider academic community, having been done before deletions and revisions in the content of social sciences textbooks used at the school level.”

The AIPSN argued that all changes were done in a hasty manner, shortly after academics, teachers and the Peoples’ Science Movements voiced concern about the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020.

In the same year, 2022, the CBSE, according to a report in India Today, dropped chapters taught the “Non-Alignment Movement, the Cold War era, the rise of Islamic empires in Afro-Asian territories, chronicles of Mughal courts, and the industrial revolution.” These were a part of the CBSE’s Class 11 and 12 political science syllabus.

Earlier in the year, the Financial Express also reported how the NCERT deleted chapters on climate change and monsoon to reduce the load on students. In fact, the Teachers Against the Climate Crisis (TACC) claimed that around 30 percent of the syllabus was reduced for this academic session.

An entire chapter on greenhouse effect for Class 11, a chapter on weather, climate, and water for Class 7 and information about the monsoon for Class 9 was removed. They argued that while the NCERT is reasonable in trying to reduce workload on children, it cannot remove fundamental issues such as climate change science. They demanded a reinstatement of all these chapters.

Expressing a different point of view at the time, former NCERT Director during the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government J.S. Rajput had then told The Telegraph that social science content in textbooks had for decades reflected ideological bias. He accused Left intellectuals of starting this trend with help from Congress-led governments. He criticised the previous history textbooks of dwelling on Mughals while containing little on the histories of north-eastern states or south India.

Even before, in 2020 the Board had ‘edited’ the Class 12 history syllabus. It had dropped the chapter ‘The Mughal Court: Reconstructing Histories through Chronicles’. The act was hotly debated. However, soon after that the Covid-19 pandemic devastation hit, and the controversy ebbed. Though even in the middle of the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown, the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) decided that high-school students no longer need to learn about “federalism, citizenship, nationalism, and secularism”. Those chapters were deleted from the political science curriculum of Class 11. Chapters on demonetization, were also removed from CBSE syllabus ostensibly ‘to reduce burden on students’. However, the ‘deleted’ topics were then restored in the 2021-22 academic session and still remained a part of the CBSE syllabus, reported the India Today.

Related:

Now NCERT removes passages about caste and religious discrimination from social science books

Are citizenship and secularism ‘disposable’ subjects for Indian students?

The post 2025 NCERT Textbooks: Mughals, Delhi Sultanate out; ‘sacred geography’, Maha Kumbh in appeared first on SabrangIndia.

At the core of academic freedom lies the unquestionable right of universities and their respective governments to shape their educational destiny. Yet today, under the carefully worded guise of “reform,” the Central government appears not to be strengthening this principle, but rather systematically dismantling it. We are witnessing progress, but a calculated centralisation of control, where autonomy is sacrificed at the altar of uniformity.

The recent Lok Sabha reply by the Ministry of Education to Unstarred Question No. 2698 (March 17, 2025), raised by Member of Parliament Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde, exposes this trend in no uncertain terms. The answer, couched in bureaucratic niceties and vague affirmations, is a glaring reflection of the Centre’s unwillingness to respect the federal structure and its growing appetite for centralised control over higher education.

The issue is not only about who appoints Vice-Chancellors or how new regulations are drafted; it concerns who gets to determine the future of Indian academia and, more importantly, who does not.

Diluting Federalism in the Name of Reform

The University Grants Commission (UGC) was envisioned as a neutral, academic body focused on ensuring standards in higher education. Over the decades, it has slowly evolved into a tool for enforcing Central directives, while the government claims in its reply that the draft of UGC Regulations 2025 “reinforces India’s federal structure.”

But actions speak louder than words. The proposed changes, particularly the mechanism for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, strip away the powers of state governments and universities, handing them over to Centrally dominated statutory bodies. By proposing that Vice-Chancellors be selected by a “Search-cum-Selection Committee” constituted by so-called “impartial statutory bodies,” the Centre has found a backdoor to insert its preferences into university leadership.

This is a direct attack on the constitutional mandate that education is a subject on the Concurrent List, where both the Centre and States must have a say. No clear explanation is given on who nominates these statutory bodies, how they are formed, or how “impartiality” is ensured. This intentional ambiguity raises serious concerns about political appointments disguised as administrative reforms.

In practice, this allows the Union Government to bypass state government recommendations, ignore the needs of regional academic ecosystems, and plant ideologically aligned individuals at the helm of universities. What is being presented as reform is, in reality, a clear case of regulatory capture.

Through the back door, this proposal to allow non-academics to become Vice-Chancellors is a case in point. The government claims this will bring “diverse expertise” and “leadership excellence.” Unfortunately, in reality, this opens the gates for bureaucrats, ex-police officers, retired IAS officers, and politically affiliated persons to take charge of academic institutions, many of whom may have little understanding of research, and academic freedom.

Apart from the protest of noted academicians against the Draft UGC Regulations, the government’s narrative also ignores the fears raised by state governments and teachers’ associations, who have warned that this regulation will stifle dissent, curtail diversity in academic thought, and weaken institutional independence.

Moreover, the claim that “more than 15,000 suggestions” have been received is a convenient shield. The government has offered no transparency on which suggestions were accepted, which were discarded, and what changes were made as a result. This is consultation in name only, not in spirit.

The 2025 draft regulations make this transformation disturbingly complete, even though the Lok Sabha reply praises the regulations for prioritising research and aligning with “global standards,” nowhere does it address the central issue that the UGC is no longer functioning as an independent academic regulator but as an extension of the political establishment. Then how can it ensure the praised “global standard”?

Far-Right Agenda Behind the Draft Regulations

The larger picture is deeply alarming. This is not merely another regulatory tweak but a calculated move in a broader, systematic campaign to weaponise education, transforming universities into factories of ideological conformity and reducing state governments to mute spectators in a domain where they once held constitutional authority.

The UGC’s draft regulations are draped in the technocratic jargon of “excellence” and “global standards,” but their real objective is unmistakable: to tighten the Centre’s grip on academic autonomy, erode federalism, and stealthily impose a Far-Right cultural vision on India’s education system.

This centralising move blatantly contradicts the National Education Policy 2020, which promised decentralisation and institutional flexibility. Instead of empowering universities, the government is exploiting the NEP’s rhetoric to mask its agenda, replacing scholarly independence with political loyalty, and pluralism with a homogenised, majoritarian narrative. From saffronised textbooks to the suppression of dissent on campuses, the pattern is clear, that education is being repurposed as a tool to manufacture a regressive, hyper-nationalist worldview.

India’s universities were meant to be laboratories of critical thought, not propaganda hubs for the ruling establishment. The relentless centralisation of power, from the politically orchestrated appointments of Vice-Chancellors to the sidelining of state voices, threatens to suffocate intellectual diversity.

If the government genuinely aspires to build world-class institutions, it must: Restore federal balance by respecting the state government’s role in higher education, depoliticise the UGC, and shield academic governance from ideological interference, ensure VCs are chosen for their scholarship, not their proximity to power, and publicly disclose stakeholder feedback and revisions to expose the drafting process to sunlight.

The stakes extend beyond education, this is about India’s civilisational character. By turning campuses into battlegrounds for ideological conquest, the Centre isn’t just undermining universities; it’s sabotaging the nation’s intellectual future.

Federalism isn’t a bureaucratic hurdle, it’s the bedrock of a pluralistic democracy. And academia must remain a sanctuary for free thought, not a playground for far-right social engineering. The choice is stark: Will the country’s education system uphold prolificness or obedience? The answer will define the soul of the nation.

The writer is Parliamentary Secretary to a Lok Sabha MP and an alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The views expressed are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Higher Education: How Centre is Undermining State Autonomy & Politicising UGC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This is what happened several months ago. A teenager living in the housing society where I reside was sent to Australia to study at a university in Sydney with much fanfare. The parents, whom I often met as part of a group, would tell us how easily the boy got his admission with the help of “some well-meaning friends,” adding that they had obtained an education loan to ensure he could study at a graduate school.

On reaching Sydney, the boy’s parents—especially the father—would tell us how a place to stay had been arranged by a “very close friend” at virtually no cost, and that the boy was “extremely happy.” We would be shown photos of the boy at various spots in the city as evidence of his happiness.

But as time passed, the father began to complain that his son had to “walk a lot” from where he stayed in order to catch public transport. “He gets tired on return,” he would tell us, adding that food was another problem. “He has to prepare his own food, which he has never done. Besides, while we can afford outside food, since he is a pure vegetarian, he isn’t very comfortable with what’s available on the counter.”

A month or so later, we found that the boy had returned. The reason? He was “unable to adjust,” and his mother was quite worried about him. “She advised him to return,” the father said, adding, “We have been promised by the university to return the advance fees deposited for his studies… Good that he is back…” Ironically, the parents never revealed which agent, if any, had organized the boy’s student visa.

While this boy returned after failing to adjust to a foreign environment, a news item published in the Times of India, authored by my ex-colleague Bharat Yagnik, suggests that Australia has now clamped down on Indian students, with the country joining the US and Canada in tightening immigration norms for Indian students, and several universities halting applications from six states, including Gujarat. The universities which have cracked the whip are Federation University, Western Sydney University, Victoria University, and Southern Cross University. Apart from Gujarat, the affected students are from Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Jammu & Kashmir.

The news item quotes what it calls visa consultants and foreign education experts—especially from Gujarat—pointing out that they are “rattled.” In their estimate, “20% of students from the state heading abroad typically choose Australia, a figure likely to drop with these new restrictions.”

Foreign education consultant Bhavin Thaker is quoted as saying, “This has dramatically reduced the number of opportunities available to students. Of every 100 students who plan to study overseas, at least 20 are directly impacted. With Canada and the US already tightening immigration policies, and now Australia going the same way, the list of accessible countries is shrinking. While there’s no official government statement yet, the message is quite clear.”

Visa consultant Lalit Advani is cited as claiming, “The decision by Australian universities to restrict applications from certain regions within India will impact genuine students. The majority of applicants are sincere, and they can be easily identified based on their academic scores, background, and intent. Blanket bans only add to the frustration.”

No sooner had I read the news item than I forwarded it to my college friend Neeraj Nanda, who runs South Asia Times, an online periodical in Melbourne, and phoned him up to find out what was happening, and what the Australian side of the story was. Nanda, who was my colleague at Link Newsweekly in Delhi in the early 1980s, told me that this is an “old story,” pointing out that the authorities in Australia have discovered how Indian students submit fake documents to study in Australia.

The post Why’s Australian crackdown rattling Indian students? Whopping 25% fake visa applications appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This disturbing incident has left Bengal stunned. Following the loss of their jobs due to the Supreme Court’s 3 April verdict, which annulled the recruitment of several secondary, higher secondary and non-teaching staff due to alleged corruption, the protesters were hoping to peacefully demand justice. Instead, they were met with force. The violence left several men and women grievously injured and mentally devastated.

In Bankura, some teachers, overwhelmed by despair, attempted self-immolation by pouring kerosene over themselves in front of the police. This journalist was present at the time and bore witness to the chaos.

Moumita Bhattacharjee, an assistant teacher from Paharpur High School in Barjora Block, expressed her anguish: “Bengal witnessed police brutality against us on 9 April. How are we supposed to live with dignity now?”

Santanu Maity, a dismissed teacher injured in the incident, said: “We did not come here to create unrest. We only demanded that the government immediately publish the list of eligible and ineligible candidates. Our protest was peaceful. The police are not our enemies, but under the orders of the ruling TMC-led government, they beat us indiscriminately. We condemn this inhuman act.”

Many teachers and non-teaching staff, both men and women, claim they have become victims of widespread corruption in the state’s recruitment process. They believe the government is now using force to cover up the scandal. Several of them also allege that not only leaders from the ruling TMC but also some BJP leaders also are under CBI investigation in connection with the same.

The teachers’ statements have been widely shared on social media, evoking public sympathy and rage.”First, we were sacked by a Supreme Court order that deemed the recruitment process beyond redemption. Then, despite assurances from the Chief Minister, we received no concrete resolution. And now, we’ve been kicked, punched, and hit with batons on the streets for demanding justice,” said Purobi Sarkar, a non-teaching staff member of Krittibas High School in Bishnupur, Bankura.

Responding to the backlash, Kolkata Police Commissioner Manoj Verma acknowledged the issue, calling the police action “undesirable” and urged protestors not to take the law into their own hands. However, the official police statement attempted to justify the action, stating that “light force was used to bring the situation under control.”

This justification has failed to pacify the teaching community.”How can the police beat up teachers with batons? Are we criminals? Goons? An attack on one teacher is an attack on the entire fraternity. The police must apologise immediately,” said Sudipta Gupta, assistant teacher from Purba Bardhaman and President of the All Bengal Teachers’ Association (ABTA).

On 10 April, teachers across the state staged marches and demonstrations, condemning police brutality and demanding that eligible teachers and non-teaching staff be reinstated, and that the government publish the list of ineligible candidates without delay.

“Go to work—who has forbidden you? Anyone can offer volunteer service,” said Mamata Banerjee, the Chief Minister of West Bengal, while addressing over 10,000 dismissed and aggrieved teachers and non-teaching staff at the Netaji Indoor Stadium in Kolkata on the afternoon of 7 April.

Her remarks followed the 3 April Supreme Court verdict that upheld a previous Calcutta High Court order, directing the dismissal of approximately 25,752 secondary and higher secondary teachers and non-teaching staff appointed to government-aided schools in West Bengal through the West Bengal School Service Commission (WBSSC) in the 2016 recruitment cycle. As per the CBI’s initial findings, over 5,000 individuals were allegedly appointed through corrupt practices.

Despite these serious allegations, the Chief Minister offered a vague assurance, stating: “I will look after everyone. First, let me identify and secure the jobs of the eligible candidates. Then I will revisit the cases of ineligible ones. Let us examine the evidence—who is truly ineligible? My top priority now is to protect the eligible candidates.”

This meeting was officially convened to address only the eligible candidates. Entry passes were issued for this purpose. However, chaos erupted outside the stadium even before the meeting began. It was alleged that these entry passes were being sold, allowing even some of the ineligible candidates to enter. Additionally, several individuals reportedly not affiliated with teaching—including TMC loyalists from unrelated professions—were spotted inside the venue.

After the meeting concluded, many teachers and staff expressed disappointment. There was no clear resolution or action plan announced. Instead, the Chief Minister advised them to provide “volunteer service,” a suggestion that left the attendees disillusioned.

“We expected a solution but were instead advised to work like civic volunteers. We have effectively been reduced to ‘civic teachers.’ This is humiliating,” said Chinmoy Mandal, a spokesperson of the Deserving Teachers’ Rights Forum.

Bapina Ballav, an assistant teacher at Brahmandiha High School in Taldangra Block, Bankura, shared: “Most of us are the sole earners in our families. Who will bear our household expenses?”

RupaliPatra, an assistant teacher at Jajigram S.A. High School in Birbhum, added: “We are not here to offer volunteer services—we are qualified teachers.”

Post-Meeting Betrayal

Two jobless teachers, Dhritish Mandal and Mehboob Mandal, were present on stage during the 7 April meeting, where they delivered speeches in front of the Chief Minister. Mamata Banerjee publicly responded to their words, offering hope to thousands. Yet, just two days later, both teachers became targets of police action. Dhritish Mandal was beaten and hospitalized, while Mehboob Mandal, a leader of Jogyo Shikshak Shikshika Adhikar Manch, was arrested.

“We never expected this form of governance,” they said in despair.

“At the Netaji Indoor Stadium, the Chief Minister promised to stand by us. But now, the police are being used to suppress our rightful demands,” added Rupa Banerjee, a teacher at Government Colony Girls’ High School, Kulti, Paschim Bardhaman district.

Many educators across the state echoed similar sentiments: “If the state government had taken timely action, we wouldn’t be in this position today. Why is the Chief Minister now defending the undeserving? Why are those who paid bribes and those who accepted them still free?”

On 10 April, the dismissed teachers and non-teaching staff returned to the streets in protest—this time bearing both emotional scars and physical injuries. One image, widely circulated on social media, showed a teacher, Amit RanjanBhunya, being kicked by a police officer. He joined the protest march in Kolkata, visibly shaken but resolute.

“Before kicking me, a police officer tried to slap me. Are we criminals? Rapists? Murderers? The ones who committed recruitment fraud are walking free, while we—the victims—are being beaten and humiliated,” Bhunya said.

Several terminated teachers and non-teaching staff have demanded that the government release the Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets of all candidates who were recruited through the 2016 WBSSC examination. “If the OMR sheets are published, the truth will be clear to all,” they asserted.

Sukumar Pain, General Secretary of the ABTA, stated: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly asked the WBSSC to submit the list of eligible and ineligible candidates along with their OMR sheets or mirror images. However, throughout the legal proceedings, the WBSSC failed to present the required documents. This led the Supreme Court to lose confidence in the state’s handling of the case, exposing serious flaws in the recruitment process.”

Lack of Clarity from the Government and School Authorities

Despite over a week having passed since the Supreme Court’s verdict, the state government has not issued any directives concerning the sacked teachers and non-teaching staff. District Inspectors of Schools and school headmasters/headmistresses are also in the dark.

“We are unable to go to school anymore. Parents and students look at us with suspicion, assuming that we all secured jobs through corruption. We feel humiliated. We cannot sign the attendance register, and the school authorities are not providing any clear explanation. The pain and uncertainty we are facing are indescribable,” said Manasi Bhoumik, an assistant teacher at Dhabani School, and Jiten Santra of Saspur High School, Bankura.

Financial Distress among Sacked Staff

Many terminated staff reported that they had taken loans to build or purchase homes and vehicles. With their salaries discontinued, they are now unable to pay their EMIs. They also face challenges in covering the cost of medical treatments for themselves or their family members.

Pijush Kanti Bera, the District Inspector of Schools in Bankura, confirmed, “We have not yet received any instructions regarding the sacked teachers.”

Uttam Khan, Headmaster of Holudkanali High School in Ranibandh, Bankura, stated, “Salaries are typically processed through the Integrated Online Salary Management System (IOSMS) by the 10th of every month. However, as of 11 April, no salary requisitions have been uploaded for the current month.” Many sacked teachers have confirmed receiving their salaries for March, but are unsure about payments for April.

Impact on Bengal’s Education System

After the Trinamool Congress came to power in 2011, the first WBSSC recruitment examination was conducted in 2016. During the Left Front regime (1998–2010), recruitment was held annually through the WBSSC.

According to the Right to Education Act (2009), the ideal student-teacher ratio is 30:1. In 2008, under the Left Front, the ratio stood at 35:1. However, the current ratio has worsened to 70:1, said Sudipta Gupta, President of the West Bengal State Committee of ABTA.

He further revealed that more than 3,98,000 teaching and non-teaching positions remain vacant across the state—from primary to higher secondary levels.

Both Gupta and Sukumar Pain warned that the situation will deteriorate further following the court’s dismissal of nearly 26,000 teachers and staff. “In many schools, the number of teachers is already below the minimum requirement. Schools in Jangalmahal—especially in Ranibandh (Bankura), Ayodhya Hills (Purulia), and Belpahari (Jhargram)—have either shut down or are on the verge of closure due to staff shortages.”

Last month, the Bankura district administration ordered the closure of seven Madhyamik Shiksha Kendras (MSKs) due to lack of teachers. In 14 years, the TMC government failed to appoint a single teacher to MSKs, leading to a sharp decline in student enrollment.

Following the verdict, several schools across Ranibandh, Sarenga, Bishnupur, Saltora, Raipur (Bankura), Joypur, Bandowan, Jhalda (Purulia), and Nayagram, Lodhasuli, Lalgarh (Jhargram) are likely to shut down higher secondary courses.

“It’s not just a few schools—numerous institutions across the state are at risk of becoming teacher-less,” warned Pain and Gupta. “Where will the students go? Will their families be able to afford private education? Many will be forced to drop out and migrate in search of work.”

Bengal already ranks second nationally in school dropout rates and incidents of child marriage. Teachers and parents fear these numbers will only rise in the aftermath of the mass terminations.

All picture by Madhu Sudan Chatterjee

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Torn Pages, Broken Bones – The Violent Suppression of Teachers’ Voices appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Soon after ABVP submitted its “memorandum to the administration” of the state-run Chaudhary Charan Singh University – a major educational institution in western UP – the institution obliged and decided to debar Panwar from all examination work for life. “She has been debarred from setting papers for life,” Dhirendra Kumar Verma, the registrar of the university, told The Wire on April 5.

The unseemly controversy surrounded the private MA political science final-year examination on the paper ‘State Politics in India,’ conducted on April 2 in the colleges affiliated to the CCSU. The ABVP objected to two questions that were about its parent organisation, the RSS.

In this paper, question number 87 asked which of the following were considered anomic groups – those alienated from society. Among the options were “Dal Khalsa, Naxalite Groups, Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front and Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh.”

Yet another question, numbered 93, was a match-the-following test. The question seemed to link the RSS to the rise of religious and caste identity politics. The other options linked the BSP to Dalit politics, Mandal Commission to OBC politics and Shiv Sena to politics of regional identity.

1. Rise of backward politics
   B. Rise of Dalit politics
   C. Rise of Religious and Caste identity politics
   D. Rise of regional identity politics
2. Shiv Sena
   2.⁠ ⁠RSS
   3.⁠ ⁠BSP
   4.⁠ ⁠Mandal Commission

The correct answer was A=4, B=3, C=2, D=1

Reputed for its disruptive even violent activities in Delhi University (DU) and elsewhere too, the ABVP said the questions had described the RSS as the reason for the emergence of religious and caste politics on the basis of the available options.

“Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been an apolitical, social, cultural and dedicated organization in the national interest on the basis of equality and national unity for the last 100 years,” the ABVP said. The wing of the RSS dubbed that the professor’s act was “anti-national” and demanded strict legal action by suspending the examiner who set the question paper in the “interest of students and the nation.”

A copy of the memorandum, shared by the ABVP’s Meerut wing, quoted by The Wire, stated, “The way Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been added in the above question, it seems that the examiner who set the question paper, being afflicted with some anti-national ideology, has worked to tarnish the image of the Sangh among the students in the society and create a wrong narrative, whereas doing so is not in the national interest.”

The ABVP also threatened to launch a large protest if the university did not act against the examiner. Registrar Verma said that a team of the university’s vice-chancellor concluded that the questions found “objectionable” by the students were “controversial.”  Professor Panwar, who teaches at Meerut College, was asked for a clarification, following which she submitted a written apology.

“She expressed regret and said that it was not her intention. She said she set the questions as there was a chapter on it,” said Verma. The registrar said no further action was taken against her. “She apologised for the mistake. What else could she do,” said Verma.

Related:

Madhya Pradesh faculty accused by ABVP of allegedly “promoting Islam” due to a post on Ramadan greeting

‘Attack on free expression’: ABVP ‘insults’ Udaipur professor for FB post

The post Two Questions ‘anti-national’, says ABVP UP professor barred for life from setting exam papers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This, despite the fact that the organisers had submitted a letter in advance, informing the police about the protest. “They still went ahead and began detaining students and protestors. A police complaint has now been registered against five to six of us, including myself,” said Shailendra Kamble, one of the protest organisers as per Free Press Journal. Though those detained were released later in the evening, the action has raised alarm over the criminalisation of peaceful student-led dissent. A day before the protest, the TISS administration had issued an advisory warning students not to participate—an action that one may see as pre-emptive intimidation.

The protest was sparked by the recent Bombay High Court decision that upheld TISS’s controversial decision to suspend Ramdas for two years. The administration had accused him of “repetitive misconduct” and allegedly participating in “anti-national” activities, including public criticism of the central government and involvement in protests against the New Education Policy (NEP). The court, refusing to intervene, stated that the petition lacked merit. But to many in the academic community, the suspension reflects a deeply troubling trend of institutional overreach and the silencing of critical voices, especially those from marginalised communities.

Progressive groups and student organisations have denounced both the suspension and the high-handed response to the protest as emblematic of a growing intolerance for academic freedom and dissenting opinion in higher education. They also demanded that Ramdas’s fellowship be reinstated, and that TISS reassert its commitment to democratic principles rather than stifle them.

The entire incident—marked by the administrative advisory, police clampdown, and criminal complaints—underscores a growing climate of fear within campuses that were once known for nurturing critical thought and political engagement. The treatment of Ramdas P.S., a Dalit scholar, and the suppression of those who came out in solidarity with him, raise serious questions about caste-based discrimination and the erosion of democratic rights in public universities. As TISS joins the growing list of institutions where dissent is punished and student activism is under surveillance or is criminalised, this case serves as a sobering reminder that the fight for academic freedom is far from over.

Bombay High Court upholds TISS student’s suspension over politically motivated protest: A closer look at the judgment

In a significant order with troubling implications for dissent in academic spaces, the Bombay High Court had upheld the suspension of Ramdas. Ramdas was debarred for two years by the institute for his participation in a demonstration against the BJP government and the National Education Policy (NEP), held under the banner of the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF–TISS). The division bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice M.M. Sathaye found merit in the disciplinary action taken by TISS, stating that the protest was “politically motivated” and that the student’s actions had brought disrepute to the institute.

The court’s ruling leaned heavily on the institute’s claim that by participating in the protest under a banner mentioning “PSF–TISS”, the petitioner created the public impression that the political views expressed during the protest were endorsed by the institute itself. The bench observed, “It is therefore clear as sunshine that the said march was politically motivated, which the Petitioner participated in under the banner PSF–TISS in a student group. Therefore, the finding of the Committee that the Petitioner created an impression in general public that the politically motivated protest and views were the views of the Respondent/institution TISS, is founded on material available on record and no fault can be found to that extent. This has brought disrepute to the Institute in its view. Petitioner can have any political view of his choice, but so does the Institute.”

Ramdas, who had earlier completed a Master’s degree in Media and Cultural Studies from TISS and was pursuing his PhD on a scholarship from the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, had been served a show-cause notice for participating in the “Parliament March” in Delhi on 12 January 2024. According to the institute, a poster released by PSF in connection with the march included the acronym “TISS”, creating the impression that it was an official representation. In his reply, Ramdas acknowledged his participation and admitted that “TISS” had been mentioned alongside PSF in a poster. Following an inquiry, the institute suspended him for two years and withheld his fellowship.

The court also examined a pamphlet circulated as part of the protest campaign which included slogans such as “Save India, Reject BJP” and accused the government of attempting to dismantle the public education system. The judges took particular issue with the fact that Ramdas expressed these political views while associating himself with the name of the institute. As the court stated, “The Petitioner has full freedom of expressing his political view; but to do so under the banner of Respondent Institute is what is objected to by the Institute.”

Referring to the Honour Code that students are required to abide by, the court noted that students explicitly undertake not to “malign the name of the Institution by presenting views on any platform, tarnishing/damaging the name of the institution in the public domain.” The bench held that Ramdas had violated this code by expressing his political stance under the TISS banner.

Another dimension of the court’s ruling pertained to the institute’s consideration of Ramdas’s past conduct. The student had reportedly taken part in an overnight protest outside the TISS Director’s bungalow, where students engaged in sloganeering that, according to the court, interfered with the Director’s personal life and rights. Though TISS had not taken disciplinary action for that incident at the time, the court held that it was within the institute’s rights to take such past conduct into account when determining punishment. The bench remarked, “It is settled position of law that in any inquiry, once the delinquent is given sufficient notice about past conduct or antecedents and opportunity is given to the reply to the same, the past conduct can be taken as material consideration while arriving at the quantum of punishment.”

The judges further reasoned that the two-year suspension was not disproportionate, nor did it amount to a violation of Ramdas’s fundamental right to freedom of expression. Since his conduct was found to be in breach of institutional rules, the court stated that disciplinary action was justified. The judgment concluded with a pointed remark about his use of public funds: “The Petitioner while enjoying the financial aid approved by the Respondent/Institute, participated in a clearly politically motivated protest in a student group under a banner having name PSF–TISS. Therefore, the necessary effect of such conduct on the decision of the Respondent Institute about grant is bound to follow.”

In view of these observations, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld the disciplinary decision of TISS.

The complete order may be read here.

Ramdas vows to approach Supreme Court, calls suspension a threat to campus democracy

Following the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of his plea against suspension, Ramdas announced that he will challenge the verdict in the Supreme Court. Speaking to the Free Press Journal, Ramdas expressed his dismay at the outcome, stating, “It is shocking that the Hon. Bombay High Court dismissed the case after more than 10 months of legal procedure. Once I evaluate the full judgment, I will take this matter to the Supreme Court of India.”

He stressed that the issue goes beyond his individual case, arguing that it has wider implications for student rights and democratic expression within universities. “I deeply understand that this case is not just about me, but about the fundamental rights of all students and campus democracy in India’s higher education system. I believe this case may set a wrong precedent for universities across India to target students who have independent opinions. This is a brutal violation of Freedom of Expression guaranteed by the Constitution of India,” he said.

The controversy surrounding Ramdas’s suspension had also sparked broader concern within academic circles. On October 4, 2024, an assistant professor at the TISS Hyderabad campus, Arjun Sengupta, joined a student-led protest in solidarity with Ramdas. The demonstration was organised by the Progressive Students Organisation (PSO) and the Ambedkar Students’ Association at the institute’s off-campus centre. Shortly after his participation and a speech expressing support for Ramdas—parts of which circulated widely on social media—Sengupta was issued a show cause notice by the administration.

This sequence of events underscores growing unease over shrinking space for dissent in academic institutions and the increasing scrutiny faced by both students and faculty who voice critical or oppositional views.

Background of the Case: Political targeting alleged behind TISS student’s suspension

The suspension of Dalit PhD scholar Ramdas from TISS had raised questions about the repression of political expression in academic spaces. Following his suspension on April 18, 2024, the Progressive Students’ Forum (PSF) alleged that the institute had acted in retaliation for Ramdas’s activism, particularly his participation in a protest march.

According to the PSF, the TISS administration served Ramdas a show-cause notice on March 7, 2024, citing his involvement in the Parliament March and his social media post urging students to watch Ram Ke Naam, a 1992 National Award-winning documentary by Anand Patwardhan that critiques the Hindutva campaign behind the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. The institute reportedly labelled this encouragement as an “anti-national act,” which added fuel to accusations that his suspension was politically motivated.

In response, TISS justified the suspension by claiming it was a consequence of “repetitive misconduct over a period of time.” In a statement dated April 20, 2024, the administration alleged that Ramdas had increasingly prioritised political activities over academic responsibilities. “Throughout his tenure, Ramdas KS exhibited a shift in focus towards activities unrelated to his academic pursuits, engaging in events, protests, and other activities influenced by personal political agendas,” it stated. The administration added that despite “repeated verbal and written advisories” to focus on his academic work, Ramdas had failed to comply.

In May 2024, Ramdas filed a petition before the Bombay High Court challenging his suspension. He argued that the disciplinary action violated his fundamental rights, particularly his right to freedom of speech and association, as guaranteed by the Constitution. His petition contended that the institute had constructed a false narrative to punish him for his political beliefs and activism. In addition to seeking a revocation of the suspension order, Ramdas requested permission to return to campus, resume his academic activities, and receive his scholarship stipend, which had also been withheld.

Related:

Mass Deforestation, Protests, Detentions: Supreme Court halts Telangana’s reckless tree felling at Kancha Gachibowli, questions permissions

SC: Recent judgment in the Imran Pratapgarhi case, what are police powers under section 173 (3) BNS?

India Is an Elected Dictatorship Where Constitutionalism Is Under Attack From Within

The post Dissent Under Siege: Police action, suspensions, and the shrinking democratic space at TISS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The minister’s disclosure, made in response to a query from Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly, has reignited scrutiny over KIIT’s handling of the case. Lamsal’s death on February 16, linked to alleged harassment by fellow student Advik Srivastava, triggered widespread protests by Nepalese students and diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal.

Nepal student had filed harassment complaint with KIIT authorities: Odisha minister

In a shocking revelation, Odisha’s higher education minister Suryavanshi Suraj stated on Friday that a 20-year-old student from Nepal, who tragically died by suicide at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar in February, had filed a “sexual harassment” complaint against the university authorities nearly eleven months prior. The minister’s statement came in response to a query by Congress MLA Dasarathi Gamango in the state assembly.

According to Suraj, in a written reply to the assembly, the woman had filed the harassment complaint on March 12, 2024. The minister further informed that a high-level committee formed by the state government is currently investigating the matter in detail. The university has confirmed the formation of an internal committee in line with UGC guidelines to address the issue.

Suraj also mentioned that the higher education department had not provided any grants to KIIT during the last financial year. As reported by The Indian Express, the investigation into the complaint is ongoing.

While KIIT formed an internal committee per UGC guidelines, critics, including the student’s father, Sunil Lamsal, accuse the university of negligence and mistreatment. The Odisha government has launched a high-level probe, and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has ordered an on-spot inquiry, with a report due by March 10, 2025. As investigations deepen, questions loom over accountability and the safety of international students at KIIT.

NHRC to probe suicide case of Nepalese girl, ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had ordered an on-spot inquiry into the death of a Nepalese girl student at KIIT University in Odisha and directed its officials to submit a report by March 10. The NHRC issued this order in response to a complaint stating that the 20-year-old student had died by suicide in her hostel room at KIIT University on the afternoon of February 16. The commission had specified that the investigation should be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

“Considering the seriousness of the matter, the commission directed the Registrar (Law) to proceed with an inquiry at KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, to conduct an on-spot investigation along with a team comprising two officers from the investigation division, one not below the rank of SSP, and one officer/official from the Law Division, and submit its inquiry report to the Commission by 10th March, 2025,” the NHRC order had stated.

As reported by Hindustan Times, the complainant, Ashutosh B, in his petition, had alleged that the Nepalese student at Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) University had been harassed by her “ex-boyfriend” and that the university’s International Relations Office (IRO) had ignored her complaints, which he claimed ultimately led to her suicide.

Background

In February 2025, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, was thrust into controversy following the suicide of Prakriti Lamsal, a 20-year-old Nepalese BTech student. On February 16, Lamsal was found dead in her hostel room, an act linked to alleged harassment by a fellow student, Advik Srivastava, who was later arrested for abetment. Lamsal had filed a sexual harassment complaint with KIIT’s International Relations Office 11 months earlier, in March 2024, but no significant action was reportedly taken. Her death sparked outrage among the university’s approximately 1,000 Nepalese students, who staged protests demanding justice and accountability from the administration.

The situation escalated when KIIT authorities allegedly evicted protesting Nepalese students, forcing them to leave campus without prior notice, some dropped off at Cuttack railway station without tickets. This heavy-handed response drew widespread criticism, leading to diplomatic tensions between India and Nepal. Nepal’s government intervened, with Foreign Minister Arzu Rana Deuba calling for an impartial probe and the removal of involved staff. The Odisha government formed a high-level committee, and the National Human Rights Commission began investigating. Amid the unrest, over 150 Nepalese students returned to Nepal, while KIIT claimed most later resumed studies.

Sent daughter for higher studies: father of student who died by suicide

The father of the Nepali student, whose body was discovered in her hostel at the KIIT campus in Bhubaneswar, Odisha, on February 18 (Tuesday), has accused the private engineering institute of “mistreating” undergraduates from Nepal. His statement follows allegations that KIIT had evicted a group of Nepali students from their hostel amid rising tensions on the campus following the tragic death of Prakriti Lamsal, a third-year B Tech student.

In response to the allegations, the Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT) issued an apology for the incident, asserting that it had “never done any disservice to its students” reported NDTV.

Related:

Tragedy at KIIT: The death of Prakriti Lamsal and the University’s controversial response

Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines

Education for a Hindu Rashtra: UGC-NCERT pushing a divisive agenda

The post KIIT Suicide Case: Nepalese student’s harassment complaint ignored for 11 months before tragic suicide appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NEP 2020 and the three-language mandate

The NEP 2020 recommends that students learn three languages. According to the policy, at least two of these languages be indigenous to India, with the third language available for the student’s choice—often English or another language. This structure is meant to promote multilingualism while ensuring that regional languages are given due importance. Importantly, the policy emphasises that states and regions have the authority to decide on the specific languages taught, aiming to mitigate concerns about the compulsory imposition of Hindi.

Despite this intended flexibility, Tamil Nadu remains deeply sceptical. The state interprets the policy as a thinly veiled effort to introduce Hindi into its schools. Further complicating matters is the linkage between the three-language formula and eligibility for central funding schemes Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). In effect, states are pressured to adopt the formula to secure critical financial support for their education systems. For Tamil Nadu, this conditionality is unacceptable; it feels that the central government is compromising state autonomy by tying funding to policy implementation.

Historical roots of Tamil Nadu’s language policy

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the three-language formula is not a new phenomenon. The state’s history is marked by a long-standing commitment to preserving Tamil as a central pillar of its cultural and educational identity. The roots of this resistance can be traced back to the early 20th century and have evolved through several pivotal moments: 

Early resistance (1930s–1960s)

In 1937, the Madras government, under C. Rajagopalachari, attempted to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject. This move triggered widespread protests led by the Justice Party and influential Dravidian leaders, including Periyar. The protests were so intense that the policy was revoked in 1940. This early confrontation with Hindi imposition laid the groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s future educational policies.

The Kothari Commission and the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE)

The Kothari Commission (1964–66) played a pivotal role in shaping India’s education reforms, recommending the adoption of a three-language formula. The 1968 NPE incorporated this formula by prescribing Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably a southern language in Hindi-speaking states; a regional language in non-Hindi speaking states). However, Tamil Nadu opted out, preferring to maintain a two-language system centred on Tamil and English.

Political consolidation and the two-language policy

Under the leadership of Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai, Tamil Nadu formalised its two-language policy. The state rejected the addition of Hindi, emphasising that Tamil and English sufficiently met the needs of its students. This stance was reinforced during subsequent anti-Hindi agitations, notably in 1965 when a move to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language sparked massive protests. Such historical events have deeply ingrained the belief that language policy should reflect regional identity rather than central imposition.

Understanding the legal context and rationale behind Tamil Nadu’s opposition

While education is now a concurrent subject, it was a state subject before the Emergency. Therefore, there is a degree of autonomy that states once enjoyed. When the Indira Gandhi government, during the Emergency, moved Education from the state list to the concurrent list, the reasoning was to have a uniform education policy for all of India with Union taking the responsibility of framing such uniform policy.

However, prior to this change in the Constitution, the opposition to three language policy was an equal fight—with Centre armed with Article 351 which directs the Union to work for the spread of Hindi while the States being armed with education being in the State List. This balance was tipped in favour of centre when education was moved to Concurrent List via 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

The later governments did not put Education back in the State list—continuing the central control over the coveted education. This meant that the Union gave itself the way to implement its Article 351 directive at the cost of States’ power.  This enabled the Union to give directives from a position of legitimate authority. However, NEP is not a binding document, and it never has been. The Concurrent List’s character of giving the Centre made law primacy over a state made law does not arise here since NEP is not an act by the Parliament.

Despite NEP being non-binding, Centre using the 3-language formula to stall the funds naturally does not support the claims of it being bonafide.

TN’s reasoning in opposing the 3-language formula 

Tamil Nadu asserts that its education system is already successful, as recognised by the Central Government itself. Given this, the state questions the necessity of the three-language policy when its current two-language model has consistently produced strong educational outcomes.

Moreover, Tamil Nadu highlights the practical difficulties of implementing the NEP’s language requirements. The policy mandates two native languages and one foreign language in addition to English. Since Tamil Nadu already teaches Tamil and English, this leaves space for one more native language. The state argues that this requirement forces it to allocate resources for teaching an additional Indian language, which it sees as unnecessary.

The key concern is infrastructure. If a third language must be introduced, what resources exist to support various native languages? Tamil Nadu lacks the necessary infrastructure for most Indian languages, whereas the Centre has both the directive and the financial resources to promote Hindi. This makes Hindi the most easily implementable option, creating an indirect imposition.

Furthermore, Tamil Nadu sees the linking of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds to compliance with the three-language policy as coercion. If funding is conditioned on language policy today, the state fears that future schemes will also come with similar mandates—potentially requiring Hindi as the second native language, further eroding state autonomy in education.

Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister has publicly accused the Union government of using funding as a bargaining chip—effectively forcing the state into conforming to the three-language policy. This funding dispute is not merely a financial issue; it reflects a broader struggle over the balance of power between the Union and the states in India’s federal system.

Broader implications for federalism and education policy

At its core, the controversy surrounding the three-language formula speaks to larger questions about state autonomy and cooperative federalism in India. Education is a concurrent subject—meaning that both the central and state governments have the authority to shape policy. However, Tamil Nadu’s experience demonstrates that financial dependency on central funds can force states to adopt policies that conflict with their own priorities and cultural values.

Proponents of the three-language formula argue that multilingual education has cognitive benefits, such as improved memory, enhanced attention, and better problem-solving abilities. They also stress that a multilingual approach is essential for preserving India’s vast linguistic heritage. Nonetheless, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in a country as diverse as India. Instead, there should be a more flexible framework that allows states to design language policies that best suit their local contexts. 

Conclusion

The debate over the three-language formula in NEP 2020, and Tamil Nadu’s enduring opposition to it, is emblematic of a broader struggle over cultural identity, state autonomy, and federalism in India. Tamil Nadu’s historical resistance to Hindi imposition is rooted in a deep commitment to preserving its linguistic heritage and tailoring education to its unique social and cultural needs. The state’s successful two-language policy—centring on Tamil and English—has delivered strong educational outcomes without the added burden of a compulsory third language.

The fiscal dispute that has arisen from the central government’s decision to withhold crucial education funds only deepens the divide. By linking funding to compliance with NEP guidelines, the Centre appears to be leveraging its financial resources to enforce a uniform policy across a diverse nation. This tactic not only undermines state autonomy but also raises serious questions about the equitable distribution of resources in India’s federal system.

The ongoing standoff serves as a reminder that the success of India’s education system depends not only on policies like the NEP 2020 but also on a balanced approach that honours the linguistic and cultural plurality of the nation. Moving forward, a collaborative framework that genuinely incorporates state perspectives will be key to ensuring that educational reforms benefit all regions and strengthen the very fabric of India’s diverse society.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Today, Tuesday, March 4, the Delhi High Court will hear a plea by one of the 17 students of Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) against her suspension. Students have been protesting consistently ‘repressive acts by the administration. Jamia students were suspended earlier this month with allegations of “protesting without prior permission” and “defacing public property” made against them. Students had been staging demonstrations against the university’s order banning protests and meetings without permission and the suspension of four PhD scholars for holding a demonstration on December 15, 2024, the fifth anniversary of clashes between the anti-CAA protesters and police on the JMI campus.

In the plea filed on March 1, Umehabbeeba Quadri, a second-semester BA (Hons.) student of Persian studies at the Faculty of Humanities and Languages, has asked JMI to provide videos to substantiate the claims of vandalism and defacement. She has clearly stated, “The atmosphere on the campus has become regressive, and denial of the freedom of speech has become routine. All attempts to obtain permission for holding meetings where speakers are invited to make presentations regarding human rights issues and other relevant issues are being denied.”

After, Umehabbeeba, even more students are expected to move the court over the coming days individually seeking the revocation of their suspensions. One more suspended student, Niranjan, who identified themselves as the ‘Jamia Seventeen’ in their protests against suspensions, said, “Activities such as demonstrations or cultural discussions are not allowed on the campus.”

He added that JMI students used to commemorate the clash between the police and the students each year. “However, this is the first time that show-cause notices were issued by the university administration for observing December 15 as the ‘Resistance Day’.” Mr. Niranjan also spoke about the lack of a representative student body at the university.

The JMI held the last student elections in 2005. The next year, it has banned the poll, saying that the students’ union was “exercising power in areas where it had no jurisdiction”. In 2011, a student went to court against the university’s decision. The matter is still sub-judice.

Talking to Frontline, a master’s student at Jamia Milia Islamia, Callistine said, “This is an experiment to clamp down on the voice of reason, the voice of anti-fascism, the voice of democracy. If they could completely erase Jamia’s history of dissent, they would. But that’s not easy. So they’re doing everything else; they’re taking over the institution.”

This university, established in 1920 as part of the non-cooperation movement led by Gandhi, Jamia Millia Islamia has a long legacy of student activism. Integral to its formation was its struggle against British-controlled education. Its commitment to social justice and resistance has continued through the decades, from the anti-Emergency protests of the 1970s to the “Pinjra Tod [Break the Cage]” movement in 2015, where female students challenged restrictive hostel curfews and policies. In recent years, Jamia was also at the forefront of the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) in 2019. The brutal police crackdown on students on December 15, 2019—in which students were assaulted inside their campus and library—is not just part of the systemic repression by the Modi regime against a prestigious educational institution but is observed each year as “Remembrance Day.” Students gather in groups to express solidarity through speeches and poetry—until now. Last December, for the first time, the administration denied students permission to hold the event, shutting down the campus under the pretext of maintenance work. When students proceeded with the protest the following day, four of them received show-cause notices.

In response, the students submitted a 16-page reply to the administration on December 20, which was deemed “unsatisfactory”. A disciplinary committee was then formed on February 3 to take action against Saurabh, a PhD scholar of the Hindi department. On February 9, another PhD student, Jyoti, along with two other students, received notices informing them that a disciplinary committee had been formed against them. “We called for a sit-in protest demanding that no disciplinary committee should be there, as we had done nothing wrong,” said Sajahan, a first-year master’s student of sociology and one of the 17 students suspended.

“Just before the sit-in, on February 9, Jyoti received a notice. So, the sit-in became even more necessary.” The protest began on February 10 in front of Jamia’s central canteen, demanding that the disciplinary action against students targeted for organising the Remembrance Day event be revoked.

Jamia is not an isolated case

Be it the Benaras Hindu University (BHU) in Varanasi or the Delhi University or the iconic Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the state has upped its ante on the level of repression.  “Until now, the students of JNU and DU were being illegally detained during protests. Now, the system is coming after us. The action against us is a direct attack on the voices of dissent. The government wants to finish democratic spaces on campuses,” said Uthara, a suspended JMI student to the media.

In other universities elections have been wilfully delayed by chancellors whose ideological affiliation is with the regime.

Background

Last year, in August 2022, a university-wide memorandum was issued, noting that some students with “political agendas” were holding “protests, dharnas and boycott campaigns on the campus for their malafide and political interests” disturbing the “peaceful academic environment” of the university.  Thereafter, more than two years later, in November 2024, a second memorandum was released, allegedly in response to student protests against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which banned protests and slogans on campus without the administration’s permission. It noted that students had also protested against “other law enforcement agencies of the country on the issues which are not related to the academia as well as to the University.”

This memorandum dated November 26, 2024, read,  “no protests, dharnas, raising slogans against any constitutional dignitaries shall be allowed in any part of the university campus, otherwise disciplinary action against such erring students shall be initiated.” Another notice released by the Property Department of the university on December 20, 2024, prohibited writing slogans or posting posters on campus without permission, introducing a fine of Rs.20,000 and legal action on anyone doing so. The notice also mentioned that “the University is increasing vigilance across the campus with additional monitoring by security personnel and CCTV cameras.”

The memoranda were clearly in preparation for the annual December 15 commemoration. As tensions sharpened, police patrol was increased, strict identification checks have been put in place, and altercations have left students navigating an atmosphere of uncertainty. For many, memories of the forceful entry of and brutal crackdown by Delhi police on the campus following a confrontation with student protestors in December 2019, resurfaced.

Legally curbing expressions of protest

The sit-in by students however continued. Then, a notice dated February 11 accused students of disrupting academics and forcing the closure of the canteen. “But it was the administration that shut the canteen and nearby washrooms, not us,” Callistine pointed out. “It was a strategic move to make other students turn against the protest.” Upping the pressure a la regime, on February 12, the second day of the protest, students’ families began receiving calls from the police. “My father got calls from the Jamia Nagar police station,” said Sajahan. “They told him that if I didn’t leave campus, my degree would be cancelled, an FIR would be filed against me, and I’d be in serious trouble.” Similar calls were made to the parents of other students, warning them to pull their children out of the protest.

“My father was really scared. He told me that you are Muslim in a place where both governments are now BJP. I kept telling them that ‘Jamia is safe, it is the only place where I feel the most safe’. But then this happened,” said Sajahan to the Frontline.

Later that night, at 12:12 am on February 13, Sajahan and some 10 other protesters received suspension letters from the office of the chief proctor while they were at the indefinite sit-in outside the university’s central canteen. The letter stated, “You are suspended with immediate effect due to your acts of vandalism, unauthorised and unlawful protest(s), and defamation of the university.” It also cited provisions of the newly enacted Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS), those related to mischief causing damage to property, unlawful assembly, and defamation. In the letters no duration wa suspension has been spelt out, leaving students uncertain about their future.

Direct police action began from the early hours of February 13 when security guards, with the Delhi police officers surrounded the protest site cornered the protesting students when they were asleep and handed them over to the police through a side gate. All this force of 2-300 police officers, clearly a terror tactic was used to detain, then suspend 10 students!

Related:

Crackdown on Student Dissent: Jamia Millia Islamia’s heavy-handed response to peaceful protests

Celebrating Jamia’s Legacy amidst the silence around our missing voices – Meeran

Jamia student leader, Masud Ahmed, gets bail in ED case, to remain in jail in Hathras UAPA case

The post ‘Free speech under threat’: again, Jamia student moves court against ‘highhanded’ suspension appeared first on SabrangIndia.