What followed has only deepened that concern. Across campuses, students protesting the Supreme Court stay on UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 have faced intimidation, surveillance, violence, and criminal process. Instead of debate, there has been policing. Instead of institutional introspection, securitisation. And instead of engagement with the substance of caste discrimination, there has been an aggressive narrowing of what may even be spoken.

Together, these developments mark a dangerous convergence: the criminalisation of speech, the judicial suspension of equity safeguards, and the shrinking of democratic space within institutions meant to nurture critical thought.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

A judicial stay that did not calm campuses—but exposed a fault line

The immediate trigger for nationwide student mobilisation was the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the UGC Equity Regulations 2026, observing that the framework appeared “too sweeping” and required closer scrutiny. The stay was framed as a neutral act of caution. On campuses, it was experienced as something else entirely: a sudden withdrawal of long-awaited recognition.

As reported by India Today, students argued that the regulations were halted before they could even be tested. No implementation, no data, no demonstrated misuse—only a speculative fear that accountability mechanisms might be abused. The contrast was striking. In a legal system where far-reaching executive actions are often allowed to operate while constitutional challenges remain pending for years, a framework designed to protect marginalised students was frozen at inception.

The context matters. The 2026 regulations did not emerge in a vacuum. They were the product of years of litigation, including the long-pending petition filed by the mothers of Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom died by suicide after alleged caste-based harassment. Over time, the Supreme Court itself sought reports, monitored compliance, and pressed for reform. A Parliamentary Standing Committee reviewed the draft regulations in late 2025, recommending substantive changes—many of which were incorporated.

Yet, at the very first hearing after notification, the framework was stayed.

For students already navigating hostile campuses, the implication was stark: caste discrimination may be acknowledged rhetorically, but meaningful institutional safeguards remain deeply contested.

Campuses Respond: Different languages, the same demand for justice

The response to the stay has varied across universities, shaped by institutional histories and student politics. But taken together, protests at JNU, BHU, and Delhi University reveal a shared insistence that equity cannot remain a matter of administrative goodwill.

JNU: The defence of ideological space

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, students organised torchlight processions demanding immediate implementation of the regulations and renewed calls for a statutory Rohith Act—a central anti-discrimination law for higher education.

Placards and slogans opposing Brahmanism and Manusmriti dominated the march. Defending the language used, JNUSU representatives told PTI that the slogans were ideological critiques, not attacks on any caste group—an important distinction grounded in established free-speech jurisprudence. Political critique, even when sharp or unsettling, lies at the heart of constitutional democracy.

Student leaders also raised a pointed question: why was extraordinary urgency shown in staying these regulations when countless cases involving civil liberties remain pending for years? The warning from the campus was clear—if justice is indefinitely deferred within universities, it will not remain confined there.

UGC गाइडलाइन के समर्थन में जेएनयू स्टूडेंट्स का मार्च#JNU #UGCRegulations2026 pic.twitter.com/S9tlsULus0

— Dalit Dastak | दलित दस्तक (@DalitDastak) February 4, 2026

BHU: Evidence, reports, and institutional failure

At Banaras Hindu University, the protest took a different form. Hundreds of SC, ST, and OBC students marched carrying letters, official reports, and citations, demanding Equal Opportunity Centres, Equity Committees, transparency in grievance redressal, and public disclosure of compliance.

As reported by India Today, students cited the Thorat Committee Report (2007) and the IIT Delhi study (2019), both of which document systemic discrimination and its links to mental health crises, dropouts, and suicides. The emphasis here was not symbolic resistance but institutional accountability.

A heavy police presence and alert proctorial boards accompanied the march—an unsettling reminder of how quickly claims of discrimination are met with securitisation rather than reform.

Delhi University: From regulation to law

At Delhi University, Left-backed student groups led an “Equity March” through North Campus, framing the issue as a legislative and constitutional question. According to The Times of India, speakers argued that without statutory backing, grievance mechanisms remain fragile, easily diluted, and subject to withdrawal.

The demand for the Rohith Act surfaced repeatedly—reflecting a growing consensus that enforceable rights, not discretionary guidelines, are essential to address structural caste discrimination.

Violence, policing, and the price of naming caste

Even as students mobilised, reports of violence and intimidation surfaced from multiple campuses. As per reports, a BHU student allegedly being beaten by upper-caste peers for sharing a poster supporting the UGC protests in a WhatsApp group. At Allahabad University, students discussing equity regulations were reportedly attacked, with allegations pointing to ABVP-linked groups.

Most chilling was the Allahabad University episode itself: students allegedly assaulted, and one student arrested or warned for speech alone. If the use of the word “Brahminism”—a staple of academic critique—can invite police action, the boundary between maintaining order and enforcing ideological conformity has all but vanished.

For many protesters, these incidents crystallised the argument for equity regulations: without enforceable safeguards, marginalised students are left vulnerable not just to bureaucratic neglect, but to physical and legal harm.

चप्पा चप्पा गूंज उठेगा , जय भीम के नारों से pic.twitter.com/5eb3H59nXr

— Dr. Om Sudha (@dromsudhaa) February 4, 2026

This is shocking and absolutely unacceptable in university campuses. Students who were peacefully discussing equity regulations in University of Allahabad were reportedly beaten up by Brahmanical forces of ABVP. This is exactly why we need equity regulations. The safety of… pic.twitter.com/beFHX0xoSh

— Rehna Raveendran (@Rehna_AntiCaste) February 4, 2026

A BHU student was brutally beaten by upper-caste students simply for sharing a poster about the UGC protest in a WhatsApp group.

To stop this kind of hooliganism and violence on campuses, strong and enforceable UGC regulations are absolutely necessary.
pic.twitter.com/vUKPXjAjm1

— Harshita Narayani (@DearAspirant) February 4, 2026

Faculty Unease and the Limits of the Framework

Faculty responses have complicated the picture rather than resolved it. The JNUTA noted that the regulations fail to address the deep-rooted and systemic nature of discrimination. At protest gatherings, faculty speakers acknowledged these limitations—pointing to the absence of punitive provisions, excessive power vested in principals, and the exclusion of elite institutions like IITs and IIMs.

Yet the consensus among many educators was striking: even an imperfect framework represented a rare institutional acknowledgment that caste discrimination exists on campuses. To halt it before implementation was not correction—it was erasure.

Media silence, political quiet, and democratic erosion

A recurring concern across protests has been the muted response of large sections of the mainstream media and the conspicuous absence of sustained parliamentary debate. Students questioned how a nationwide mobilisation demanding discrimination-free campuses could unfold without political engagement at the highest levels.

When speech is criminalised, safeguards are stayed, and violence is normalised or ignored, trust in democratic institutions begins to fracture—not through apathy, but through lived experience.

देशभर में यूजीसी एक्ट के समर्थन में बहुजन छात्रों के प्रदर्शन हो रहे हैं, लेकिन मुख्यधारा का मीडिया चुप है। pic.twitter.com/Nqdq8CpJhd

— Hansraj Meena (@HansrajMeena) February 4, 2026

More Than a Regulation: A test of university democracy

As highlighted by the incidents above, the battle over the UGC Equity Regulations has outgrown the regulations themselves. It has become a test of whether universities will remain spaces of critique or instruments of control; whether caste can be named without punishment; and whether equality will be treated as a constitutional obligation or an administrative inconvenience.

When students are arrested for words, protections are suspended before they are tried, and dissent is met with force rather than reason, the crisis is no longer confined to campuses. It speaks to the health of the republic itself.

The question now confronting India’s universities is no longer about guidelines or committees. It is about whether democracy—messy, uncomfortable, and argumentative—still has a place in the classroom.

.Related:

Hate Speech Before the Supreme Court: From judicial activism to institutional closure

When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention

Another Campus, Another Death: Student suicides continue unabated across India

My birth is my fatal accident, remembering Rohith Vemula’s last letter

‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations

The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised

The post Campuses in Revolt: How the UGC Equity Stay and Criminalised Dissent Have Ignited Student Protests Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As per Bar & Bench, the order was passed by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, while hearing a batch of three writ petitions challenging the 2026 Regulations. Though interim in nature, the order is notable both for the breadth of constitutional concerns flagged by the Court and for the decision to suspend a regulatory framework expressly designed to address caste-based discrimination in higher education.

What follows is not merely a recounting of the proceedings, but a critical examination of why a stay was granted, whether settled principles governing interim interference were adhered to, and how the Court’s reasoning engages—sometimes uneasily—with the constitutional understanding of caste, equality, and structural disadvantage.

Background: From the 2019 PIL to the 2026 Regulations

The 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to proceedings in a 2019 writ petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Salim Tadvi, the mothers of Rohit Vemula and Payal Tadvi, both of whom reportedly died by suicide after facing sustained caste-based discrimination within their educational institutions. According to LiveLaw, the PIL sought the creation of a robust institutional mechanism to address caste discrimination on campuses, contending that existing safeguards—particularly the 2012 UGC Regulations—had proved insufficient.

The petition may be read here.

Over the years, the Supreme Court repeatedly emphasised the need for a stronger, more effective framework, even inviting stakeholder suggestions while the draft regulations were under consideration. After this consultative process, the UGC notified the 2026 Regulations in January 2026, expressly superseding the 2012 framework.

A close reading of the orders passed in that matter reveals a judicial trajectory that sits in visible tension with the later decision to place the 2026 Regulations in abeyance.

1. January 3, 2025: Court acknowledges systemic failure and demands data, enforcement, and redesign

In its order dated January 3, 2025, the Court expressly recognised that adjudication could not proceed without assessing how universities had implemented the 2012 Equal Opportunity Cell Regulations, and whether those mechanisms had actually worked in practice.

The order may be read below:

Crucially, the Bench:

• directed the UGC to collate nationwide data on Equal Opportunity Cells,
• sought disclosure of complaints received and Action Taken Reports, and
• required the UGC to place its newly formulated draft regulations on record.

This was not a neutral procedural step. It reflected a judicial acknowledgment that formal regulatory existence had not translated into substantive protection for marginalised students. The Court was, at this stage, explicitly concerned with implementation failure, not over breadth or misuse.

2. April 24, 2025: The Court permits notification — and treats the Regulations as additive, not suspect

By April 24, 2025, the Court went further. While disposing of an application seeking to restrain the notification of the draft regulations, the Bench refused to halt the regulatory process. Instead, it clarified that the UGC was free to notify the regulations and that they would operate in addition to the recommendations of the National Task Force constituted in Amit Kumar v. Union of India.

The order may be read below.

Two aspects of this order matter for present purposes:

First, the Court expressly noted that the steps taken by the UGC pursuant to the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petition were “in the right direction,” signalling judicial approval of a stronger, institutionalised framework to address discrimination, harassment, and mental health crises in universities.

Second, the Court treated the regulations as iterative and corrigible—open to additions, deletions, and refinement based on stakeholder input and the Task Force’s findings. There was no suggestion that the very idea of a caste-conscious equity framework was constitutionally suspect.

3. September 15, 2025: Court endorses a robust, explicitly caste-conscious regulatory vision

The September 15, 2025 order is perhaps the clearest articulation of what the Court itself considered necessary to remedy caste-based discrimination in higher education.

The order may be read below.

After recording detailed submissions by senior counsel Indira Jaising, the Court flagged — without rejection — a set of far-reaching structural safeguards, including:

• a clear prohibition on all known forms of discrimination,
• an express ban on segregation based on rank or performance,
• grievance redressal bodies with mandatory representation from SC/ST/OBC communities,
• personal liability of institutional heads for negligence,
• caste-sensitive mental health counselling,
• NAAC-linked audits and social data collection, and
• withdrawal of grants for non-compliance.

What is striking is that many of these proposals go well beyond the minimal guarantees under the 2012 framework. The Court did not characterise them as excessive, divisive, or constitutionally dubious. Instead, it treated them as necessary correctives to entrenched structural discrimination.

The contradiction: Seen in this light, the later stay of the 2026 Regulations marks a sharp doctrinal and institutional turn.

In the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula petitiom, the Court:

• acknowledged caste-based discrimination as systemic and institutional,
• accepted that neutrality and general anti-ragging norms were inadequate,
• encouraged regulatory expansion and refinement, and
• emphasised accountability, representation, and enforceability.

Yet, in staying the 2026 Regulations, the Court shifted focus to concerns of vagueness, misuse, and over breadth—without explaining why these concerns could not be addressed through interpretation, amendment, or guidelines, the very tools it had earlier endorsed.

This creates a deeper constitutional unease: how does one reconcile a jurisprudence that recognises caste as a structural axis of harm with an interim order that treats caste-specific regulation as inherently suspect? The stay order appears to privilege abstract equality concerns over the lived realities that animated the original petition — the deaths of students failed by institutional indifference.

The Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula proceedings were premised on the understanding that caste discrimination in universities is not episodic, but embedded in evaluation systems, hostel allocation, disciplinary processes, and grievance mechanisms. The Court’s own directions repeatedly moved towards differentiated, targeted protections.

Against that record, the suspension of the 2026 Regulations risks flattening constitutional analysis into a question of formal symmetry—treating all students as equally situated—precisely the approach that the Court itself had earlier found wanting.

It is against this backdrop—of Court-monitored reform aimed at addressing demonstrable institutional failures—that the interim stay assumes particular significance.

The Present Proceedings: What transpired before the Court

The challenge to the Regulations came by way of three writ petitions, filed by Mritunjay Tiwari, Advocate Vineet Jindal, and Rahul Dewan. The principal target of challenge was Regulation 3(1)(c), which defines “caste-based discrimination” as discrimination on the basis of caste against members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes.

According to LiveLaw, the petitioners contended that:

• The definition is restrictive and exclusionary, as it does not recognise caste-based discrimination against persons belonging to non-reserved or “general” categories;
• This exclusion renders such persons remediless, even if subjected to caste-linked harassment or institutional bias;
• The provision violates Article 14 by creating an unreasonable classification lacking a rational nexus with the stated objective of promoting equity.

From the outset, the Bench subjected the Regulations to close scrutiny. Three issues dominated the hearing:

1. The dual definitions of “discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(e)) and “caste-based discrimination” (Regulation 3(1)(c));
2. The omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations, despite its inclusion in the 2012 framework; and
3. The use of the term “segregation” in Regulation 7(d), particularly in relation to hostels, classrooms, and mentorship groups.

The Court repeatedly remarked that the Regulations appeared vague, capable of misuse, and potentially productive of social division rather than cohesion.

The Interim Order: What the Court did

By its interim order dated January 29, 2026, the Supreme Court:

• Issued notice to the Union of India and the UGC, returnable on March 19, 2026;
• Directed that the 2026 Regulations be kept in abeyance; and
• Exercising powers under Article 142, ordered that the UGC Regulations of 2012 would continue to operate in the meantime.

As per Bar&Bench, the Court framed four substantial questions of law, broadly concerning:

• The rationality and necessity of defining “caste-based discrimination” separately;
• The impact of the Regulations on sub-classifications within backward classes;
• Whether “segregation” envisaged under the Regulations violates constitutional equality and fraternity; and
• Whether the omission of ragging constitutes a regressive and unconstitutional legislative choice.

While these questions undoubtedly merit careful adjudication, the grant of an interim stay itself demands closer scrutiny.

Why was a stay granted — and was it justified?

Ordinarily, courts exercise considerable restraint while staying statutory or delegated legislation, especially when such legislation is aimed at addressing systemic discrimination. The established standard requires a strong prima facie case, demonstrable irreparable harm, and a balance of convenience favouring suspension.

In the present case, the Court relied primarily on:

• Ambiguity in drafting,
• Possibility of misuse, and
• The perceived exclusion of general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination.

However, ambiguity and potential misuse have traditionally been treated as grounds for interpretation, not suspension, particularly in the context of welfare or protective legislation. The order does not demonstrate how the continued operation of the Regulations would cause irreversible harm sufficient to justify a blanket stay. Notably absent is any engagement with the harm caused by suspending a framework designed to respond to caste-based exclusion—an exclusion that is neither hypothetical nor speculative.

The Court’s reliance on the revival of the 2012 Regulations as a safeguard also assumes that the earlier framework was adequate, despite the fact that the 2019 PIL itself was premised on its failure to prevent institutional discrimination.

The Conceptual Problem: What is “caste-based discrimination”?

At the heart of the Court’s concern lies an unresolved conceptual question: is caste-based discrimination symmetrical?

The petitioners — and, to some extent, the Court — appear to approach caste as a neutral identity marker, capable of disadvantaging any individual depending on circumstances. This framing overlooks the constitutional understanding of caste as a structural system of hierarchy, not merely a personal attribute.

Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently recognised that caste-based discrimination is not simply discrimination involving caste, but discrimination arising from historical, social, and economic subordination of specific communities. To ask why upper-caste individuals are not explicitly protected under a provision addressing caste-based discrimination is to ignore this asymmetry.

Importantly, the Regulations already define “discrimination” broadly and in caste-neutral terms. Any harassment, humiliation, or unfair treatment faced by individuals from non-reserved categories is squarely covered under this definition. The absence of a separate label of “caste-based discrimination” for such individuals does not render them remediless.

The Court’s concern, therefore, risks collapsing the distinction between structural oppression and interpersonal conflict, treating unequal social realities as constitutionally equivalent.

The Slippery Comparison: “Upper castes” and de-notified or extremely backward communities

As noted by legal scholar Gautam Bhatia, one of the petitioners has argued that the impugned regulation suffers from a constitutional flaw comparable to the presumption underlying the colonial Criminal Tribes Act, 1871, which stigmatised entire communities as inherently criminal and was later repealed for violating principles of equality and constitutional morality. This submission, however, appears to rest on an analogy that implicitly places socially dominant or ‘upper’ caste groups on the same constitutional footing as communities that were historically criminalised and later de-notified.

De-notified tribes, in particular, have faced:

• Colonial-era criminalisation;
• Persistent social stigma;
• Economic exclusion; and
• Institutional invisibility even within reservation frameworks.

To suggest that excluding general category individuals from the definition of caste-based discrimination creates an equal protection problem risk flattening historical injustice into abstract formalism. Constitutional equality does not require identical treatment of groups situated in radically unequal positions. Indeed, such an approach may itself violate the principle of equality by treating unequal’s alike.

The Court’s rhetorical invocation of a “casteless society,” while normatively appealing, sits uneasily with judicial precedent cautioning that claims of castelessness often precede, rather than follow, the dismantling of caste hierarchies.

Vagueness, misuse, and the burden on protective legislation

The Court’s repeated emphasis on the “possibility of misuse” raises a familiar but contested trope in Indian constitutional adjudication. It is well settled that: The possibility of abuse of a law is no ground to strike it down.

This principle assumes even greater importance in the context of protective regulations, which have historically been diluted through misuse arguments advanced by socially dominant groups. The order does not explain why ordinary safeguards—such as inquiry mechanisms, appellate review, and judicial oversight—would be insufficient to address misuse on a case-by-case basis.

By foregrounding speculative misuse over structural exclusion, the order risks imposing a higher justificatory burden on equity-oriented regulations than on other forms of delegated legislation.

Ragging, non-regression, and judicial overcorrection

The Court’s concern regarding the omission of ragging from the 2026 Regulations is doctrinally significant, particularly in light of Justice Bagchi’s invocation of the principle of non-regression, as reported by LiveLaw. However, even assuming the omission is a serious flaw, it is not self-evident that the appropriate response was to stay the entire regulatory framework, rather than:

• Read the Regulations harmoniously with existing anti-ragging norms;
• Issue interpretative directions; or
• Direct limited corrective amendments.

The chosen course reflects a form of judicial overcorrection, where legitimate concerns about incompleteness lead to wholesale suspension.

Article 142 and the revival of the 2012 Regulations

The use of Article 142 to revive the 2012 Regulations raises further questions. While intended to prevent a regulatory vacuum, the move effectively substitutes judicial preference for executive policy, without a finding that the earlier framework better advances constitutional values.

This is particularly striking given that the 2026 Regulations were framed pursuant to Court-monitored proceedings and stakeholder consultations following the 2019 PIL. The revival thus appears less as a neutral stopgap and more as a normative rollback, albeit temporarily.

What the Supreme Court Directed in the Payal Tadvi–Rohith Vemula PIL — and why the stay order sits uneasily with it

The Supreme Court’s interim stay of the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026 must be read against the backdrop of the Court’s own continuing supervision in Abeda Salim Tadvi v. Union of India—the petition arising from the institutional failures that culminated in the deaths of Payal Tadvi and Rohith Vemula.

Conclusion: interim caution or substantive retreat?

The Supreme Court’s interim order undoubtedly reflects a desire to prevent social fragmentation and regulatory excess. Yet, in its emphasis on neutrality, symmetry, and speculative misuse, the Court risks diluting the constitutional logic of substantive equality that has long justified differentiated protections for caste-oppressed communities.

The deeper danger lies not merely in staying one set of regulations, but in the judicial reframing of caste-based discrimination as a universally symmetrical phenomenon, detached from history and structure. Whether this framing endures at the final stage will determine whether the Court’s intervention is remembered as a moment of careful constitutional recalibration—or as a cautious but consequential retreat from the promise of transformative equality.

The complete order may be read below:

Related:

A Cultural Burden: The ascending hierarchy of caste warfare and the crisis of the Indian republic

Freedom Deferred: Caste, class and faith in India’s prisons

Everyday Atrocity: How Caste Violence Became India’s New Normal

Two Dalit and Tribal girls brutalised in Andhra Pradesh: Pattern of caste violence exposes deep-rooted injustice

Caste Cloud Over Ambedkar Jayanti: From campus censorship to temple exclusion

CJP Maharashtra: Surge in communal and caste-based violence with six incidents in January 2025

2024: Love Jihad as a socio-political tool: caste, endogamy, and Hindutva’s dominance over gender and social boundaries in India

The post The stay of UGC Equity Regulations, 2026: The interim order, the proceedings, and the constitutional questions raised 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.

The UGC submitted the new draft to the Supreme Court last month in a six-year-old petition filed by Radhika Vemula and Abeda Tadvi. In the petition, the two mothers, after losing their children, sought accountability and the establishment of adequate mechanisms by the UGC to address caste-based discrimination in university spaces.

The UGC, unprompted by the court or the petitioners, has submitted the Equity Regulations Draft, which undoes some of the crucial clauses from the 2012 regulations. The petitioners had moved the court to highlight the ineffectiveness and lack of government will to put its act together. Instead of addressing these issues, the UGC has further diluted the existing regulations.

‘New regulations will make redressal more difficult’

Vemula and Tadvi argue that the newly submitted draft regulations will make redressal more difficult, as the UGC has decided to group all forms of discrimination – including those based on gender, disabilities, religion and caste – under a single umbrella. In contrast, the 2012 Equity Regulations primarily focused on caste-based discrimination. Existing mechanisms already address other forms of discrimination, and expanding the scope of the Equity Regulations will only lead to more chaos in the dispensation of justice, the petitioners assert.

The petitioners, represented by lawyers Indira Jaisingh and Disha Wadekar, have pointed out the lack of adequate mechanisms to address the growing number of discrimination cases and suicides on campuses. They argue that the UGC’s proposal to dilute the existing regulations on caste discrimination and introduce other forms of discrimination will not only hamper the redressal of caste-based discrimination but also “risk undermining the effectiveness of current regulations related to gender and persons with disabilities (PwDs).”

In addition to filing an affidavit in the Supreme Court in response to the UGC’s draft regulations, the petitioners have submitted detailed suggestions to the UGC, comparing the 2012 regulations with the proposed ones. They have identified gaps and provided effective suggestions to the higher education governing statutory body.

One crucial suggestion is the need for a clear definition of what constitutes caste-based discrimination in higher education. Wadekar notes that the draft regulation fails to specify what constitutes caste-based discrimination. “Discriminatory practices in university spaces often get normalised, and without a clear definition, universities may exercise their discretionary powers and, more often than not, attempt to shirk responsibilities,” Wadekar said. Her observation is based on past data showing how universities have denied the existence of caste-based discrimination on campuses.

In the past decade, as caste-based discrimination and suicides rose, the UGC was compelled to notify the UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations 2012, also known as the Equity Regulations. These regulations required all colleges and universities to establish an Equal Opportunity Cell to oversee the promotion of equality and appoint an anti-discrimination officer to investigate complaints regarding discrimination in violation of equity. However, the regulations were not fully implemented as intended.

The proposed regulations, besides lacking clear definitions of discrimination, also exclude the Other Backward Classes (OBC) community from their scope, applying only to students from the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). In 2012 regulations too, students from OBC communities were excluded. The petitioners argue that this will be unjust to OBC students, who are equally vulnerable to discrimination on campuses. Data shows that many students from the OBC community have resorted to suicide or dropped out of colleges because of caste-based discrimination in the past decade.

The proposed regulations do not include staff or faculty members. Wadekar argues that the suggestion to include staff members comes from numerous anecdotal instances where faculty members have reported discriminatory practices based on their caste identities.

The 2012 regulations lacked a monitoring mechanism to ensure that the equity measures were effectively implemented. Vemula and Tadvi have suggested that the UGC should expressly mandate that “all Universities and Colleges submit periodic reports to UGC on the working of the Equity Regulations.”

While the proposed regulation has several problems, it also contains some concrete measures, such as the registration of FIRs once a case under penal laws is established. To this, the petitioners have suggested that “the heads of institutions should be mandated to register FIRs within 24 hours for complaints where a case is made out under penal laws.”

2012 regulations’ failure

In January 2016, Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at the University of Hyderabad (UoH), along with five other Dalit students, was expelled from the university housing facility for an alleged attack on an ABVP member. As the expelled students intensified their protest against the university administration’s decision, a few days into the protest, on January 17, 2016, Rohith died by suicide. UoH Vice-Chancellor Appa Rao Podile, then BJP MLC N. Ramachandra Rao, and two ABVP members (Susheel Kumar and Rama Krishna) were accused of abetting Rohith’s suicide. An FIR was filed against them, but the police failed to take any action.

In Dr. Payal Tadvi’s case, her suicide notes and her mother Abeda Tadvi’s testimony ensured that her three harassers – senior doctors Hema Ahuja, Bhakti Mehare, and Ankita Khandelwal – were immediately arrested. A damning 1,200-page chargesheet was filed against them. They have been accused of torturing Payal for an entire year and hurling casteist slurs at her. The Tadvis belong to the Bhil (of the Tadvi sub-caste) tribal community, and Payal was perhaps the first woman from her community to become a doctor. Advocate Wadekar is representing Abeda Tadvi in the criminal proceedings as well.

If the 2012 regulation had worked effectively, both Rohith Vemula and Payal Tadvi would not have needed to take drastic steps. The existing regulation has made it difficult for students to report instances of discrimination. Most of these cases are known because of individual efforts undertaken by anti-caste activists or organisations, which have, from time to time, highlighted extreme cases of discrimination on Indian university campuses.

Besides Rohith and Payal’s deaths, numerous other suicides have occurred in Indian universities over the past two decades. While some of these deaths were covered by the media, many were documented in an independent study conducted by a Delhi-based organisation called the Insight Foundation, headed by educationist Anoop Kumar.

But instead of focusing on these cases and encouraging students to come forward and report incidents of discrimination, the draft regulations mention “false complaints.” Wadekar says the draft doesn’t differentiate between a false complaint and a mere inability to substantiate a complaint with adequate evidence. “This clause,” Wadekar said, “should be completely removed.” “Students already find it hard to approach the Equity Committee, and such clauses will only act as a deterrent,” she added.

UGC’s hasty actions

This is not the first time that the UGC has acted hastily in response to the petition. In 2024, the UGC had set up a nine-member committee to look into the concerns highlighted in the petition. The Wire, in February last year, had looked into the composition of the committee and highlighted the chequered past of several of its members, including allegations of caste discrimination levelled against them.

Even as the division bench of Justice Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh of the Supreme Court have been hearing this petition, another petition, Amit Kumar and Others versus Union of India, highlighting identical issues, is being heard before Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan. On March 24, in a significant order, the apex court directed the formation of a National Task Force to address the mental health concerns of students and prevent the rising number of suicides in higher educational institutions (HEIs). This National Task Force is being constituted as a ten-member committee, with retired Supreme Court judge S. Ravindra Bhat as its chairperson. Other members include mental health experts, teaching professionals, among others. This order too refers to the ongoing petition filed by Vemula and Tadvi.

Courtesy: The Wire

The post ‘Diluted Existing Rules’: Rohith Vemula, Payal Tadvi’s Mothers Slam UGC’s Draft Equity Regulations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Dangers to academic freedom

Due to the potential impact on academic freedom and university autonomy, the recent UGC regulations that changed the Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointment process have generated extensive controversy. Under the effected changes, the Centre now has more decision-making power, these developments are perceived as reducing the autonomy of academic institutions. Since education is a Concurrent List subject (Item 25 of the Concurrent List in the 7^th Schedule of the Constitution of India), which grants both the Centre and the states control, the regulations create questions regarding federalism from a constitutional standpoint. Critics contend that regulations challenge the constitutional balance of power and undercut governmental authority in higher education. The ensuing political turmoil underscores the conflicts between centralization and regional autonomy, as state governments and educational groups voice their disapproval. These changes reflect larger concerns regarding the future of higher education in India.

Erosion of academic autonomy and freedoms

Widespread concerns about the degradation of academic autonomy and institutional freedoms in India’s higher education system have been sparked by the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) recent draft regulations on the appointment of vice chancellors (VCs). In order to prevent political and administrative meddling in academic decision-making, Indian universities have historically enjoyed a certain amount of autonomy. One of the most important indicators of this autonomy has been the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs), who are crucial in determining the academic orientation and governance of institutions. The new regulations, however, are viewed as a major step towards limiting institutions’ independence by concentrating authority over them.

The UGC’s draft guidelines appear to diminish the involvement of university governing bodies and state governments in the appointment process, which is one of the primary concerns. Many state universities had their own procedures for selecting VCs under the previous frameworks, which were customized to meet their unique institutional requirements and local educational environments. A search committee made up of governmental authorities and university stakeholders was frequently involved in these procedures. However, the new laws give the UGC and, indirectly, the Union government more power, which may allow them to circumvent state-specific processes and enforce uniform appointment standards. Concerns regarding the loss of institutional variety and the imposed, centralized, one-size-fits-all paradigm on institutions have arisen as a result of this change as reported by The Wire.

Academic independence may also be seriously impacted by the centralization of the appointment process. Instead of emphasizing academic excellence and critical inquiry, VCs face the risk of being swayed by political or bureaucratic influences when university leadership is chosen through centralized directives rather than a more autonomous or localized process. The fundamental tenets of higher education institutions—academic freedom, critical thinking, and intellectual independence—may be undermined as a result. If a university’s leadership is bound by political interests or central commands, it may be less able to promote free discussion and debate.

The new UGC regulations’ clause permitting the appointment of vice chancellors without an academic background raises serious concerns as well. Historically, successful academics with significant backgrounds in teaching, research, and university administration have been the only ones eligible to act as VCs. This criterion guaranteed that those chosen to run institutions understood academic values, institutional governance, and the challenges faced by professors and students. However, it seems that the new regulations have expanded the eligibility requirements to cover individuals with non-academic credentials. Critics contend that this would allow for the appointment of bureaucratic or political appointees who have little to no background in academic leadership. Such appointments can jeopardize the academic environment since those without sufficient knowledge regarding higher education might put administrative or political objectives ahead of academic performance. This modification raises even more concerns about the decline of university autonomy and may jeopardize the caliber and legitimacy of post secondary educational establishments nationwide.

Additionally, the long-standing practice of public universities serving as breeding grounds for language and regional variety in higher education may be impacted by the new rules. Numerous colleges serve the educational requirements of particular linguistic, cultural, and geographic groups. These universities might be unable to give local educational and cultural interests priority if state control over VC selections is reduced. This could have long-term consequences for the intellectual and social diversity of Indian higher education.

In essence, the autonomy of Indian institutions appears to be threatened by the new UGC regulations. These rules may compromise the autonomy of university governance and erode the preservation of academic freedoms by restricting state engagement and consolidating appointment authority with the Centre. In the long-term, this loss of autonomy may inhibit intellectual development and lower the standard and variety of higher education in India.

Constitutional violations

In India, the Constitution’s Concurrent List provides education as a subject, giving the Union and State governments the power to enact laws pertaining to education. However, many critics believe that the new UGC regulations will violate the delicate balance of federalism inherent in the Constitution by infringing on the autonomy of state governments.

The statutes of the respective state universities have historically controlled the appointment of VCs, enabling practices that complement local administrative structures and pedagogical interests. Regardless of state-specific laws, the new UGC draft regulations aim to standardize the requirements for VC eligibility and appointment procedures at all universities. Critics contend that by imposing a centralized structure on institutions that have traditionally functioned under state jurisdiction, this action compromises the legislative authority of state governments as reported by Indian Express.

The University Grants Commission Act of 1956 created the UGC, whose primary responsibility is to coordinate and uphold university education standards throughout India. The Act does not specifically give the Commission the authority to control the administrative procedures for selecting university leadership, even while it gives the UGC the authority to establish academic standards and control teaching credentials. The UGC is believed to be going beyond its legislative jurisdiction by expanding its reach into the nomination of VCs, which could make the draft regulations ultra vires, or beyond the authority provided by the enabling statute.

The independence of state governments in matters pertaining to education has been strengthened by judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court ruled in Suresh Patilkhede vs. The Chancellor, University of Maharashtra (2011) that the qualifications and procedures for selecting VCs are under the jurisdiction of the relevant state laws since they have no direct bearing on academic standards as reported by Vajiram and Ravi. This ruling upholds the idea that although the UGC has the authority to establish general educational standards, the state still controls university administration, including the selection of VCs.

A number of state governments and academic organizations have voiced strong opposition to the proposed regulations, which have also caused political instability. They argue that by consolidating authority over higher education, the UGC’s action upsets the federal balance in addition to violating state rights. Cooperative federalism, which aims to strike a balance in the distribution of power between the Union and the States, is thought to be incompatible with this centralization.

A possible solution to the current controversy is provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Kalyani Mathivanan vs K.V. Jeyaraj and Ors (2015) case that the regulation by the UGC regarding vice-chancellors is advisory rather than mandatory for State universities.

Political implications

State governments have historically played a major role in the appointment procedures that are adopted by state institutions, which are customized to their local administrative and educational requirements. The new regulations, however, offer a centralized, standardized framework that essentially diminishes the role of states and strengthens the UGC’s authority over VC nominations. Critics contend that this action limits state sovereignty in the governance of higher education and consolidates authority with the Union government.

There are substantial political ramifications to this centralization. Several state governments such as Tamil Nadu and Kerala have denounced the draft guidelines as a clear violation of their constitutional rights, especially those headed by opposition parties as reported by India Today. They view these regulations as a political move to limit state governments’ authority in areas where they have historically had influence. Such central control is viewed as both politically motivated and impracticable in highly decentralized and heterogeneous educational environments.

Furthermore, the action might also open the door for political appointments in higher education, when VCs are selected based on their ideological affinities with the central government rather than their academic qualifications. Universities’ intellectual independence may be jeopardized by such appointments, which would transform them from hubs for research and critical thinking to platforms for political objectives as reported by Eurasia Review.

Concerns regarding possible ideological influence on educational institutions have been raised by the appointment of members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) to important academic positions at Indian universities. In one of the instances a historian with ties to the RSS, Yellapragada Sudershan Rao, was named the Indian Council of Historical Research’s (ICHR) chairperson in 2014. Rao had not published in peer-reviewed journals and was mostly unknown in academic circles before taking up this position. His nomination was seen as an attempt to match historical research with a specific ideology. Rao has drawn criticism from the academic community for his support of the caste system and his belief that Hindu epics like the Ramayana and Mahabharata are historically accurate.

An important influence on the development of educational resources in India has come from Dinanath Batra, an educationist connected to the RSS. He played a key role in the removal of A.K. Ramanujan’s article “Three Hundred Ramayanas” from the history curriculum at Delhi University on the grounds that it offended Hindu feelings. In an effort to have history textbooks reflect a narrative that aligns with his ideological beliefs, Batra has also been involved in legal lawsuits against the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). His campaigning has drawn criticism for stifling academic freedom and advancing a homogenized cultural viewpoint.

Further, renowned RSS ideologue Rakesh Sinha was hired as a lecturer at Delhi University. He has taken an active position in public discussions, frequently defending the viewpoints of the RSS. His nomination has been seen by some as a component of a larger plan to integrate people with particular ideological views into academic institutions, which could have an impact on the discourse and atmosphere of the academic institutions, as reported by the Caravan Magazine.

The political turmoil brought on by the regulations highlights the escalating conflict over education policy between the central government and the states. In order to guarantee equitable educational governance, a number of political leaders and education specialists have advocated for a reform or rollback of the regulations, highlighting the necessity of cooperative federalism. The laws may worsen political polarization and erode confidence in the fair administration of India’s higher education system if they are put into effect as is.

Social and educational ramifications of the UGC Regulations

Concerns have also been raised concerning the possible long-term social and educational repercussions of the draft UGC regulations on Vice-Chancellor (VC) appointments. Universities foster critical thinking, creativity, cultural variety, and regional identities in addition to being centers of higher education. The new regulations might limit the autonomy and diversity that colleges require to succeed by centralizing authority over university leadership.

The possible loss of regional representation is one of the main societal issues. Numerous state colleges serve the distinct linguistic, cultural, and educational requirements of particular areas. State-mandated VC appointments frequently represent the social concerns of the communities these colleges serve. These local priorities face the risk of being overlooked or repressed in favor of uniform national norms that might not be in line with local realities when there is centralized management. Academic priorities, regional cultures, and languages might become marginalized as a result.

The proposed regulations are also likely to limit institutions’ capacity to innovate or adapt to local demands in the field of education. Although academic institutions value intellectual independence, critical thinking and research that contradicts prevailing narratives, the same might be stifled if university leadership is chosen with more political or administrative clout. This could eventually reduce possibilities for students from different backgrounds and lower the general standard of higher education in India.

Furthermore, the regulations may erode both faculty and student trust in university administration. Appointments that are seen as politically motivated or under the control of centralized authority may foster mistrust and hinder academic collaboration and productivity.

Conclusion

Widespread concerns on academic freedom, federalism, and the independence of educational institutions have been triggered by the draft UGC regulations on vice-chancellor appointments. These regulations pose the risk of weakening university autonomy and the constitutional balance of power between the central government and the states by concentrating power in the hands of the Union government. Additionally, the quality of higher education may be jeopardized by the possibility of bureaucratic and political meddling in appointments. The Centre, states, and educational stakeholders must work together to ensure that academic excellence and institutional autonomy are maintained in order to secure the future of India’s higher education system.

Related:

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

New UGC Rules for Qualification of Professors Condemned

How do the new UGC regulations affect prospective students applying to JNU? Ayesha Kidwai

The post Academic Freedoms at Risk: Federalism and autonomy challenged by UGC’s VC appointment guidelines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On one level the New Education Policy is out to change the whole pattern and structure of our educational system. On a regular basis new instructions are being sent to induct the Hindu nationalist sentiments and ethos for the students. One recalls that when this Government was trying to intimidate and undermine the student movements and protests, these activities were labelled as anti-National and the then MHRD Minister Smriti Irani came up with the idea of installing a tall pole in each University to hoist the national flag. The idea was also floated to put a military tank in JNU in particular, where the vocal students were articulating on various issues which went against the grain of thinking of the ruling Government.

Recently a few more circulars have been issued. One is that students should be made to participate in the yearlong celebrations of the birth Centenary year of Dattaji Didolkar. Didolkar was a RSS Pracharak, who set up the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP). This cult building exercise for a Hindu Nationalist is particularly meant for colleges in Maharashtra. Is UGC right in promoting the celebration of figures from Hindu Nationalist stable? The figures who should be promoted are surely those who stood for Indian Nationalism or fought against British colonial rule. Mr. Didolkar, being a part of RSS, was never part of neither freedom struggle nor he stood for the values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The other circular is asking for setting up of ‘Selfi points’ with the backdrop of Prime minister, Modi. Such a step is being taken surely with the 2024 elections in mind. This is an idea, which has no place in a democratic country. It is a deliberate propaganda for a leader belonging to one party and its supreme leader. It violates the ethos of democracy for sure! Such blatant violation of democratic and constitutional values; is a gross abuse of power by the ruling party.

Topping it all has come the instruction that for students between 7to 12 standard Ramayana and Mahabharata should be taught as a part of history, (Times of India, 22^nd November). As per the expert Panel of NCERT, this will bring self-esteem, patriotism and pride in the Nation! These two great epics of India are definitely a part of our mythology. They do represent the social norms of the times when they were written. One can learn a lot about those times from these epics.

Ramayana amongst these is extremely popular not only in India but also in different countries of Asia like Sri Lanka, Thailand, Bali, Sumatra etc. Interestingly it has many versions. Originally written by Valmiki, later it was made more popular by Goswami Tulsidas, who rendered it in popular Avadhi. It became part of popular culture from 16^th Century onwards in Northern parts India. Interestingly there are many versions of Lord Ram Story. The version being promoted by Hindu nationalists is one among many. The book by Richa Paulman, “Many Ramayana’s’ (OUP) deals with the diverse version of Lord Ram Story. On similar lines A.K. Ramnujan wrote an essay, ‘300 Ramayana’s: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on translation’. This remarkable essay was part of Delhi University curriculum till the ABVP protested and this was removed from the syllabus.

The Hindu nationalists want a particular version of Lord Ram’s story to be projected. Ramanujan in his essay tells us the diverse telling of the story, Jain version, Buddha version, and Women’s version (by Rangnayakmma of Andhra). Adivasi Ramayana has yet again a different story line. Ambedkar wrote ‘Riddles of Hinduism’ and drew our attention to Ram killing Shambuk as he was performing penance, and as Shudra’s were not permitted such a thing he was done to death by the Lord Himself. Ram also killed Bali from behind, Bali is a king revered by backward castes, who chant:’Eida Pida Javo: Baliche Rajya Yevo’ (Let our pains go: Let Bali’s return as a King). Ambedkar is very critical of Ram banishing Sita to forest on the suspicion of fidelity. Periyar is also critical of Lord Ram for imposing the North Indian Aryanism on the Dravidas. The real history is mired in some vague understanding while the great epic gives us a valuable insight into that time.

Similarly Mahabharata, composed by Maharishi Ved Vyas is the longest poem ever composed, gives us a valuable glimpse of those times. They are important sources of historical knowledge. To put them in the syllabus as history is a different idea altogether. It is linked more to the Hindu nationalist agenda than unravelling the truth of history.

In addition, among many other moves by the panel; is to instruct the name India with Bharat on the ground that India denotes slavery, as the word was given by the British. They deliberately want to suppress the fact the variations of word India are prevalent from the times much before the British came here. As early as BCE 303, Megasthanese had called it Indica. The derivatives from river Sindhu have been in vogue from early times. ‘Bharat that is India’ is the perfect formulation outlined in our Constitution. But in tune with Hindu Nationalist Agenda they are not comfortable with the word India. Lastly they want to re-periodize Indian history. The early period of Indian history, which the British called as Hindu period, they want to call it ‘Classic Period’. The idea is to present the values of that period as the baseline for our society. And these values, outlined in Manusmriti were the precise one’s which made Ambedkar rebel against and to burn this book.

UGC-NCERT are totally being guided by the Hindu Nationalist agenda, totally in contrast to the values of Indian Constitution.

Related:

Muslim student denied to sit for UGC-NET due to hijab

UGC asks Maharashtra colleges to encourage students to attend the celebration of RSS leader’s birthday

Withdraw UGC directive to hold lectures on “ancient Indian democracy” on Constitution day: AIDWA, CPI-M

The post Education for a Hindu Rashtra: UGC-NCERT pushing a divisive agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a circular dated November 21, the UGC discussed the “inspirational legacy” of Dattaji Didolkar and talked about his role as the founder of numerous social and other organisations and called him “an inspiration to thousands of students.” The UGC announced that 2023 marks the birth centenary year of Dattaji Didolkar and talked of plans for various programs scheduled from August 7, 2023, to August 7, 2024, in commemoration of the ABVP founder. The circular directed higher education institutions in Maharashtra to actively promote and engage the state’s youth and students in the planned centenary celebrations. 

The UGC also referred to a letter by Nitin Gadkari, Minister for Road Transport and Highways of India, to Dharmendra Pradhan, who is the Union minister for Education, where Gadkari has highlighted about the need for programmes being organised to commemorate Didolkar and plans of publishing a book on him. 

According to the report, the Yuva Sena, which is the Shiva Sena’s youth wing, has registered its dissent over this move by the UGC and demanded its withdrawal.

Pradeep Sawant, former Mumbai University Senate member from the Yuva Sena, has stated they are not against celebrating birth centenaries, “But it should be done by the political party and RSS with their own funds. It should not be imposed on colleges and universities. The programme is going to be held in Nagpur. Then why are letters issued to all higher education institutions in Maharashtra?”

Furthermore, head of the ABVP Konkan region talking about the alleged contribution of Didolkar, Amit Dhomse, has stated that, “Dattaji Didolkar has made great contributions in social and education fields. He was at the forefront of the struggle for the construction of the Vivekananda Memorial. Celebrating the birth centenary year of such social activists has been our culture. Yuva Sena should study the educational and social contribution of Didolkar without bringing politics into anything.”

In recent times, there has been growing concern over the government led inclusion of right-wing RSS figures as part of school and college syllabus. In June, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh government had revealed plans about introducing Savarkar Damodar as part of a school syllabus by including a whole chapter on him. Savarkar is known to be a hardline figure and is a revered ideologue of the Hindutva movement.

 Related:

Unshackling Education: High Court Unravels Madrasa Order in Jammu and Kashmir

11 educational institutions target of organised Hindutva mobs in in Kolhapur: Fact-finding team

Government a threat to Indian legacy, education, jobs: Gandhian institute taken over, residents evicted, bulldozer to follow

More than 5,000 teaching & 15,000 non-teaching posts kept vacant: Education Ministry

The post UGC asks Maharashtra colleges to encourage students to attend the celebration of RSS leader’s birthday appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On November 15, 2022, the University Grants Commission sent a letter to 45 Central and 45 Deemed to be universities, to hold lectures on India: Mother of Democracy in order to celebrate Constitution Day on 26 November 2022. The letter directs all Universities to hold lectures on the “ancient origins of Indian Democracy” apart from reading the Preamble and the Chapter on Fundamental Duties.

The AIDWA statement says, “The UGC appears to have circulated a concept note on this subject which identifies 15 themes. Though the note has not been made public, several media reports and the statements of the UGC Chairperson suggest that the themes include the glorification of anti-women ancient texts and traditions.  The themes of the lectures include Khap Panchayats, feudal and dictatorial monarchies and anti-women customs that follow the Manusmruti.  It is very ironical that the UGC has asked Universities to celebrate Constitution Day in a manner that fundamentally ignores the rights of women to a decent and dignified life. While it asks people to read the preamble, it promotes ideas and texts that have laid the foundation of the oppression of women since ancient times.

“The UGC has been attempting to push courses of Vedic culture and alter the academic syllabus to suit the patriarchal Hindutva brigade. By issuing this letter, it has shown that it is not an autonomous agency which is wedded to the ideals of modern education, but that it is becoming a hand-maiden of the Hindutva brigade. It is directly following the direction of the Prime Minister Modi, who has been selling the idea of Vedic democracy as an ideal political system. This idea is fundamentally against the spirit of the Constitution and furthers the regressive and anti-women content of the NEP, 2020. The NEP, 2020 lays the foundation of the promotion of Hindutva morality in universities and opens the window for the glorification of patriarchal traditions. The UGC Chairperson’s latest comments, also provide a justification for legitimizing illegal and conservative social institutions like the Khap Panchayats, against whom the AIDWA has waged a long campaign.”

Therefore the AIDWA calls upon the UGC to exercise its constitutionally mandated role of promoting modern education that is based on the Constitutional Values. It appeals to all members of the University to oppose attempts which will alter the character of UGC and make it an instrument of conservative Hindutva politics. The statement has been issued by Malini Bhattacharya, president and Mariam Dhawale, general secretary of the organisation.

Polit Bureau: withdraw UGC advisory forthwith

Meanwhile, the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) strongly rejects
“the UGC chairperson, M. Jagdish Kumar’s letter to all Governors to “encourage” universities in their states to hold lectures on themes such as the “ideal king” in Indian philosophy, as well as, ‘Khap Panchayats’ and their “democratic traditions” to celebrate India as the “mother of
democracy” on Constitution day on November, 26.

“This is in direct contravention of the framework of our Constitution, as well as, statutory provisions of the UGC Act as enacted by the Parliament. UGC has planned 90 lectures in 90 universities across the country.

“The UGC chairperson’s ridiculous claim is that ancient India was unique because there was no autocracy or aristocratism. It is unbecoming of the UGC chairperson to make such an assertion which is a negation of the reality of Varnashram and the caste based social hierarchy that is a major challenge in the evolution of our modern democracy.

“The UGC chairperson negates the Constitutional requirement of democratic consultation with the elected state governments in the sphere of higher education and has directly approached the unelected RSS-BJP appointed governors to pursue this agenda. This exposes the real objective of the National Education Policy of using education as an instrument for destroying scientific temper and rationality while undermining the foundations of our
Constitution.”

The polit bureau has also urged all democratic organizations and individuals to join in demanding the immediate stoppage of this exercise.

Related:

Allahabad University Students on Fast Unto Death Against ‘Unprecedented’ Fees Hike
Open letter to Sharda University Vice Chancellor
AIFUCTO Calls for Withdrawing NEP, Revival of old Pension Scheme

The post Withdraw UGC directive to hold lectures on “ancient Indian democracy” on Constitution day: AIDWA, CPI-M appeared first on SabrangIndia.

According to the Indian Express, The UGCRC asked the English department to replace poet Meena Kandasamy with Premchand and Amitav Ghosh with RK Narayan. The commitee has also asked the department to remove any reference to the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) and Jan Natya Manch.

The English department has refused to accept any of these changes. The Indian Cultural Forum supports this decision and celebrates the work that all of us—students, and all other citizens—must continue to read.

The following is the poem ‘Touch’ by Meena Kandasamy.

Image courtesy Goodreads

Have you ever tried meditation?
Struggling hard to concentrate,
and keeping your mind as blank
as a whitewashed wall by closing
your eyes, nose, ears; and shutting out
every possible thought. Every thing.
And, the only failure, that ever came,
the only gross betrayal—
was from your own skin.
You will have known this.
Do you still remember,
how, the first distractions arose?
And you blamed skin as a sinner;
how, when your kundalini was rising,
shaken, you felt the cold concrete floor
skin rubbing against skin, your saffron robes,
how, even in a far-off different realm—
your skin anchored you to this earth.
Amidst all that pervading emptiness,
touch retained its sensuality.
You will have known this.
Or if you thought more variedly, about
taste, you would discount it—as the touch
of the tongue. Or, you may recollect
how a gentle touch, a caress changed
your life multifold, and you were never
the person you should have been.
Feeling with your skin, was
perhaps the first of the senses, its
reality always remained with you—
You never got rid of it.
You will have known this.
You will have known almost
every knowledgeable thing about
the charms and the temptations
that touch could hold.
But, you will never have known
that touch – the taboo
to your transcendence,
when crystallized in caste
was a paraphernalia of
undeserving hate.

 Meena Kandasamy is a Chennai-based poet, writer, activist and translator. Her work focuses on caste annihilation, linguistic identity and feminism.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post What the UGCRC doesn’t want students to read: Meena Kandasamy’s ‘Touch’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The Attacks on education in India continue under the new government which has tried its best to undermine the teachers and students studying in public funded institutions in India.
 
Sabrang India had earlier reported that the UGC (University Grants Commission) had imposed Central Civil Services (CCS) conduct rules, 1964, on Jawaharlal Nehru University in September amid discontent and criticism from JNU teachers.
 
“A university produces new knowledge and teaches it. But to do so, it needs independence of thinking and the freedom to dissent and act on that dissent. The CCS rules will remove these freedoms,” JNUTA had said in a statement.
 
It has now come to light that the UGC will now try to dissolve the Delhi University’s autonomy by bringing Exams, Teaching, Learning and Evaluation under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA.) This being done at the behest of MHRD and the ESMA Act was passed by the Modi govt.
 
The Delhi University Teachers Association (DUTA) has promised to resist this attack on their democratic rights.
 
“At the behest of the MHRD, the UGC has constituted a Working Group to study the Delhi University Act, 1922 and explore possible alterations that may dissolve the University’s institutional autonomy and suspend the democratic rights of its academic community. Specifically, the UGC Committee has been asked to consider bringing Exams/ Teaching/ Learning/ Evaluation under the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA). This comes immediately after the UGC’s directive to all central universities to adopt CCS rules for teachers. The DUTA condemns this vicious attack on the academic community’s intellectual autonomy and the violation of its moral prerogative to nurture free thinking and democratic values,” they said.
 
They said that this was another way in which the government has been aggressively pursuing policies of commercialisation and privatisation in higher education.
 
“Teachers unions like DUTA have been at the forefront of protests and creating public opinion against such policies. The DUTA has also exposed the Government’s brazen attempts to encourage the entry of big businesses and profits in higher education, at the cost of the educational rights of the economically weaker sections and socially marginalised groups of citizens. The DUTA’s continuous efforts in this regard have contributed to a critical public awareness of the anti-people aims of this Government. As a result, this Government is resorting to tactics that will silence the DUTA and compel teachers to mutely submit to its authoritarian measures,” the statement by Rajib Ray, President and Vivek Chaudhary, Secretary of DUTA said.
 
The ESMA was promulgated in 1968 in order to ensure that people’s lives and public order would not be endangered due to the cessation of critically important services.
 
The Act includes services like the post, telegram, public transport, defence and more. It gives untethered power to the police to arrest anyone without a warrant. “Power to arrest without warrant. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, (5 of 1898 ), any police officer may arrest without warrant any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed any offence under this Act,” says a provision of the Act. The Act will expose many teachers and students to unprecedented risks and political vendetta. It has the possibility of becoming a lethal tool in the hands of the govt.
 
“To try and bring university teachers under ESMA is a draconian and foolish move as teachers are not mere service providers. Teachers are creators and disseminators of knowledge and informed opinion. The Government’s move to curb the democratic rights of teachers through ESMA and CCS indicates desperation and nervousness about introducing changes that cannot stand up to academic scrutiny,” they said.
 
“The continuous failure of the Government and DU Administration to fill up thousands of vacancies, the continuous denial of pensions to retired teachers and the continued failure to implement the Reservation Policy in appointments have created an exceptionally unstable situation for which the government is squarely responsible. Instead of trying to address these issues that are integral to the health of Delhi University and the morale of its teachers, the Government has resorted to bullying teachers into submission,” they said.
 
DUTA said that they will fight back the threats as they have in the past. “The DUTA urges the Government to view its own failures in a sensible light and stop harassing teachers. It demands immediate dissolution of the Working Group and an end to any further attempts to impose ESMA or CCS rules on university teachers. If the Government fails to heed this appeal, it will have to face tough questions in the coming days. The DUTA is driven by the broadest public consensus on issues pertaining to higher education; hence, it will not be cowed down by threats and tantrums of a Government that is loath to be reminded of its responsibilities. The DUTA has successfully fought back attempts in the past too to bring universities under ESMA and will do so even now.
 
Sabrang India had reported how the CCS rules would drastically change the education environment meant to work for the marginalised.
 
“The imposition of these rules implies that economics professors can be punished for discussing economic policy; political scientists can be punished for discussing politics; environmental science professors can be punished for discussing environmental policy; scientists can be punished for discussing government science policy etc. All educationists can be punished for expressing their views on educational policy. Through this notification the role of both academics and civil society has been criminalized!” the JNUTA said.
 
Read Also:
JNU teachers voice strong dissent against CCS Conduct rules reportedly meant to curb University freedom
Dismantling the UGC with impunity
Privatisation of Universities in the garb of Autonomy : AAD
Another blow by MHRD to Higher Education in India
 

The post ESMA is UGC’s new trick to dissolve autonomy of public universities appeared first on SabrangIndia.