Delhi University’s Executive Council (EC) has approved sweeping curriculum revisions that have sparked sharp protests from faculty members, igniting a fresh debate over academic freedom, ideological influence, and the future of higher education in India. The changes, ratified during the EC’s 1,275th meeting, affect multiple departments including Psychology, Sociology, and English, and introduce new programmes in journalism and nuclear medicine.
Among the most contentious shifts is the removal of conflict-based case studies from the Psychology of Peace paper. Case references to Kashmir, Palestine, India-Pakistan relations, and the Northeast have been replaced with conflict-resolution examples drawn from Indian epics like the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita. Similarly, a Sociology paper has dropped foundational thinkers like Karl Marx and Thomas Robert Malthus, along with key sections such as the Sociology of Food and the critical lens on the Sociology of Law.
Faculty members are sounding the alarm. As per a story in Business Standard, EC member and Associate Professor at Kirori Mal College, Rudrashish Chakraborty, called the changes “a complete disregard for disciplinary expertise” and warned they could severely damage DU’s global academic standing.
At the heart of the backlash is a deeper concern about ideological overreach in curriculum design. Critics say the move replaces rigorous, research-based frameworks with selectively religious narratives, undermining the pluralism that once defined Indian academia.
Why These Topics Were in the Curriculum in the First Place
Incorporating geopolitical issues like Kashmir and Palestine in social science syllabi wasn’t about courting controversy—it was about helping students understand conflict, diplomacy, and peace-building through lived realities. Scholars like Marx and Malthus, often labelled as ideologues, contributed frameworks that shaped global discourse on inequality, population, labour, and social justice. To erase them from academic memory is not just selective—it’s intellectually dishonest.
Their inclusion wasn’t about promoting one ideology over another but about exposing students to a spectrum of thought. If academic institutions stop encouraging intellectual plurality, they risk becoming echo chambers that simply mirror prevailing politics.
What Could Have Been Done Differently
If the aim was truly to Indianise or decolonise the curriculum—as has been cited in many recent reforms—it could have been done with scholarly rigour. Including Indian thinkers alongside global ones, offering critical engagement rather than replacement, and developing interdisciplinary modules that draw on Indian social realities would have strengthened rather than diluted the curriculum.
A meaningful curriculum reform should be inclusive, consultative, and pedagogically sound. Instead, these changes appear abrupt and top-down, with several faculty members alleging they were not adequately consulted. As one member remarked, “Modernisation cannot come at the cost of academic autonomy.”
The counter to a whitewashed curriculum should not be to do the exact opposite. Figures like Karl Marx are not just ideologists; their legacies extend beyond nation-states. They presented global ideas that remain relevant to Indian society, especially in an age grappling with inequality and labour rights.
And religion—while an important part of many societies—must never dominate education policy. When one faith is elevated in academic materials meant for students of all backgrounds, it chips away at the secular fabric of our democracy.
Replacing complex geopolitical issues with religious scripture is not only pedagogically flawed—it’s, frankly, a dangerous precedent.
New Programmes and Policy Decisions
Beyond the curriculum overhaul, DU has also announced the launch of a two-year M.A. in Journalism in both Hindi and English, and a BSc in Nuclear Medicine Technology, to be offered at the Army Hospital (R&R) for Armed Forces Medical Services personnel. The EC also introduced a new policy for determining teacher seniority, with age taking precedence over API scores when qualifications are equal.
A committee has been constituted to assess the implications of a DoPT circular mandating periodic review of employees aged 50 and above—raising concerns about forced retirement policies within the university system.
As the NEP rollout moves ahead, universities like DU need to walk the path wisely. Reforms should fuel learning, not push a story. Education isn’t meant to box students into ideologies—it’s meant to open minds, spark debate, and shape citizens who can think for themselves. Our classrooms should dig deeper, not go narrow. We can’t afford to swap knowledge for one-sided thinking.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login