Indian academia’s drift from reason to ritual

Why in the News

At the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi convocation in August 2026, students were reportedly told how far to bow while receiving medals from the Prime Minister and asked to stand during Vedic chants. The episode has revived a debate on whether ritual and deference are eroding academic freedom in a secular, democratic republic.

Why do convocation rituals clash with the purpose of a university?

1. Purpose of a university: A university seeks truth through observation, experimentation and peer review. The scientific method rests on falsifiability, meaning every claim must be open to disproof.
2. Knowledge by challenge: Science advances by challenging the past, not revering it. Eg. Galileo, Darwin and Einstein each overturned once-sacred truths.
3. Message of obedience: Bowing to a political figure teaches students to obey authority, not question it. A prayer at a science convocation suggests the supernatural belongs in empirical inquiry.
4. Courtly hierarchy: The bowing protocol revives a pre-modern feudal hierarchy in which graduates submit instead of thinking independently. The Constitution’s spirit favours democratic equality over submission.
5. The takeaway: Universities must stay spaces of scepticism, dissent and fearless inquiry, or they lose the purpose that justifies them.

Is ritual a cultural tribute or enforced deference?

1. Defenders’ view: Supporters call these practices “cultural flourishes”, harmless tributes to India’s ancient past that teach respect.
2. Guru-shishya objection: The guru-shishya (teacher and disciple) model demanded unquestioning obedience. Modern teaching rests on Socratic dialectic, meaning learning through open argument and respectful dissent.
3. Mixed message: The Prime Minister used the same address to urge students to question conventional wisdom, contradicting the ritual of reverence.
4. Culture as shield: Wrapping practices in ancient culture deflects scrutiny. Critics get branded “westernised”, “anti-national” or “Dimagi Naxal” (intellectual extremist).
5. Tagorean ideal: Rabindranath Tagore‘s poem “Where the Mind is Without Fear”, written under British rule, calls for courageous thought and is a tradition worth defending.

What does the ‘Free to Think 2026’ report find?

1. The report: Scholars at Risk (SAR), an international network that monitors education communities, published “Free to Think 2026”, covering the year to June 2026.
2. Severely restricted: It rates academic freedom in India “severely restricted”. India’s Academic Freedom Index, where a higher score means more freedom, fell to 0.14 in 2025.
3. Earlier score: The index stood at 0.38 in 2022, so the latest score is less than half of it.
4. Causes cited: The report blames government interference in university governance, suppression of dissent and a pervasive climate of fear.
5. Self-censorship: Academics and students self-censor for fear of being branded traitors, and most researchers avoid questioning government overreach.

How has regulation narrowed university autonomy?

1. UGC as lever: The report says the central government has expanded control over higher education through the University Grants Commission (UGC), which funds universities and sets their standards.
2. Vice-Chancellor norms: The UGC relaxed academic qualification criteria for Vice-Chancellors, the executive heads of universities.
3. Contract faculty: It removed the 10 per cent cap on contract faculty set by the 2018 regulations. This speeds up casualisation, meaning insecure contract jobs replace permanent posts.
4. Interference and repression: Influence over administration, curricula and management undermines institutional autonomy. The report also cites police violence against student protests.

Challenges

1. Politicised research: Research agendas risk being steered by political piety rather than public need.
2. Ideological funding: Grants risk flowing by ideological alignment, rewarding sycophants over scientific merit.
3. Insecure faculty: Contract teachers without job security are less able to dissent or pursue long-term research.
4. Chancellor disputes: Vice-Chancellor appointments have become contests between State governments and Governors. Eg. Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Way Forward

1. Secular ceremony code: Institute governing boards should adopt convocation protocols free of religious ritual and bowing.
2. Merit-based selection: Search committees should apply published criteria when selecting Vice-Chancellors.
3. Contract faculty ceiling: The UGC should restore a cap on contract faculty and fill sanctioned permanent posts.
4. Academic freedom statutes: Universities should protect faculty and student speech from disciplinary action in their statutes.

Conclusion

Rituals of deference at a scientific institution signal a wider loss of university autonomy in India. Whether regulators restore faculty security and merit-based leadership will show if campuses can remain places of dissent.

Higher Education in India

1. Scale: With over 4.6 crore students, India runs the world’s second-largest higher education system.
2. Other regulators: The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) regulates technical education, and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) regulates teacher training.
3. Faculty shortage: Chronic vacancies in permanent faculty at State and central universities hamper teaching and research.

Matching Previous Year Question

“[2026, GS2, 15 marks] Should education be treated primarily as a welfare obligation of the state or as a strategic investment for building a globally competitive, knowledge-driven nation? Critically evaluate.”