Col Ajay K Raina
ajaykrraina@gmail.com
The role of universities in shaping a nation’s intellectual and moral architecture cannot be overstated. Institutions of higher learning are not merely spaces for academic inquiry; they are crucibles where young minds are exposed to ideas that inform their worldview, civic conduct, and national consciousness. It is precisely for this reason that any systematic ideological skew within such institutions warrants serious scrutiny. Increasingly, a pattern is emerging across several universities in India where a certain ideological leaning-often aligned with leftist thought-appears to dominate discourse, curriculum, and campus culture. The University of Jammu, regrettably, now finds itself entangled in this broader trend.
Two recent developments at the University merit close examination. They are not isolated incidents but rather indicative of a deeper, more insidious pattern of intellectual conditioning that risks normalising narratives inimical to national cohesion.
The first pertains to a cultural event branded as “Jammuiyat.” At first glance, such nomenclature may appear benign, even evocative of regional pride. However, the choice of terminology is neither accidental nor culturally organic. It appears to be a derivative-if not an imitation-of the construct “Kashmiriyat,” a term that has, over decades, been politically appropriated and, at times, weaponised to project a selective and often exclusionary identity narrative. The transplantation of such a construct into the Jammu context raises immediate red flags.
More concerning, however, was the language used in the promotional material for this event. References to sub-regions within Jammu Province using terms like “Chenab Valley” are particularly problematic. This terminology is not historically rooted in the administrative or cultural lexicon of the region. Instead, it has origins linked to narratives propagated by Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus and further amplified by Kashmiri separatist elements. The strategic intent behind such terminology has long been to carve out religiously demarcated identities within Jammu, thereby laying the groundwork for future territorial or political claims.
What makes this development even more troubling is the subtlety with which it was introduced. These terms did not suddenly appear in isolation; they were first embedded in the backdrop of events like “Display Your Talent-2025.” Such gradual familiarisation is a hallmark of psychological operations-introducing terminology in innocuous contexts until it gains passive acceptance. Over time, what was once alien becomes normalised, and what is normalised eventually shapes perception.
The second issue concerns the academic domain-specifically, the research curriculum in the Political Science Department. Here, the concerns are even more profound, as they directly influence scholarly output and intellectual framing.
For over a year, certain research themes have appeared to be introduced without adequate public visibility or stakeholder consultation. It was only when these themes came to light that student protests erupted-an entirely predictable response given the nature of the topics. Among the subjects reportedly included were studies centred on figures such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Mohammad Iqbal, and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. These are not merely historical personalities; they are deeply contested figures in the Indian national narrative.
Jinnah’s role in the partition of India and his alignment with British interests is well documented. Iqbal’s intellectual advocacy of the two-nation theory provided ideological fuel to the idea of Pakistan. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, while a reformist in certain respects, is also associated with the early articulation of Muslim separatist identity in the subcontinent. To include such figures as focal points of academic inquiry is not, in itself, objectionable-provided the approach is balanced, critical, and contextualised within a broader national framework. However, the concern arises when such studies are perceived as framed in a way that could lend legitimacy to divisive ideologies rather than critically interrogate them.
Equally contentious were other themes: ethno-nationalism in Assam and Manipur, autonomy demands in Tamil Nadu and Punjab, critical appraisals of accession to the Indian Union, and revisiting Articles 370 and 35A-provisions that have already been constitutionally settled. While academic freedom does permit the exploration of complex and even uncomfortable subjects, the selection and framing of these topics must be carefully calibrated. When a cluster of themes consistently tilts towards questioning national integration or revisiting settled constitutional matters, it raises legitimate concerns about intent.
The student protests that followed were, therefore, not an overreaction but a reflection of growing unease. Universities are not insulated islands; they exist within a societal framework. Students, parents, educators, and the broader community are all stakeholders in the educational ecosystem. When a significant section of this ecosystem expresses concern, it must be taken seriously.
The response from the university administration, however, has been less than reassuring. The Vice Chancellor’s decision to constitute a committee to examine the issues was, in principle, a step in the right direction. Yet, even before this committee could convene and undertake a systematic review, the concerned department issued a press statement announcing the removal of the three controversial figures from the syllabus.
This pre-emptive declaration raises more questions than it answers. It resembles, metaphorically, an accused proclaiming innocence before the judicial process has even begun. If the curriculum was sound and defensible, why the sudden withdrawal? Conversely, if there were indeed flaws, should not a comprehensive review have been conducted rather than a selective rollback?
More importantly, the removal of three names does little to address the broader issue. The deeper concern lies not in individual topics but in the curriculum’s cumulative orientation. Several other themes that triggered concern reportedly remain intact. The focus on autonomy, ethno-nationalism, and critical re-evaluation of foundational national decisions continues to persist. In isolation, each of these subjects may be academically defensible. In aggregation, however, they risk creating a narrative ecosystem that subtly undermines national cohesion.
It is here that the larger question must be asked: What is the objective of higher education? Is it merely to expose students to a plurality of ideas, or does it also carry the responsibility of nurturing informed, responsible citizens who understand and value the integrity of the nation? Academic freedom is not an absolute; it exists within the framework of societal responsibility. Universities must remain spaces of debate and dissent, but they must also guard against becoming echo chambers for ideologies that erode the very foundations of the state.
The situation at the University of Jammu underscores the need for greater oversight and accountability. This does not imply state control over academic content, but rather a transparent, consultative process involving multiple stakeholders. Curriculum design, especially at the research level, should not be the exclusive domain of a small group of academics. It must be subject to periodic review, peer scrutiny, and, where necessary, public engagement.
One practical step in this direction would be an independent audit of recently awarded doctoral research. Such a review would help ascertain whether there is a discernible pattern in the themes, methodologies, and conclusions of scholarly work emerging from the institution. If a consistent ideological bias is detected, corrective measures can be instituted. If not, the exercise would still serve to reinforce confidence in the institution’s academic integrity.
Ultimately, the issue is not about silencing any particular ideology but about ensuring balance. A university that tilts excessively in one ideological direction-whether left, right, or otherwise-fails in its core mission. Intellectual diversity must be genuine, not selective. Critical inquiry must be encouraged, but it must be anchored in a commitment to truth, context, and national interest.
The developments at Jammu University should, therefore, be viewed as a cautionary signal. They highlight the need for vigilance, not just within one institution but across the higher education landscape. If left unaddressed, such trends risk transforming universities from centres of learning into arenas of ideological contestation, where the line between scholarship and indoctrination becomes increasingly blurred. The stakes are too high to ignore. Universities shape the future-one classroom, one thesis, one idea at a time. Ensuring that this future is informed, balanced, and aligned with the broader interests of the nation is not just an academic imperative; it is a strategic necessity.
(The author is a military historian and founding trustee of the Military History Research Foundation ® India)
The post Ideological Subversion and Case of Jammu University appeared first on Daily Excelsior.