WHEN POWER HESITATES, OTHERS DECIDE

The most controversial portions of the University Grants Commission’s new policy didn’t emerge from a broad ideological debate or democratic churn. They trace back, almost line by line, to the recommendations of Indira Jaisingh.

The real question isn’t whether one agrees or disagrees with her worldview.

The question is far more unsettling:

How did one ideological current gain such disproportionate sway — as if the government itself were merely implementing someone else’s script?

🧠 ONE VOICE, OUTSIZED INFLUENCE

The imprint of Indira Jaisingh’s thinking on the policy is hard to miss. It carries the familiar markers of a long-dominant Left-liberal academic framework — steeped in activism, insulated from mass politics, and largely uncontested within elite institutions.

This isn’t accidental. For decades, such intellectuals have functioned not just as commentators but as default arbiters of legitimacy in academia, law, and policy. Their authority is rarely questioned — not because it is universally accepted, but because it is institutionally entrenched.

📚 THE MYTH OF “NEUTRAL” INTELLECTUALISM

Marxist and Left-liberal thinkers have mastered a crucial trick: presenting ideology as expertise.

Academic citations replace public debate.
English columns substitute for democratic consent.
International applause stands in for grassroots legitimacy.

Over time, this has created an ecosystem where power listens upward, not outward.

🏛️ THE BJP’S STRANGE AWE PROBLEM

Here lies the paradox.

The Bharatiya Janata Party commands the confidence of hundreds of millions through repeated electoral mandates. Yet when it comes to culture, academia, and intellectual framing, it behaves like a party still seeking admission into an elite club that openly despises it.

There is a visible awe — almost deference — toward Left-liberal intellectualism. As if legitimacy must be imported from:

• Ivy-adjacent seminars

• Editorial pages in english dailies

• International NGOs

• Academic echo chambers

• 
  

🧩 DISTRUSTING YOUR OWN, BY DEFAULT

The cost of this insecurity is severe.

The party repeatedly sidelines:

• Its own scholars

• Its own cultural thinkers

• Its own civilizational frameworks

— even when these voices command far deeper mass credibility.

Instead of shaping institutions in its own image, it tries to fit into institutions designed by its ideological opponents.

📉 WHEN ELECTORAL POWER DOESN’T TRANSLATE INTO CULTURAL POWER

Winning elections is not the same as controlling narratives.

A party that hesitates before a handful of seminar rooms will always be governed intellectually by those rooms, no matter how many seats it wins in Parliament.

This is how systems survive regime change.

🔐 WHY THE SYSTEM STILL ISN’T YOURS

The system isn’t captured by Left-liberals because they are numerically dominant.
It remains theirs because you still crave their approval.

You seek endorsement instead of disruption.

Validation instead of confrontation.
Acceptance instead of confidence.

And so, policies continue to bear their fingerprints.

🧨 FINAL WORD: POWER THAT DOUBTS ITSELF WILL ALWAYS BORROW IDEOLOGY

A government that truly believes in its mandate does not outsource its intellectual spine.

Breaking a monopoly doesn’t require censorship.
It requires courage.

Until the ruling establishment stops mistaking elite applause for legitimacy, policies will continue to be written for a country that exists in footnotes — not on the ground.

The system isn’t neutral.

It never was.
And it won’t change until those in power stop asking for permission to lead.