Crime Today News
In Antonio Gramsci’s seminal works on how the ruling class maintains its dominance, the Italian philosopher noted that hegemony operates more through indirect means rather than direct ones. Exerting control through cultural and intellectual spaces is a convenient and effective way of doing so.
Universities are precisely such spaces. As places where knowledge is produced, universities play a central role in shaping public discourses. They determine which ideologies gain legitimacy in society – and which do not.
If academic leadership is based not on merit, institutional traditions or regulations but rather on ideological conformity or passivity, appointments do not remain merely administrative decisions. Instead, they should be considered part of a broader strategy to establish ideological control or hegemony over intellectual centres.
The recent appointment of the head of the Hindi department at the University of Delhi has raised serious concerns. Despite the long-standing tradition of seniority in appointing department heads, this time, the most senior member of the Hindi department, Professor Apoorvanand, was deliberately sidelined.
This should not be seen as a personal issue for any individual nor as a criticism of the person who has been appointed. Instead, it is a matter linked to the broader structural and ideological changes within India’s academic institutions.
Over the past ten years, appointments and promotions at Jawaharlal Nehru University have been highly controversial. The disregard for seniority in appointments and promotions is not accidental. It is a sharp reaction by the ruling hegemonic ideology against the independent and critical thinking of intellectuals like Apoorvanand. It reflects an administrative attempt to deprive questioning scholars of their rightful positions.
This new trend of prioritising ideology over academic credibility and institutional rules raises critical questions about the long-term impact on the critical nature of universities.
This latest development in the University of Delhi’s Hindi department marks a transition from cooperation to control. Traditionally, universities have functioned as autonomous spaces where decisions are based upon intellectual merit and institutional rules.
This is not a critique of the individual who has been appointed. Apoorvanand points out that even his colleague who was chosen as the head does not consider her selection justified. We should be worried about the broader and far-reaching implications of bypassing institutional norms.
The principle of seniority in appointments to positions like department heads is not merely a bureaucratic formality: it safeguards faculty members against administrative arbitrariness, as Apoorvanand himself writes. It ensures that universities do not become sites of favouritism and political patronage.
The violation of this standard naturally raises the question: what criteria are now being used to determine qualifications for leadership positions in India’s educational institutions? Are we witnessing a moment where the traditional collegiality of universities is being eroded in favour of centralised, unaccountable control?
This is not the first instance where procedural ethics have been compromised. Over the past decade, we have observed a pattern in which many institutional decisions – ranging from appointments to curriculum restructuring – have been driven more by ideology than academic commitment. However, this case stands out as the first instance where the administration has so brazenly sidelined the most senior member of a department and handed over his position to a junior colleague.
Within the academic world, this is being seen as an administrative response to a teacher’s intellectual activism. Apoorvanand has consistently written and spoken openly on significant political and social issues.
India is still a democracy. The role of a university is not to propagate or safeguard a purported official ideology. A healthy university campus fosters critical thinking and intellectual debate. By disregarding this principle and making such decisions, the administration is clearly demonstrating an increasing alignment between university governance and hegemonic ideology. This is a direct threat to academic freedom.
Universities are meant to be safe spaces for dissent, debate, and plurality. Expecting scholars to align with the dominant political narrative in order to secure their rightful administrative positions goes against the fundamental ideals of higher education.
The Delhi University administration’s unjust action draws attention to a fundamental structural shift in academic governance. Across India, we have seen growing instances of administrative interference in the form of departmental appointments, politically motivated curriculum changes and decisions that sideline independent thinkers.
Educational institutions are being manipulated to align with the dominant ideology. Their role as safe spaces for competing and independent intellectual ideas is being systematically dismantled. This is a collective responsibility of the academic community to address. This will have dire consequences for academic freedom and excellence in the coming years.
This decision by Delhi University will further create an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship. Young faculty members who might have once freely engaged in critical discussions will now hesitate to express their thoughts openly. This process of fear and intimidation does not unfold dramatically but advances gradually through small, incremental changes.
The denial of promotions, exclusion from administrative roles, and selective appointments have now become tools for systematically discouraging dissent.
Thus, the issue is not merely about one appointment but about the slow transformation of academic culture. What will happen when universities no longer remain spaces for free thought? When internal decisions of academic institutions begin to be dictated by external ideological forces, will the intellectual community still be able to generate and refine ideas as before? Or will this mark the end of intellectualism in this country? This should be a moment of deep reflection for the academic community before it is too late.
This recent incident at Delhi University calls for a collective response from those academics who have upheld the fundamental values of impartiality, intellectual autonomy and academic freedom. Universities are not corporate entities where power can be exercised without accountability. They are institutions built on trust, dialogue and shared governance.To preserve these values, we must coherently recognise and respond to this ongoing structural transformation.
This is not about individuals or their personal grievances. The genuine concern should be ensuring that the fundamental principles of education are not destroyed under the guise of administrative discretion or the avoidance of ideological opposition.
Universities must reclaim their autonomy as spaces of intellect. This can only be achieved through a deep commitment to protecting ideological diversity ensuring that teachers and students can hold and express opposing viewpoints without fear. The process of appointing department heads and other key positions should not become a tool for ideological gatekeeping. If this continues, the university’s intellectual community will gradually be reduced to a dull, bureaucratic machinery.
Gramsci wrote that hegemony is never absolute. It is always contested. Accepting arbitrary decisions without protest would mean surrendering the fight for intellectual freedom and social justice even before it begins.
Charu Singh teaches Hindi at Ahmedabad University.
Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting
