Say It About Brahmins, It’s ‘Activism’. Say It About Anyone Else, It’s a Riot.
A SLOGAN, A CAMPUS, AND A NATIONAL QUESTION
Videos from 2024 showing inflammatory slogans raised at Ashoka University ignited a fierce debate. The chants weren’t just provocative; they reopened an old wound—whether campus rules designed to stop discrimination can themselves become instruments of exclusion.
Ashoka university is a UGC-approved private research university. What happens there matters, because it mirrors a wider anxiety about the University Grants Commission’s Promotion of Equity Regulations: who they protect, how they’re enforced, and what happens when lines blur between justice and vendetta.
THE CONTROVERSY, LAID BARE
1. What Was Heard—and Why It Alarmed Many
The slogan translates broadly as “Down with Brahmin dominance” / “Death to Brahminism.” Whatever one’s politics, calls that single out a community with exclusionary or violent phrasing cross a threshold that universities are meant to prevent, not amplify.
2. The Policy Backdrop
UGC’s equity framework aims to curb caste-based discrimination on campuses. Critics argue that explicit protections are uneven, leaving gaps that can be exploited when conflicts turn personal.
3. The Fear of Selective Enforcement
When rules hinge on subjective perception without symmetrical safeguards, detractors warn of misuse—complaints weaponized to settle grudges, silence rivals, or derail careers.
4. Precedent Anxiety
Opponents draw parallels to other laws where good intent met uneven application, claiming that ambiguity invites abuse. Supporters counter that strict rules are necessary because discrimination is real and persistent.
5. Free Speech vs. Safety
Universities must defend debate, dissent, and critique of ideas—not the targeting of people. The challenge is enforcing this distinction consistently, regardless of who is targeted.
6. The Representation Question
Another flashpoint: who sits on campus committees. Without visibly balanced representation and clear procedures, trust erodes—even before the first complaint is filed.
7. Chilling Effects on Learning
Students fear that uncertainty will create a hostile academic climate—less discussion, more paperwork; fewer mentors, more minefields.
8. What Rollbacks or Reforms Could Look Like
Critics aren’t calling for scrapping equity—they’re asking for symmetry: equal protection against discrimination for all students, airtight definitions, due process, penalties for false complaints, and transparent timelines.
WHAT A BALANCED FIX COULD INCLUDE
| Risk | Safeguard |
|---|---|
| Subjective complaints | Clear, narrow definitions; evidence standards |
| Committee bias | Balanced representation; external oversight |
| Instant punishment | Due process; time-bound investigations |
| Weaponization | Penalties for malicious or false cases |
| Speech confusion | Firm line: critique ideas, not people |
THE BIGGER PICTURE
Campuses are pressure cookers of ideas. Equity must be universal—or it won’t be credible. When any group feels unprotected, resentment hardens; when slogans replace scholarship, everyone loses.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Stopping discrimination is non-negotiable. So is equal protection.
Rules that appear lopsided risk turning universities into battlegrounds rather than classrooms. The answer isn’t denial or drift—it’s precise lawmaking, fair enforcement, and zero tolerance for targeting any community.
If equity is to endure, it must be even-handed, transparent, and trusted by all.