Indian Academia’s drift from Reason to Ritual

Why in News?

The 2026 convocation of IIT Delhi has triggered a debate over the role of ritual, religious symbolism and protocols of deference in publicly funded academic institutions. IIT Delhi’s 57th convocation was held in August 2026, with the Indian Prime Minister as chief guest.

Media reports claimed that students were instructed on how much to bow while receiving medals and were asked to stand during the recitation of Vedic chants. These claims were publicly questioned by the AIMIM leader, who invoked Articles 28 and 51A(h) of the Constitution. 

The controversy concerns whether participation in religious observances and prescribed gestures of deference were voluntary or institutionally expected. It raises questions about scientific temper, freedom of conscience and institutional autonomy. 

The University as a Space for Reason:

The fundamental purpose of a modern university is not merely to transmit inherited knowledge but to question, test and expand it. Scientific inquiry rests on:

• Observation and evidence rather than authority or revelation.
• Falsifiability, whereby claims remain open to being disproved.
• Peer review and reproducibility as mechanisms of verification.
• Questioning and dissent, which allow established theories to be challenged.
• Intellectual autonomy, allowing researchers to pursue questions without political or ideological coercion.

Scientific progress itself demonstrates the importance of challenging established assumptions.

Constitutional Foundations of Academic Freedom:

• Article 51A(h)  makes developing scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform a Fundamental Duty of every citizen. It supports an educational culture that encourages examination of claims, acceptance of evidence and willingness to revise conclusions. 
• Article 28: Religious Instruction and Worship: Article 28 makes three important distinctions:
  • Article 28(1): Religious instruction is prohibited in educational institutions wholly maintained from State funds.
  • Article 28(2): This prohibition does not apply to institutions administered by the State but established under an endowment or trust requiring religious instruction.
  • Article 28(3): A person attending a State-recognised or State-aided institution cannot be compelled to participate in religious instruction or worship without consent. For a minor, the guardian’s consent is required.

Therefore, constitutional assessment depends on the institution’s status, the character of the activity and whether participation is compulsory. However, a cultural or ceremonial activity should not automatically be equated with “religious instruction”.

• Article 25: Freedom of Conscience: It protects freedom of conscience, subject to constitutional limitations. This makes respect for individual religious choice relevant to institutional practices, including the freedom to abstain from religious observances.

• Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of Speech and Expression: Academic freedom is closely linked to freedom of expression. Students and academics must be able to question government policies, criticise prevailing theories, challenge institutional decisions, publish research that produces uncomfortable conclusions and engage in peaceful intellectual disagreement.
• Article 14 and Equality: Public educational institutions are expected to function within the framework of equality and non-arbitrariness. Institutional protocols should therefore be based on legitimate academic or administrative purposes rather than arbitrary distinctions based on status or political authority.

Dimensions and Significance of Academic Freedom: 

Academic freedom enables innovation, correction of errors, independent evaluation of public policy and the development of critical democratic citizens.

The Academic Freedom Index (AFI) assesses five dimensions:

1. Freedom to research and teach: Pursuing legitimate academic questions and communicating findings.
2. Freedom of academic exchange and dissemination: Sharing knowledge and collaborating with other scholars.
3. Institutional autonomy: Meaningful control over academic and administrative decisions.
4. Campus integrity: Protection from intimidation, surveillance and security infringements.
5. Freedom of academic and cultural expression: Discussing and expressing ideas without undue interference.

The Academic Freedom Index (AFI), developed by researchers associated with the V-Dem Institute and Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, measures these dimensions. 

Concerns over Academic Freedom in India:

• The Scholars at Risk (SAR) Free to Think 2026 report examined attacks on higher education communities globally between July 1, 2025 and June 30, 2026. 
• It assessed academic freedom in India as “severely restricted” and reported an AFI score of 0.14 in its 2026 assessment, down from 0.16 in 2024. 
• The report attributes the decline to restrictions affecting research and teaching, institutional autonomy and academic expression. 

SAR also raises concerns regarding:

• increasing governmental influence over university governance
• restrictions affecting campus discourse
• actions against faculty members and academic events
• constraints on student expression 
• greater dependence of academic institutions on executive and regulatory structures.

Wider Challenges facing Indian Higher Education: 

Beyond constraints on academic freedom, India’s higher education system struggles with deeply entrenched structural inefficiencies:

• Regulatory Overhead & Limited Autonomy: Overlapping jurisdictions and multi-layered administrative approvals choke curriculum reform, faculty recruitment, and international research collaborations. Balancing institutional flexibility with strict quality and financial accountability remains an ongoing challenge.
• Underfunded and Imbalanced Research: While Gross Expenditure on R&D (GERD) climbed to 0.84% of GDP in 2023-24, Higher Education Institutions manage only 12.6% of that total. A recent NITI Aayog study reveals a severe funding concentration, where top-tier institutes like the IIT system command the vast majority of research grants, starving weaker institutions.
• Severe Faculty Vacancies & Insecure Tenure: Around 29% of teaching posts in Central Universities stood vacant by late 2024. This structural shortage leads to heavy teaching workload; over-reliance on temporary or ad-hoc faculty disrupts academic continuity and long-term research pipelines.
• Access vs. Affordability Paradox: The AISHE 2023-24 report highlights record growth, with 4.50 crore students driving the Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) to 30%. However, hidden costs like accommodation, transport, hardware devices, and forgone income continue to lock out first-generation and marginalised learners.
• Support Deficits & Retention Gaps: Socio-economic hardships, language barriers, and inadequate student mentorship lead to silent dropouts. Currently, India lacks a synchronised national tracking framework to measure higher education attrition rates.
• Employability Deficits & Academic Integrity: Outdated, exam-focused curricula often fail to build core analytical skills, widening the industry-readiness gap. Concurrently, hyper-fixing on institutional rankings pushes faculty toward predatory publishing and superficial outputs over high-impact teaching. 

Way Forward:

• Enact Autonomy with Agile Governance: Simplify multi-layered regulatory approvals and empower internal academic boards to dynamically update curricula. Replace rigid bureaucratic oversight with data-driven financial audits, robust anti-discrimination protocols, and independent grievance cells.

• Democratise & Stabilise Research Funding: Balance steady base institutional grants with competitive, peer-reviewed project funding. To bridge the institutional divide, rapidly scale initiatives like the Anusandhan National Research Foundation’s (ANRF) PAIR programme, which pairs under-resourced state universities with elite institutions for shared infrastructure and capacity building.
• Institutionalise Time-Bound Faculty Recruitment: Eliminate the talent gap by executing strict, time-bound hiring windows for vacant posts. Transition away from unstable ad-hoc contracts toward transparent tenure tracks and fair baseline working conditions.
• Turn Retention into a Core Performance Metric: Move beyond basic enrollment data by launching an integrated National Student Cohort Tracking Framework. Support vulnerable and first-generation learners by combining need-based stipends, subsidised accommodation, and structured language bridge courses, ensuring the National Education Policy’s (NEP) multiple exit options include seamless pathways to return.
• Institutionalise Academic Freedom & Conscience: Create legally backed safeguards to protect faculty and students from administrative or political retaliation for good-faith scholarship. Mandate inclusive, secular public ceremonies and ensure voluntary participation in cultural activities in line with constitutional rights.
• Pivot to Competency-Based Learning & Holism: Modernise classrooms by prioritising case study discussions, active undergraduate research, and credit-backed industry internships. Shift faculty review boards from a “publish-or-perish” numbers game to a balanced rubric measuring teaching quality, student mentoring, and real-world public contributions.
• Build Ethical, Conflict-Free Partnerships: Accelerate strategic alliances between universities, corporate houses, and local bodies to address regional challenges. Protect research integrity by introducing mandatory conflict-of-interest disclosures and guaranteeing the independent right to publish findings. 

Rabindranath Tagore’s vision of a society “where the mind is without fear” remains relevant to contemporary higher education. 

India’s universities must be places where authority can be respected without becoming unquestionable, culture can be celebrated without becoming compulsory, and scientific inquiry can flourish without ideological boundaries.