David's Slingshot- What Universities In India Can Learn From Harvard-Trump Row
In its David-Goliath battle against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the revocation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), Harvard University secured a much-needed reprieve. The U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a restraining order. She held that the University “will sustain immediate and irreparable injury” if the government were permitted...
In its David-Goliath battle against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over the revocation of the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), Harvard University secured a much-needed reprieve. The U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs granted a restraining order. She held that the University “will sustain immediate and irreparable injury” if the government were permitted to revoke certification before the court could fully review the case, and in the latest hearing by the court on 29th May, extended this order. The message was unequivocal. What emerges from this standoff is that even in the face of executive overreach, a committed academia armed by the Constitution can get its rights enforced. The resilience of Harvard against the full might of the federal government is a stark reminder for Universities in India that 'resistance is possible'.
Harvard Resists:
On the 23rd of May, Harvard filed a complaint against the US Department of Homeland Security. Reason? The Revocation of Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) is overseen by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It read “With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body” (Para 3). And that the revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the latest action by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum, and the “ideology” of its faculty and students. (Para 2) Harvard calls it the 'culmination of its (government's) unprecedented and retaliatory attack on academic freedom at Harvard' (Para 11).
What's in a University: Beyond Bricks and Mortar.
In this battle, at stake was not merely Harvard's right but the right of an institution to exist as a space of independent thought.
To generalize it, in its 72-page complaint, Harvard defends its 'right to think' and to hold an ideology that may not conform to the state's. In doing so, Harvard not just defended itself, but also upheld the very idea of a university: the freedom to think, critique, and challenge power. Harvard's action represents an effort to safeguard the essential elements of a university, which is more than just bricks and mortar. What is a University after all? Is it merely an assemblage of buildings and lecture halls? Or is it a space for critical thought, unrestrained, a space not infringed upon by the whims and caprice of federal governments, where there exists a 'right to think', and more importantly, to 'think differently'.
To run with the hare and hunt with the hound: Indian Universities and Dissent
In the encounters between Indian universities and arbitrary executive actions over the last few years, an unsettling pattern emerges. Police excesses as a response to protests and the University admin's subsequent inaction are a routine. Prestigious institutions like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia, or even Delhi University are not immune to smear campaigns calling them 'anti-national' institutions. And yet these defamatory allegations invite little to no action from the University administrations. This isn't just limited to students and universities anymore, a new wave has emerged, one where admins distance themselves from the public or controversial remarks of faculty members, reflecting a growing tension between institutional reputation and the principle of academic freedom.
When Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a Cambridge alumnus, a Professor at Ashoka University, was arrested in May 2025 for a critical 'Facebook post', the University 'distanced' itself, calling it a personal remark, not representing the University's view. This is not an isolated case of Universities choosing self-preservation over academic freedom. Earlier in 2021, renowned political scientist Pratap Bhanu Mehta had resigned from the same University. His views were deemed a 'Political Liability' by the University. Former Chief Economic Advisor to the Modi Government, Arvind Subramanian, also tendered his resignation as a Professor in the same year. He called Pratap Bhanu Mehta's exit 'ominously disturbing'. In 2023, two professors from the Economics Department, Sabyasachi Das and Pulapre Balakrishnan, resigned following a controversy over Das's research paper 'Democratic Backsliding in the World's Largest Democracy'.
The case of Ashoka University is peculiar, not just for the list of resignations, but because it happened despite the university's private status. A Private University is supposed to have lesser state interference in its affairs due to its largely independent capital.
Earlier this month, Prof. Kakoti from Lucknow University was charged with sedition for questioning the Government over the horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam. The University served her a show-cause notice and warned of disciplinary actions instead of preserving the 'right to question'.Curbing freedom to enforce harmony with the government is leading to Anti-intellectualism and the suppression of dissent in the liberal-democratic framework. These cases reflect a troubling reality of institutional silence and normalisation of the suppression of critique. The lesson from Harvard's defence is that the Universities must decide the discourse and not surrender to it. That it must preserve and protect its 'elements', which are its academics and its students.
Lessons for Indian Universities
In the 2025 Academic Freedom Index, India ranked 156th out of 179 countries, squarely in the bottom 10-20%, with its score plunging from 0.38 in 2022 to 0.16 in 2024, showing a concerning sign of a serious decline in academic freedom and dissent.
India, as a democratic country governed by the Constitution, the role of universities as critical spaces for thought and dissent is enshrined under Article 19(1)(a). As B.R. Ambedkar noted, constitutional morality demands that institutions uphold rights even when populist Politics do not. For Indian Universities, the choice (should be) is unembellished: defending academic freedom or witnessing the demise of the idea of a 'University'.
Harvard's resistance should not remain an outlier, it should be a blueprint for Indian Universities. To speak truth to power, or at the very least, stand firmly by those who d
Views are personal