New UGC Regulations: A Tool of Institutional Casteism and a Foreign Agenda

By Yogesh Mishra

The new regulations introduced by the UGC are not merely legal documents; they are part of a carefully engineered project of social re-design. In a country with a knowledge tradition spanning thousands of years, it is deeply unfortunate that the apex academic regulator is still framing policy by leaning on the conclusions of Western funding agencies and foreign universities. It is even more distressing that a civilizational knowledge centre like India seems to feel the need for foreign approval in order to claim academic legitimacy and autonomy.

The core objective of these rules is not the elimination of casteism. Rather, they appear designed to grant limitless power to certain groups and to convert academic campuses into political battlefields. Where earlier there were contests of ideas, an enforced contest of identities is now being imposed. Where dialogue existed, a culture of allegations and counter-allegations is being institutionalised.

⸻

Major Problems and Their Long-Term Consequences

1. Criminalisation of the Campus: Direct police involvement turns any academic institution into an active crime scene. Where administrative discipline is meant to correct and educate, criminal proceedings stigmatise a person for life. A casual joke or an ideological disagreement can now become a police case, a court proceeding, and even a pathway to imprisonment.

Consider the irony, individuals who issue open threats like “dig the graves of Brahmins” and “beat them with four shoes” can sit as government advisors, while a routine remark by an ordinary student may send him to jail. This is not merely selective justice, it is institutional bias. So-called progressive professors who openly ask students about their caste in classrooms are rewarded, while ordinary students are forced to weigh every word.

This system is training students to live in lifelong fear. A generation that should be known for independent thinking will instead be trapped in self-censorship. This is not an academic environment; it is a mechanism of intellectual suppression.

2. A Direct Assault on Freedom of Expression: A university is the place where young people, for the first time, step out of school-uniform discipline and begin discovering their true identity. It is a phase of self-exploration, where ideas are tested, beliefs are challenged, and personalities are formed. These rules are suffocating this natural process.

Satire, humour, and even disagreement of any kind will now be viewed with suspicion. Is this the same India where Charvaka openly challenged the Vedic tradition? Is this the same land where Nalanda and Takshashila hosted fierce debates among competing philosophies? Today we are depriving our own youth of the intellectual freedom that formed the foundation of our civilisation.

3. An Open Invitation to Organised Misuse: These rules place a lethal weapon in the hands of organised student groups. The very organisations that today openly threaten to “give four shoes” could tomorrow use these regulations to send students of opposing ideologies straight to prison. Politically protected groups will exploit the rules and make life hell for ordinary, unorganised students.

This will be an unequal war: on one side, organised power, political backing, and legal resources; on the other, an ordinary student with his parents’ limited means. The outcome is predetermined. This is not justice; it is an institutionalised route for social vengeance.

4. Ignoring the Data: Data from the Government’s own Ministry of Social Justice exposes the hollowness of these rules. Under the SC/ST Act, the average conviction rate is only around eight percent. This alarming figure makes two things clear: either ninety-two percent of cases are false, or the legal system is completely failing. In either scenario, creating harsher rules is irrational.

An even more startling statistic; OBCs constitute about eighty-one percent of accused persons in caste-related offences. What social reality does this reflect? Doesn’t it prove that casteism is not the problem of one group but a disease of the whole society? Then how is it just to use the phrase “especially” and provide special protection to select groups?

Across more than two thousand college campuses, only 378 cases of caste-based discrimination were recorded in an entire year. That is an average of 0.2 cases per college. What is the justification for imposing such harsh, sweeping, and oppressive rules for such a negligible number?

It is evident that a problem is being manufactured, not solved. A fictional crisis is being created to destroy real academic freedom.

5. Selective Sensitivity: Some Castes Are “More Equal” - Over the last fifteen years, on social media and in campus politics, against which group have the most toxic and hateful caste remarks been made? Anti-Brahmin and anti-savarna slogans, posters, and speeches that openly insult deities, religious symbols, scriptures, and traditions continue even today. Hate messages painted on campus walls and inflammatory speeches at public student programmes are well-documented.

Yet these rules use the word “especially” to grant special protection to certain communities. What message does this send? Are some castes more sensitive than others? Is hatred against some communities acceptable while hatred against others is a crime? This is not the constitutional principle of equality; it is the politics of division.

When someone spoke about “digging graves” for Brahmins, it was called freedom of expression. But if a savarna student makes even a routine remark, it becomes a casteist offence. This double standard violates the spirit of the Constitution.

6. No Justice, No Protection: The most frightening aspect is that there is no provision to punish those who make false allegations. An eight percent conviction rate means ninety-two percent of cases were either wrong or could not be proved. What happened to the accused in those ninety-two percent cases? Their academic time, mental health, and social reputation were destroyed. And the complainants? Free, with no consequences.

What torture does a student endure after a false accusation? Police questioning, court appearances, public shame, pressure on family, this is enough to break a young mind. Campus suicides are already far higher in number than recorded cases of casteist comments. Today’s youth are already struggling with competition, career anxiety, and social pressure. A false case can easily push someone toward suicide.

If a student dies by suicide due to a false allegation, who will be responsible, the complainant, the student organisation that encouraged it, the UGC that framed the rules, or an administration that remained a silent spectator? No one has an answer.

7. Deliberately Vague Definitions: Terms like “casteist comment,” “abusive language,” and “mental harassment” have not been given clear, limited, legally precise definitions. This vagueness appears deliberate, so that wide misuse becomes possible.

Because of this ambiguity, an ordinary joke, an academic debate on a historical event, a sociological analysis, or a literary critique could be turned into a crime. Will discussing the Shambuk episode in the Ramayana be “casteist”? Will analysing Manusmriti be deemed an offence? Will research on the historical development of caste be prohibited?

This vagueness opens the door to selective and biased action. Whoever has power will decide what is a crime and what is not. This is not the rule of law; it is the rule of arbitrariness.

Every offence must be clearly defined with concrete examples. Mens rea, criminal intent, must be mandatorily examined. Without intent, a statement cannot become a crime. Yet the rules have been left intentionally unclear.

8. Strangling Academic Freedom: Universities are not just social spaces; they are centres of thought, critique, and research. Human progress has emerged from open debate within universities. When Galileo presented the heliocentric theory, he was punished. History proved Galileo right, not his accusers.

Under these rules, open discussion on caste-based history, sociology, law, or philosophy will be obstructed. Professors and researchers will be forced into self-censorship. Topics that should be taught will become taboo. Research that should be conducted will be stopped.

Can we imagine an India where Dr. Ambedkar’s writings cannot be discussed? Where comparative evaluation of Gandhi and Periyar becomes impossible? Where research on the origin and evolution of caste becomes a criminal act?

Academic discussion, curriculum, seminars, and research must be explicitly kept outside the scope of these rules. But this has deliberately not been done, because the real objective is intellectual suppression, not social justice.

9. Destruction of Institutional Autonomy: Colleges already have administrative mechanisms, grievance cells, internal complaint committees, SC/ST cells,capable of resolving internal matters through counselling and, if needed, disciplinary action.

Direct police involvement destroys institutional autonomy. It signals that academic institutions are incapable of handling their internal affairs. It weakens their credibility and authority.

More seriously, minor disputes are being criminalised. A simple argument between two students that could be resolved through mediation will now become a police case. This encourages a punitive approach over a corrective one.

A proper system should be three-tiered: first counselling and reconciliation, then a college-level committee hearing, and only in grave and proven cases should the police enter. But such an arrangement is absent, because the purpose is not resolution, but suppression.

10. Total Neglect of Power Imbalance: The rules assume that every complainant and accused possesses equal social power,an entirely fictional assumption. In reality, there is a huge power imbalance between organised student groups and ordinary, unorganised students.

Politically protected groups with media access and legal support can misuse these rules, while an ordinary student from a middle-class family will remain helpless.

This is not justice; it is an institutional arrangement for social revenge. The rules should have required consideration of the social, political, and economic positions of both sides. But this too has been deliberately omitted.

11. Absence of Natural Justice: The rules do not clearly provide for the right to be heard, the opportunity for cross-examination, or a transparent appeal mechanism. Audi alteram partem, the principle of hearing the other side, is the foundation of justice, recognised from Roman times to modern democracies.

But here, action begins the moment an allegation is made. Where is the accused’s opportunity to present a defence, submit evidence, or question the complainant? Even before any conclusion, the accused faces suspension and social boycott.

This is not due process; it is institutional approval of lynching-style punishment. The principles of natural justice should have been explicitly included. They were not, because the objective is revenge, not justice.

12. Complete Absence of Evidence-Based Policy Making: When the data shows the problem is negligible, why impose such harsh punitive rules? Isn’t prevention-based education more effective? Wouldn’t sensitivity workshops, dialogue-based programmes, and caste-neutral ethics curricula be better solutions?

Instead of investing in education and dialogue, reliance is placed on punishment and fear. This reveals that the goal is not solving a problem but pursuing a political agenda.

In any civilised society, policymaking must be based on evidence, data, and expert consultation. Here all three are ignored. This is not policymaking, it is political conspiracy.

13. Selective Sensitivity: Identity Politics TriumphsBy using language that grants special protection to specific groups, these rules are further dividing society. Identity has been placed above the individual. The message is: your pain is not important, your caste is.

This approach is against social unity. Rules must be person-centric, not caste-centric. Every citizen should receive equal protection, regardless of caste. But that has not been done, because the purpose is division, not equality.

14. Complete Neglect of Mental Health: Fear and uncertainty produced by false allegations can push any young person into depression. The psychological impact of an accusation hanging over one’s head is destructive, sleep, appetite, focus, everything collapses.

Every complaint should have mandated counselling and psycho-social assessment. Both complainant and accused should have access to mental health support. But there is no such arrangement.

This shows that student welfare is not the priority. Political agenda is.

15. No Review and No Sunset Clause: No rule should be eternal. There must be an independent review every two or three years. If misuse is high, there should be an automatic repeal mechanism.

But there is no such provision. This indicates these rules are meant to be permanent,not to solve a problem.

⸻

The Foreign Agenda: A New Form of Colonial Mindset

It is the height of irony that decades after independence, India’s top academic regulator is still framing policy based on research from foreign universities and conclusions of Western funding agencies.

Western societies have no lived experience of caste. Their social structures, historical evolution, and cultural contexts are completely different from India’s. Yet the findings of researchers at Harvard, Oxford, or Yale become the basis of our policies.

This is intellectual slavery. The land that gave birth to Nalanda and Takshashila, where debate and shastrarth have existed since Vedic times, is now dependent on the mercy of foreign researchers. This is shameful.

Many Western funding agencies carry agendas to deepen caste divisions in India, heighten social tension, and weaken national unity. Their goal is to keep India trapped in internal conflicts, so its global role remains limited. And our policymakers accept these agendas blindly—either out of extreme naivety or deliberate action against India’s interests. Both possibilities are alarming.

India needs an Indian perspective, Indian research, and Indian solutions. We need policymakers who understand our social realities—not implementers of foreign agendas.

The True Face of the Rules

These rules do not eliminate casteism; they institutionalise it. In the name of caste, justice is not being delivered; in the name of justice, caste is being nourished. Where solutions were needed, divisions are being deepened.

Universities run on dialogue, not fear. Where the police become a permanent presence, education migrates away. Where every word must be measured, ideas die. Where accusation itself becomes punishment, justice disappears.

Campuses are meant for the flowering of friendships, not for hunting. They are meant for building long-term relationships, not short-term political games. They must host a battle of ideas, not a battle of identities.

If casteism truly has to end, invest in education. Run sensitivity programmes. Awaken a consciousness of equality. But society cannot be changed through fear and punishment. It only suppresses the surface while strengthening the roots.

These rules must be withdrawn in time or fundamentally amended. Otherwise, history will remember us as the generation that sacrificed the future of its own children at the altar of political agendas.

Three Suggestions to Add in UGC

There will be no objection if UGC adds three points:1. If a complaint is found to be fake, strict action must be taken against the complainant too.2. The investigation team formed must include at least one member from the general category.3. If someone from the general category faces caste-based abuse or exploitation, there must be a punishment provision for that too.

UGC Regulations: Even Saying “Don’t Use Your Phone in Class” has Become a Crime.

In Bareilly, mathematics teacher Vivek Johri merely said, “Put your phone away, study.” The reward? A POCSO case.

Eight years of jail, trial, humiliation, only then was he acquitted. But who will return eight years of life?

Three minor girls, one accusation. Parents did not verify. Police did not question. Society delivered its verdict: “He must have done something.”

This is our mentality.

In Prayagraj, Vishnu Tiwari - POCSO + SC/ST + rape charge. Twenty years in jail, later acquitted for lack of evidence. The entire case was false.

But what punishment did the liars get? Nothing.

Today’s headlines are full of: fake SC/ST cases, fake POCSO, fake rape cases, fake dowry cases, fake domestic violence cases. The result? In India, more men are dying by suicide than women.

Bulandshahr case: first friendship, photos and videos. Then an iPhone, then money. Now a threat: “Pay one lakh, or there will be a case.” This is called honey-trap and extortion.

The question is simple, if the accused turns out to be innocent, why is there no action against the complainant?

The court acquits, but the liar walks out as a hero.

The solution is not rocket science: False complaint = heinous offence. False investigation = strict punishment. False testimony = 10–20 years. Fake documents = non-bailable offence

If POCSO carries 20 years, then filing a false POCSO case should also carry 20 years. Equality begins here.

A clear point: I am not against the law. I am against misuse of the law.

Along with the FIR there should be an undertaking: “My complaint is true. If it is found false, I accept punishment.” The investigating officer must also be accountable.

The day lying starts fearing consequences, justice will speed up, cases will reduce, and people like Vivek Johri will be saved from breaking down.

Vivek Johri was acquitted, but what about the girls who lied? The parents who pushed the false case? The ones who gave false testimony?

That is the real question. That is the real test of justice.

Reform Suggestions

These rules require an immediate and comprehensive review. The following reforms are essential:

Every offence must have a clear, narrow, legally precise definition. Mens rea must be mandatorily examined. Academic discussion, curriculum, and research must be kept outside the scope of these rules. Principles of natural justice must be explicitly included. A three-tier internal process must be mandatory: counselling, college committee hearing, and police only in serious cases.

Until the conclusion of the case, no punitive action should be taken against the accused. False allegations must attract strict punishment—double the proposed punishment for the alleged offence. Every caste must receive equal protection; no special protection for anyone. Mandatory mental health counselling and support must be provided. An independent review every two years and automatic repeal provisions in case of misuse must be included.

If these reforms are not made, these rules will turn Indian campuses into an intellectual desert—where once ideas converged, only fear and silence will remain. Where future leaders, scientists, and thinkers were once shaped, only obedient silent spectators will be produced.

This is playing with the future of the nation. This is a betrayal of the young generation. This is an insult to India’s intellectual civilisation.

These rules must be repealed or fundamentally amended in time. Otherwise, history will remember us as the generation that sacrificed its own children’s future to political agendas.