The protests began quietly on campuses, but not for long. In Delhi University, students gathered to question decisions taken without taking them into consideration.
Within days, the administration imposed a ban on protests, arguing that demonstrations would disturb campus order. For students, the ban felt like a message: disagreement was no longer welcome.
At the same time, tension was rising in Jawaharlal Nehru University. The suspension of office-bearers of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union triggered fresh anger. What followed were sit-ins, overnight encampments, and repeated calls for the administration to withdraw punitive action. Tents appeared outside academic blocks, and students turned public spaces into places of discussion and resistance.
Each attempt to silence the protests only led to new ones. The cycle repeated itself – protest, punishment, and protest again.
Here we stand
The current atmosphere did not emerge overnight. Since the FTII strike in 2015, there has been a steady accumulation of conflicts and protests across Indian campuses. The protest by Dalit students at Hyderabad Central University and the death by suicide of Rohith Vemula in January 2016 exposed how caste and institutional power intersect.
The arrest of students in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on sedition charges in February 2016 marked a dramatic escalation. The forced entry by Delhi Police into Jamia Millia Islamia during protests forms part of a continuing pattern. Each episode has tightened the boundaries of permissible speech.
Former student leaders argue that what is underway is not depoliticisation but destruction. Dhananjay, the first and former Dalit president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) 2023-24, puts it bluntly, “The effort is not to depoliticise; the effort is to destroy. That is why dissent is being criminalised. Why else would the JNU Vice-Chancellor and the Delhi Police arrest students for protesting against the VC’s alleged casteist remarks about Dalits?
Why punish them for demanding the revocation of rustication orders against present and former members of the JNUSU office bearers or for seeking implementation of UGC Equity Rules in line with the Rohith Act? The message they seek to send is clear: do not question our casteist mindset, do not challenge anti-student policies, and do not protest without our permission. Speak up, and you will face prison. But students carry within them an irrepressible sense of freedom. No prison is large enough to confine that spirit. The only answer to fear is courage—and resistance. I am proud of the JNU14 for proving that fear has no place in JNU.”
For Dhananjay, the student movement is synonymous with democracy. He said, “When university administration and governance becomes a name for corruption, injustice and dictatorship. Student movement should be the answer for democracy. Without democracy there cannot be any learning. At the heart of learning lie questioning and critical thinking, both of which can’t truly thrive without democracy. The JNU14 stand as defenders of that democratic spirit, while the wider JNU student community continues to uphold and advance it through both thought and action. We are not concerned by attempts to label protest as indiscipline; such characterisations only reveal who genuinely stands for democracy and who does not. JNU has always stood for democratic values and will continue to do so.”
Similar concerns resonate in Delhi University (DU), where protests and assemblies have increasingly been restricted. Rocky Tuseed, former Delhi University Students’ Union (DUSU) president 2017-18, argued that, “This is undemocratic. Spaces like universities are for debate and discussion. And if holding protests and demonstrations against the ruling government and against the administration is indiscipline, where should the students and youth raise their voices? Now central universities are no more for exposure to society. Administration and central government want to put reins on Gen-Z horses.”
Meanwhile, Amrita Dhawan, another former DUSU president in the year 2006-07, situated student activism at the heart of democratic survival. “When we talk about democracy; student activism plays the highest importance,” she said.
“Now it has become paramount to raise the student leaders’ voices. Whatever has happened in the past 12 years, a lot has changed. If you are thinking of writing on social media, on a presumptive basis, arrests are happening. We shouldn’t allow suspending student activism to be the new normal in the ‘pseudo’ new India, which doesn’t celebrate the spirit of democracy on the capital’s university campuses,” Dhawan added.
Drawing on her own experience in power, Dhawan recalled, “During my tenure as DUSU president, I had protested against the hike in the bus fare and the student passes; the government had rolled it back. The intent of the protest is not indiscipline. It is a fundamental right.”
At JNU, the perception of a systemic attack is reinforced by administrative changes. Aishe Ghosh, former JNUSU president in the year 2019-20 who became a national figure at that time following a brutal attack on her during campus violence, said, “Absolutely, the campus is facing a systemic attack, and criminalising dissent/protests/forming unions is being resented, leading to several consequences.
The Chief Proctor Manual in JNU was brought and implemented post-Covid under this VC to systematically curb democratic protests. In 2026, the rustication of JNUSU members is just another way to set up an example in front of the campus that if students try to organise, then the consequences of the same will be met with harsher punishments.”
She further added, “Universities are meant to be spaces for learning and unlearning. But post-2014, we have witnessed growing intolerance. Starting from not allowing discussion/reading circles to function in universities to attacking student groups who carried out such reading circles or are organising programmes in a way to not only intimidate them but also to create a larger scenario where students are meant to just enter universities and leave with a degree and not have a space for critical thinking.”
Ghosh warned, “Universities are choking presently; there is no fresh air to breathe to discuss ideas or even have one… that idea is being systematically dismantled.”
Political actors also weigh in. Alka Lamba, President of the All India Mahila Congress and former DUSU president (1995), recalls a different campus ethos: when she was elected, three of the four office-bearers, including Rekha Gupta, were from the ABVP. Despite ideological differences, she said, all voices were heard.
“In our time, university campuses were spaces where disagreement was allowed and dialogue was encouraged. Today, that spirit is steadily being eroded. Universities, which should nurture democratic values and critical thinking, are instead becoming examples of how the idea of India is being weakened.”
A question of questions
Faculty voices also echo these anxieties. Surajit Mazumdar, president of the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA), observed, “There is a general concerted effort to depoliticise campuses as the university-going population is becoming larger and more diverse in terms of social background and gender. Criminalisation of protests and their suppression through disciplinary measures is part of that arsenal.
However, these measures do not address the fundamental issues because of which there is ferment and therefore can often only add to it. Treating such questioning as indiscipline will only sap universities of their lifeblood.” Meanwhile, Abha Dev Habib, General Secretary of the Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF) and professor at Miranda House College, DU, pointed to selectivity.
“I feel this crackdown is very selective. There are political interventions for unnecessary reasons, especially in the education and history department. Protests are the outcome of the discontent, and the administration should allow for a healthier democracy to prevail instead of bottling it up. We have very recent examples of Nepal and Bangladesh. It’s not a warning, though…”
According to Professor Apoorvanand of the Hindi Department, University of Delhi, a pattern has emerged in which activities aligned with the ABVP are framed as “nationalism”, while dissenting student activity is labelled “politics” and is restricted. He recounted being invited by Jamia Millia Islamia students who lacked a recognised union and could only meet near Gate number 18. The meeting was quiet, yet it was disrupted by a professor. Apoorvanand argued that authorities increasingly act as enforcers rather than facilitators. Such responses, he said, narrow the space for critical debate. Student politics, once a process of civic learning, is steadily eroding.
University administrations, however, defend their actions as temporary and necessary. Delhi University Registrar Dr Vikas Gupta insisted, “We are not criminalising protests at any cost. This is a temporary ban on the protest because the police had enforced section 144. We just wanted to avoid further turmoil on the campus, and we never wanted the protests to be escalated.” He added, “Protesting may be a fundamental right, but for every little thing, students can’t go to court. We can solve issues on a mutual understanding level, and we will soon be reviewing this ban after a month’s time.”
Yet the gap between administrative language and student experience remains wide.
And it continues
The most recent flashpoint at JNU centres was on surveillance. Five JNUSU members were rusticated for two semesters and fined `20,000 each for vandalising a facial recognition system installed at the central library. Students began camping outside the School of Language, Literature and Cultural Studies. The newly elected union members Aditi Mishra (president), Gopika (vice-president), Sunil (general secretary), Danish (joint secretary), and former JNUSU president Nitish Kumar rejected the system and vandalised it after repeated pleas. For many students, the biometric system symbolises the new logic of control: technology replacing dialogue. Where negotiation once mediated conflict, cameras now do.
The story unfolding on the campuses of central universities is thus not simply about protests or policies; it is about the meaning of the university itself. Former leaders describe a past where disagreement was pedagogy. Current students confront a present where disagreement invites punishment. As Abha Dev Habib said, “Administrations invoke law and order; students invoke democracy. Between these positions lies a question that haunts every locked gate and suspended student union: can a university remain a university if it ceases to tolerate dissent?”
Former JNUSU president Dhananjay emphasised, “No jail is large to lock them up. Yet the repeated arrests, rustications, and bans suggest an attempt to do just that – lock up not just voice, but the idea of resistance. Whether campuses will continue to generate courage or succumb to fear remains uncertain. What is clear is that the criminalisation of protest has transformed universities from arenas of debate into theatres of confrontation, where the struggle is no longer only over policy but over the very right to question.”