We need critical readings on campuses. DU notification and Azim Premji University violence stand against that spirit

By Vidyasagar Sharma Two incidents on two different university campuses in India have again drawn our attention to questions of dissent and critical reading. First, on February 17, 2026, the Proctor Office of Delhi University (DU) issued an order stating that “public meetings, processions, demonstrations, and protests of any kind are strictly prohibited within the university campus for a period of one month.” Second, on February 24, a right-leaning student collective vandalised a discussion organised by a reading circle at Azim Premji University (APU) in Bangalore. These two episodes highlight the defining characteristics of how university spaces are censored and surveilled every day. It is necessary to unpack some of the transformations that university spaces are undergoing, leading to the production of an ecosystem in which one can hardly imagine critical reading or expressing dissent. However, what is happening in Indian universities is not an exception. We have numerous examples showing that surveillance and censorship on campuses are a global pattern. For instance, in Turkey, the government dismissed thousands of academics, alleging their participation in protests. In Hungary, the Central European University was effectively forced to relocate amid a hostile political climate. In Hong Kong, student unions were banned after pro-democracy protests. These examples show that the logic of such regulations is simple: If you control the campus, you control the vocabulary of dissent. In DU’s case, the proctor order goes beyond the ban on public gatherings on campus. It prohibits gatherings of more than four persons on campus, the shouting of slogans, speeches, and the carrying of “hazardous materials like mashals.” The rationale for such institutional censorship is based on the “general tranquillity, and smooth traffic on campus.” The notification has come amid ongoing protests to restore UGC Equity regulations on campus. The purpose of the notification is not to serve the “public peace on campus”; beneath it lies a larger structural attack on the very idea of the university as a site of democratic dialogue. The universities are dialectical spaces where arguments shape the nature of ideas, lived experiences, and social facts. The core of dialectics here is not just about one school of thought, but about different ideologies and opinions confronting each other and producing an explanation of the problems and challenges we face as a nation and society. It is important to note that the purpose of campus security is to ensure the safety of students and staff. The blanket prohibition of any kind of dharna, protest, or gathering on campus assumes that political life on campuses is inherently destabilising. APU’s incident is part of a broader pattern in which university administrations and right-leaning student collectives have disrupted study/reading circles on campuses across India. Based on my 14-month ethnographic research on study circles at a public university, I observed numerous instances in which university security staff interrupted these circles. In 2024, at IIT Mumbai, students gathered for a study circle to read and discuss a book, but were intimidated by university security. These incidents show that the very idea of a pedagogy that requires exchange with peers, whether through discussion or reading, to develop a holistic understanding of the subjects, is being censored by universities. • 1Devdutt Pattanaik writes: When vegetarianism becomes a badge of power, not compassion • 2Af-Pak ‘open war’: Rawalpindi has created a situation it can no longer control • 3Clearing Arvind Kejriwal in liquor case, slamming CBI, court sends out message that government must listen to • 4The CBI had no case against Arvind Kejriwal — only political orders. Opposition can use his acquittal to reclaim high ground • 5Prashant Bhushan writes: We need to talk about judicial corruption Are universities not supposed to be places where students sit together, read collectively, and engage in conversation with one another to discuss either the syllabus materials or relevant social issues? What is so threatening about reading collectively on campuses? The answer simply lies in the power of interpretation. Regimes across the globe fear the autonomy of interpretation, which they can hardly control. Collective reading allows readers to engage with texts and subjects, interpreting meaning based on their lived experiences and everyday encounters with social realities. Collective reading builds a critique that often runs counter to the norms imposed by structures. Finally, the past teaches us that when democratic institutions allow dissent to be part of the conversation, even when critical, they emerge as participatory polities in which the affinity between citizens and institutions becomes stronger. Campuses must be democratic labs where various ideas, thoughts, and methods engage in dialogue to foster a scientific temperament. The writer is a scholar at Bielefeld University, and is currently working on his monograph Reading as Resistance: Study Circles and the Everyday Politics of Belonging on a University Campus in India