Ashoka University was imagined as a space to challenge, question, and think freely. If that folds the moment it’s tested, then the real crisis isn’t just of academic freedom—but of conviction.
Trump’s move to bar international students from Harvard isn’t just policy—it’s an attack on academic freedom, diversity, and the soul of American higher education.
While administrative work, in general, has increased for teachers in higher educational institutions, this burden is also unfairly put on contractual workers.
One has to be incredibly credulous to buy BJP spin masters’ argument that the government got rid of Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar for harmonious relationship with the judiciary.
Modi government had also made numerous efforts to establish peace with Pakistan but has now adopted a different path, militarily, to establish peace, adds defence minister.
As Narendra Modi becomes India’s second-longest consecutively serving Prime Minister, we look at how he compares with Indira Gandhi across four key dimensions.
If Monali’s argument in her comment is representative of an education from Ashoka University, then I wonder if the institute deserves the vaunted reputation it enjoys. For logical reasoning, the most essential of any decent education, seems to be sorely missing from the university’s common curriculum.
Monali’s argument would have respectable if the persecuted/prosecuted professor had made any statement which was contrary to the principles of the constitution or the values of civil society. Instead, it was the complaints filed against the professor which were baseless. More so the one by the head of Haryana’s State Commission for Women. That one was blatantly false, illogical, unmaintainable, and hence reprehensible.
The university, at the very least, should have criticized the complaints, especially the second one, for their untenability. After all, there is something called civics which universities are traditionally expected to justify, and teach. And not merely read out, in passing, in the courses they conduct on it.
Amana (the author) is unerringly perceptive and accurate. The responses by Mr. Sanjeev Bikhchandani (co-founder of Ashoka University), which are quoted in The Hindu, are frighteningly self-entitled and pernicious.
Mr. Bikhchandani’s statements reveal some of the major flaws that exist in our society, and key reasons why our nation seems to be perpetually stuck in the same rut.
Only those who have acquired their money and positions by honest and fair means will know the value of civil rights and justice, and the latter’s indispensibility for the material progress of a society.
Unfortunately, most of the rich and elite in India are habituated to the use of dishonest and unfair means for their advantage. Why would they care for values? Why would they strive for the betterment of society? Why would they fund institutions which could chip away at the unfair privileges they enjoy?
That’s the tragedy of not just our universities which depend on private funding, but also our media which is similarly beholden.
ThePrint is an example. It proclaims all the right intentions that are essential for performance by its industry, but it falls short of fulfilling them. And life being what it is, short even by an inch inevitably becomes as damaging as short by a mile.
This isnt just about money. It is about who bears the consequence for certain actions. The university should not be expected to lend its legitimacy with every individual associated with it. If the professor made a remark as a private individual why should the university be forced to support. He did not consult them before involving them. Regardless of the actual consequnce i.e. money or something else people should not be obligated to be dragged with you. No one gave you the right to represent them.
If Monali’s argument in her comment is representative of an education from Ashoka University, then I wonder if the institute deserves the vaunted reputation it enjoys. For logical reasoning, the most essential of any decent education, seems to be sorely missing from the university’s common curriculum.
Monali’s argument would have respectable if the persecuted/prosecuted professor had made any statement which was contrary to the principles of the constitution or the values of civil society. Instead, it was the complaints filed against the professor which were baseless. More so the one by the head of Haryana’s State Commission for Women. That one was blatantly false, illogical, unmaintainable, and hence reprehensible.
The university, at the very least, should have criticized the complaints, especially the second one, for their untenability. After all, there is something called civics which universities are traditionally expected to justify, and teach. And not merely read out, in passing, in the courses they conduct on it.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/seriously-discussed-walking-away-ashoka-university-co-founder-says-amid-row/article69657569.ece
Amana (the author) is unerringly perceptive and accurate. The responses by Mr. Sanjeev Bikhchandani (co-founder of Ashoka University), which are quoted in The Hindu, are frighteningly self-entitled and pernicious.
Mr. Bikhchandani’s statements reveal some of the major flaws that exist in our society, and key reasons why our nation seems to be perpetually stuck in the same rut.
Only those who have acquired their money and positions by honest and fair means will know the value of civil rights and justice, and the latter’s indispensibility for the material progress of a society.
Unfortunately, most of the rich and elite in India are habituated to the use of dishonest and unfair means for their advantage. Why would they care for values? Why would they strive for the betterment of society? Why would they fund institutions which could chip away at the unfair privileges they enjoy?
That’s the tragedy of not just our universities which depend on private funding, but also our media which is similarly beholden.
ThePrint is an example. It proclaims all the right intentions that are essential for performance by its industry, but it falls short of fulfilling them. And life being what it is, short even by an inch inevitably becomes as damaging as short by a mile.
This isnt just about money. It is about who bears the consequence for certain actions. The university should not be expected to lend its legitimacy with every individual associated with it. If the professor made a remark as a private individual why should the university be forced to support. He did not consult them before involving them. Regardless of the actual consequnce i.e. money or something else people should not be obligated to be dragged with you. No one gave you the right to represent them.