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.

New Delhi: The University Grants Commission (UGC) wrote to the Vice-Chancellors of all universities on Wednesday to celebrate Surgical Strike Day on September 29 to mark the event along the Line of Control that day in 2016.
 
The letter also desired that students pledge their support for the armed forces in writing that day.
 
“All higher education institutions with NCC units shall organise a special parade on 29th September, after which the NCC commander shall address them on the modalities of protection of the borders,” says the UGC letter. “The university/colleges may organise a meeting, calling ex-servicemen who will sensitise the students about the sacrifices made by the armed forces in protecting the borders.”
 
The Centre’s decision to observe the “Surgical Strike Day” comes two years after it said the army had carried out an operation across the Line of Control. The government has told the University Grants Commission to ask the 900-odd universities and 38,000 colleges to celebrate the occasion in a fitting manner and upload accounts and visuals of the activities on the UGC website.
 
“A spokesperson of Jamia Milia Islamia said the university was closed for the next three days and officials will be able to comment on Monday. The September 2016 surgical strikes against terror pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir were India’s direct military response to the killing 19 Indian soldiers in a terror attack in Uri, carried out by a suicide squad that came from Pakistan. The commission has suggested the students pledge their support to the armed forces by writing letters that may be produced in digital and physical format. “The letters and cards should be shared with PRO Defence and PIB for publicity across media,” the UGC said,” reported Hindustan Times.
 
“The NCC units of all universities should organise a special parade on September 29 after which the NCC commander shall address them on the modalities of protection of the borders. The varsities may organise a talk-session calling ex-serviceman to sensitise students about sacrifices made by the armed forces,” the UGC said in a communication to all Vice Chancellors.
 
“A multimedia exhibition will be organised around India Gate on September 29. Similar exhibitions may be organised in states, union territories, important towns and cantonments across the country. The institutions should encourage students and faculty members to visit these exhibitions,” the letter added.
 
In 2016, the Indian Army carried out surgical strikes on seven terror launch pads across the LoC. The Army had said its special forces inflicted “significant casualties” on terrorists preparing to infiltrate from Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

 
Politicians and academicians against UGC order, won’t observe the day
“Historian Aditya Mukherjee of JNU, co-author of the book India’s Struggle For Independence, disagreed with the idea of taking a pledge of nationalism from the people. “This is typically the BJP trying to project themselves as the nationalists. They have this great deficit of not being part of the national movement. Now they are trying to force it on people and militarise campuses. They wanted to install tanks in JNU and if we oppose it they will call us anti-national,” he told The Hindu. “We are not anti-army. But they want to push us through a nationalism test. Forcing people to prove their nationalism is no way to arouse nationalism. The way to arouse it is to create an idea of the nation that is appealing and inclusive,” in a report by The Hindu
 
“Panjab University Students For Society (SFS) on Thursday said it was opposed to the UGC decision to observe September 29 as “surgical strike day” and said it smacked of “aggressive pseudo-nationalism” while both the BJP-affiliated ABVP and Congress-affiliated NSUI lauded the move. The Left-leaning group, which won the president’s post at the Panjab University Students’ Council in the recent elections, stated that this was a “manipulation of students by the UGC to serve the interests of the government in power at the Centre” that wants to promote its own agenda,” reported The Indian Express
 
“SFS spokesperson Hassanpreet said, “The BJP government has used the armed forces, be it soldiers at Siachen, BSF, Kashmir forces to divert the masses from their corrupt scams and anti-people/student policies. By observing such a day, it is preparing the ground to propagate more hatred,” the report said.
 
“Eminent sociologist Andre Beteille, who said the government had no authority to instruct people on such matters, was described as a “Naxal sympathiser” by an RSS supporter. Asked about the order, Beteille said: “I look at it in a very negative light. The government has no authority to instruct people on these matters. The sacrifices of the army are appreciated. But this is not the way.” He said there are ways to encourage nationalism even though it is not “necessary for everyone to be a nationalist”. Beteille said: “One should be proud of belonging to the nation. But it is not necessary for everyone to be a nationalist,” reported the Telegraph.
 
West Bengal will not celebrate the day, state minister Partha Chatterjee said on Friday.
 
“The education minister criticised the BJP-led central government for trying to “malign and politicise” the Army. “This is an agenda of the BJP and it is trying to push this agenda by using the UGC ahead of elections. It is a matter of shame that they are using the UGC to achieve their political agenda,” Chatterjee said. He added, “We would have understood it had they asked us to observe the day in the name of sacrifices made by our soldiers. We have full respect for our soldiers and their sacrifices.” “The Indian Army has always been kept above politics and controversies. But now we are seeing that the BJP is trying to malign and politicise the Indian Army. This is not right and we won’t support it,” he said in a report by The Tribune.

Related Articles

The post UGC asks universities and colleges to celebrate ‘Surgical Strike Day’ anniversary, politicians and academicians miffed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
New Delhi: The student collective that was protesting the sudden change in UGC admission guidelines have organised a joint meeting on August 8, 2018 at Indian Coffee House from 5 pm to discuss the various facets of the ongoing violations and the assault on public universities.
 
“Delhi University has arbitrarily and post-facto enacted archaic rules which has led to a reduction of students admitted in the Mphil/PhD programmes. In complete violation of due process, admission norms and the Constitution, Delhi University has decided to implement the 2016 UGC Gazette notification for Mphil/PhD interviews,” Sabrang India had reported in July.
 
According to this notification, a minimum qualification of 50% in the entrance test is mandatory for all students. This notification, however, is not binding and Delhi University as a central university has the right to its own selection process.
 
The University of Delhi conducted entrance exams for MPhil/PhD courses across various disciplines, and on the basis of the result, several departments released an initial interview list with a graded internal cut-off set at the discretion of the departments as is the norm.

 
However, an urgent notification dated July 23, 2018, two days prior to the commencement of the interview process, amendments to Article VI stated that the qualifying marks in the entrance examination for all the candidates (reserved and unreserved) was increased to a standard 50% across all categories with no precedent or notice, overnight.
 
In accordance with this regulation, a revised interview list was released on July 23, 2018, which had minimal students qualifying through the entrance test with the heavy majority qualifying through UGC-NET/JRF. “The arbitrary implementation of the Article VI of the UGC Gazette—May 05, 2016, goes against the clauses mentioned in the Gazette and is an attempt by the university administration to curtail the autonomy of the departments as well as to cripple the University as a whole,” an autonomous student collective from Delhi University stated.
 
“This notification has affected students from every single Post-Graduate department with thousands losing their seats. The University and the UGC must be held accountable for being party to the destruction of public universities to make way for privatization. This is a continuation of the unabated and relentless attack on public universities to cripple their research output and to make way for privatization. The Gazette is also in clear violation of National/State-level reservation policy, thereby also being a clear attempt to go against the tenets of social justice. This is an attempt to make higher education inaccessible to the majority of the students, access is granted to those who can afford it and to make education into a profit-generating industry,” the collective said.
 
“We have been struggling against the University administration since 24th July, since then we have submitted numerous petitions to the VC, Dean of Students Welfare, H.O. Ds, have protested outside of the interviews being conducted and most recently have also sat on hunger strike on 1st August. We have also taken legal recourse wherein our next hearing is on the 28th of August. We have managed to build and maintain pressure on the authorities from our activities and have been met with the success of the cancellation of University-wide interviews until further notice,” they said.

 
“However, since DU isn’t the first nor the only institution that is facing this attack, we appeal to organizations and individuals that they extend their solidarity to us. This is not a fight for one University but rather a collective one. It is in this context that we invite you to join us on August 8th, 2018 at Indian Coffee House from 5 pm onwards to discuss the various facets of the ongoing violations and the assault on public universities, to formulate a collective strategy on how to progress from here; and extend solidarity to the students and faculty struggling to protect these spaces of learning and dissent against the diktats of the UGC and the administration of DU who are in cahoots with each other. Students who have been a part of the struggle so far will be participating in the meeting,” the collective said.
 
Their facebook page, ‘Protest Unconstitutional Mphil/Phd Interviews In DU’ issued statements against the arbitrary rules and have continued to document their protest through pictures and videos.

Image Courtesy: Name: Forum to Save Higher Education 

Read Also:
The Attack on Higher Education Continues
Another blow by MHRD to Higher Education in India

The post DU students to protest arbitrary UGC admission rules appeared first on SabrangIndia.