The recent incident in which 30-year-old tutor Karan Sangwan was dismissed by Unacademy, a prominent online education company, has sparked a fervent debate about educators’ roles, educational integrity, and the moral and legal rights of the platform. His termination came after he made a seemingly innocuous statement on his private YouTube channel, urging students to “vote only for educated people’.
“Ek cheej yaad rakhana, agali baar jab bhi vote do, kisi padhe-likhe inshan ko apna vote dena, taaki yeh sab dubara jeevan mein na jhelna pade. Aise insaan ko chune, jo padha likha ho, jo cheejon ko samajh sake, aise insaan ko na chune jise sirf badalna aata ho, naam change karana aata ho (Remember one thing. Next time you vote, choose an educated person so that you don’t suffer later on. Elect a person who is educated, who can understand things. Do not vote for a person who doesn’t stick to their promises),” Sangwan says in the video.
Unacademy’s co-founder, Roman Saini, promptly defended the institution’s stance, emphasising that the classroom is a space to nurture objective learning that is untainted by personal beliefs.
On the face of it, Sangwan’s remarks might appear benign. But the repercussions of an educator expressing personal opinions in a learning environment in a prescriptive manner necessitate a closer examination. This incident raises intriguing questions about the intersection of education, politics, and professionalism. There may be a myriad of valid arguments rooted in the overarching pursuit of quality education and unbiased learning experiences.
The Unacademy incident must be situated within the broader context of educational institutions’ roles in shaping young minds. The modern education landscape has evolved — it has transcended physical classrooms and adapted to online platforms. However, this evolution brings a new set of challenges, particularly concerning the neutrality of educators and the impact of their statements on the students and even masses since recently we have witnessed a spike of such statements going viral. We plan to examine such phenomena separately.
Saini’s assertion that classrooms are not arenas for the expression of personal opinions stems from the recognition that educators hold significant influence over their students and masses. The power of an educator’s words goes beyond simple instruction: It shapes perspectives, values, and even political inclinations. Unacademy’s decision to part ways with Sangwan aligns with the institution’s dedication to providing an objective and politically agnostic educational environment. This stance echoes the age-old principle that education should empower individuals to form their own conclusions based on well-rounded information, rather than being swayed by the personal beliefs of their instructors. However, whether Unacademy is acting promptly in similar incidents remains to be examined.
But beyond this broader understanding lie more nuanced arguments in favour of the ed-tech platform’s action against Sangwan.
Unacademy’s decision can be justified on three grounds: legal, constitutional, and political. Having said that, we don’t think that Sangwan has crossed any legal boundaries or transgressed the frame of the Constitution. We will not take any position on the severity of action against him either. However, we do argue that his prescriptive statement goes beyond real education/educated to perception of education and educated, which has severe implications for marginalised communities.
Also read: ‘Vote for educated person’ — how a video turned Unacademy teacher Karan Sangwan’s life…
Maintaining neutrality
A private platform, Unacademy operates under its own code of conduct, which stands valid unless and until it violates or transgresses the law of the land. The code, as mentioned by Saini, delineates that maintaining a neutral and unbiased environment for learning is a critical prerequisite to being a tutor at the online company. Educators are expected to refrain from expressing personal opinions that could influence students’ beliefs or decisions.
Sangwan’s remarks strayed from this commitment to neutrality. Knowingly or unknowingly, his call to ‘vote for educated people’ could be construed as indirectly endorsing a particular political stance, which is a running campaign theme of current opposition parties following their consistent stand that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s educational degree is fake. Since meanings are always drawn in a context, it doesn’t take long to conclude that Sangwan’s remarks have a particular connotation in the current political context favouring opposition parties.
Therefore, his dismissal can be seen as a necessary step to safeguard Unacademy’s reputation and assure students that they are receiving unbiased education.
Moreover, the power of social media and public perception cannot be underestimated. The misinterpretation of Sangwan’s remarks by critics on social media could potentially harm Unacademy’s image. Soon after the controversy erupted, the hashtag #UninstallUnacademy gained heavy momentum on X (formerly Twitter). Taking proactive measures to address any controversies is a responsible way to maintain an institution’s reputation.
In any case, Sangwan is a teacher of law. The same remarks could have been framed in a scholarly manner. He purportedly made his statement while teaching about the three new criminal law bills. In fact, he jumped the gun and put his views forward without context. This is advocacy, not teaching.
When educators represent an institution, their statements reflect on the brand. Sangwan was wearing an Unacademy T-shirt in his video, which seemingly intertwines his views with those of the ed-tech company. This justifies Unacademy’s action against Sangwan even more strongly.
Also read: 3 institutions headless for a year—Indian research, scholarship has an institutional problem
Education, leadership, democracy
Let’s consider Sangwan’s ‘vote for educated leaders’ idea too. While this may seem appealing at first, a deeper analysis reveals that such a move could inadvertently lead to a reversal of democratic progress, resurrect the spectre of plutocracy, and undo the hard-fought gains of universal suffrage.
One of the fundamental tenets of democracy is the notion that every citizen, within the ambits of the constitutional and legal framework, has an equal right to participate in the political process. This includes the right to stand for elections and represent a community. By imposing educational qualifications as a prerequisite for candidacy or selection, we risk undermining the very essence of equal representation. Education is not always indicative of wisdom, right attitude, empathy, or an understanding of the diverse challenges that a nation faces.
Historically, societies have strived to overcome the shackles of elitism and plutocracy through their struggles for universal suffrage. The idea that a select group of educated elites or the ‘philosopher kings’ should govern was rejected in our Constituent Assembly. Indian leaders favoured a system that values the participation of all citizens, regardless of their educational qualifications. KT Shah brought a proposition to include educational qualifications of candidates in the electoral process, but it was rejected by the Assembly.
Ambedkar, the head of the Drafting Committee, argued that the matter should be left for Parliament to decide. Constituent Assembly members were selected by an electorate, who became voters by virtue of passing the test of education and property. This was the understanding behind the Government of India Act 1935 too. This educated lot, the finest brains of India, ruled against bringing educational criteria into the electoral process.
The struggle for universal suffrage aimed to dismantle barriers to political participation and ensured that marginalised voices were heard. Imposing educational qualifications disregards the potential and capabilities of individuals who may not have had the same opportunities but possess valuable insights and a genuine desire to serve their communities.
Ambedkar on educated leaders
Ambedkar fought against the education and property ownership basis for rights related to voting and contesting elections. Before the Southborough Committee, he argued that the criteria should be relaxed so that more people could vote and contest. In his memorandum before the Simon Commission, he once again dealt with this issue, arguing that more than experience and aptitude, representatives must have the attitude to fight social evil. He went on to argue that intellectual leaders could just pass commentary on social issues besides being self-indulgent.
The legislature of a country should be a mirror image of the population that it claims to represent. While comparing Ranade, Gandhi, and Jinnah, he again emphasised the role of morality for being a great leader. He argued that with sincerity and intellect (education), a person becomes eminent, but to become a great person one also needs the social purpose of eliminating evils of society with these two qualities. The combination of these three qualities—sincerity, intellect, and social purpose—make a great leader.
Reality vs perception of educated leaders
The argument for educated leaders is not simply about politicians having a formal education since most members of our current establishment are university graduates. It is more about the perception of being educated. Leaders can be perceived as uneducated and foolish if they belong to marginalised communities. Lalu Prasad Yadav holds degrees in Bachelor of Arts (BA), Bachelor of Legislative Law (LLB), and Master of Arts (MA) in political science, which means he has spent at least eight years in university. Yet, he is perceived as uneducated. Similarly, his wife Rabari Devi, who has studied only until fifth standard, is projected as illiterate.
Individuals from marginalised backgrounds are considered backward precisely because they raise the issues of their communities. Those who raise issues about caste are often labelled as uneducated and casteist since they challenge the power and privilege of traditional social elites.
With the help of their privileges and social capital, ‘upper’ caste leaders project themselves as highly educated despite not being so. They are even invited to foreign countries to deliver lectures.
On the contrary, leaders from marginalised communities do not have such liberties or get these opportunities. They are often coerced into altering their personalities to find a place in the so-called mainstream media. Lalu and Ramdas Athawale could be good examples. They have been coerced to act like a comedian in public life, else their existence would have been ignored.
Arvind Kumar, PhD Scholar at Department of Politics, IRs and Philosophy; and Visiting Tutor at Department of Law and Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London. Associate Fellow of Higher Education Academy, United Kingdom. Dilip Mandal is the former managing editor of India Today Hindi Magazine, and has authored books on media and sociology. He tweets @Profdilipmandal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Humra Laeeq)