Dr Burgadda Srinadh
Follow the Trump model—fund learning, not lobbying.
“Universities are for education, not agitation. Politics can wait. Education can’t.”
Russia, China, and Trump have one thing in common: they understand universities are meant for learning, not lobbying. India should take note.
The Trump administration took a clear stance against universities becoming hubs of political activism. It argued that taxpayer dollars should support research, innovation, and education—not ideological warfare. Many Americans agreed, and the argument holds relevance far beyond U.S. borders.
Universities must be safe spaces for intellectual inquiry, not political battlegrounds. While fostering political awareness is important, overt activism often undermines academic integrity. Political protests can erupt into violence, distract from learning, and delay academic schedules. Students, caught in the crossfire, suffer from stress and mental health issues. Some may even abandon institutions altogether, looking for less turbulent educational environments.
The Indian Context
India’s universities—JNU, AMU, and others—have frequently turned into ideological war zones. Some hail this as a sign of a vibrant democracy. But here’s the flip side: it disrupts education, wastes taxpayer money, and hijacks the future of neutral students who just want to study.
University politics breed polarization. Student elections often mimic national politics—full of division, drama, and disruption. Classes get cancelled. Properties are vandalized. Exams are postponed. In the end, it’s the apolitical, academically inclined student who pays the price.
India must rethink this system. Tie public funding and recognition to academic performance, not political activism. Encourage debates and discussions—but ban student wings of political parties from operating inside campuses. Learning should come first. Ideology can wait.
Russia and China: Discipline over Disorder
In Russia and China, political activities in universities are heavily restricted. The focus is on discipline, national service, and skill-building. Critics may cry authoritarianism, but their model ensures education isn’t derailed by activism. Ironically, many Indian left-liberals who champion campus freedom stay conspicuously silent about the suppression of student voices in Beijing or Moscow.
India doesn’t need to replicate autocracy. But a structured, rules-based approach to campus discipline is long overdue. Freedom of speech is vital—but it comes with responsibility. What begins as protest can escalate into hate speech, street violence, or worse. Campuses should be free spaces—not free-for-alls.
Speech, Not Sloganeering
Freedom of speech is protected by the Indian Constitution. But when that freedom turns into anti-national sloganeering, calls for separatism, or foreign-funded ideological crusades, it crosses a line. Universities are being exploited under the guise of academic freedom.
Students passionate about politics can join parties, NGOs, or think tanks outside the academic environment. There are enough platforms for engagement without turning campuses into warzones. Higher education must prioritize scholarship, skill-building, and innovation—not partisan rallies.
What India Can Do
- Ban student political parties and elections on campus.
- Allow debate, discussion, and student forums—but prohibit political mobilization.
- Link university funding to academic output, research quality, and student outcomes.
- Enforce national guidelines to maintain campus neutrality and discipline.
Final Thought
India is a democracy—but its universities don’t need to be democratic battlegrounds. The Trump model may be controversial, but in this case, he got it right. Prioritize learning. Demand accountability. Keep politics off campus.
Let students graduate with degrees, not scars from ideological crossfire.
