Delhi University’s recent proposal to remove courses on Pakistan, China, Islam, and caste-related topics from its postgraduate curricula in Political Science, Geography, and Sociology has ignited a fierce debate about academic freedom, pedagogical integrity, and the role of universities in fostering critical thinking. The decision, driven by the university’s Standing Committee on Academic Matters, reflects a troubling trend of prioritizing ideological conformity over intellectual rigor. This move is not only unproductive but also narrow-minded and antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge, undermining the very purpose of higher education. By stifling discourse on geopolitically and socially significant topics, the university risks producing graduates ill-equipped to navigate the complexities of the modern world. This analysis explores the implications of this decision, its motivations, and its broader consequences for academia and society.
The Proposed Changes: A Curriculum Under Siege
On June 25, 2025, Delhi University’s Standing Committee on Academic Matters recommended the removal or significant revision of several elective courses from the MA Political Science syllabus, including “Pakistan and the World,” “China’s Role in the Contemporary World,” “Islam and International Relations,” “Pakistan: State and Society,” and “Religious Nationalism and Political Violence.” Additionally, the committee targeted caste-related content in Geography and Sociology, such as the “Distribution of SC Population” in Social Geography and references to communal violence and same-sex relationships. In Sociology, the introductory theory paper was criticized for its reliance on Western theorists like Marx, Weber, and Durkheim, with calls to include Indian theorists and topics like joint family structures.
These recommendations follow a directive from Vice Chancellor Yogesh Singh, issued in the wake of a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, to review syllabi and remove any “unnecessary glorification of Pakistan.” Faculty members, including Dr. Monami Sinha, have decried these changes as politically motivated, arguing that they undermine academic rigor and geopolitical understanding. The proposed revisions also extend to earlier directives in May 2025, which sought to eliminate references to Kashmir, Pakistan, Bangladesh, sexuality, and religious identity from the Psychology syllabus, signaling a broader pattern of curricular control.
Undermining Geopolitical Understanding
The decision to remove courses on Pakistan and China is particularly shortsighted given their critical importance to India’s foreign policy and global positioning. Pakistan, as a neighbouring country with a complex history of conflict and diplomacy, remains a constant challenge for India’s strategic interests. Dr. Monami Sinha emphasized, “It is imperative to study Pakistan in detail because, pedagogically, we need to train our students and foster scholarship on Pakistan, as it remains one of India’s constant foreign policy challenges.” Similarly, China’s emergence as a dominant player in the Global South and its growing influence in international relations make it an essential subject for study. Excluding these topics from the curriculum deprives students of the opportunity to engage with pressing geopolitical realities, leaving them unprepared to address the complexities of India’s role in a multipolar world.
The removal of “Islam and International Relations” and “Religious Nationalism and Political Violence” further narrows the scope of inquiry. These courses address critical global phenomena, from the role of religion in shaping international conflicts to the rise of nationalist movements. Suppressing such discussions does not erase these realities but rather limits students’ ability to critically analyse them. As Abha Dev, Secretary of the Democratic Teachers’ Front, noted, “The dumbing down of courses by revisions centred around ‘beliefs’ rather than questions of pedagogy and scientific inquiry is unfortunate.” This approach risks producing graduates who lack the tools to engage with contentious but essential global issues.
Erasing Caste and Social Realities
The excision of caste-related topics, such as the “Distribution of SC Population” in Social Geography, is equally concerning. Caste remains a fundamental axis of social, economic, and political inequality in India, shaping access to resources, opportunities, and justice. By de-emphasizing caste in the curriculum, the university signals a refusal to confront one of India’s most pressing social challenges. This move aligns with earlier recommendations to remove references to caste, religious identity, and same-sex relationships from the Psychology syllabus, reflecting a broader agenda to sanitize curricula of “controversial” topics.
Such revisions are not merely academic; they have real-world consequences. Understanding caste dynamics is essential for students of Social Geography and Sociology, who may go on to shape policy, conduct research, or work in development sectors. Ignoring these topics risks perpetuating ignorance about systemic inequalities, undermining efforts to address them. As a Psychology faculty member anonymously remarked, “We are being asked to eliminate topics on discrimination and minorities, even though these are pressing realities for many students and communities.”
A Politically Driven Agenda
The rationale behind these changes appears rooted in ideological and political motivations rather than academic merit. The directive to remove “unnecessary glorification of Pakistan” following the Pahalgam attack suggests a reactive approach, conflating academic study with political endorsement. Faculty members like Mithuraaj Dhusiya have questioned the authority of the Standing Committee to mandate such changes, arguing that universities are meant to foster “ruthless and dispassionate debate” rather than produce “conformist, mediocre minds.”
This push for an “India-first” curriculum, as articulated by Professor Harendra Tiwari, prioritizes nationalist sentiment over scholarly inquiry. Tiwari’s question, “Why only a paper on Islam and International Relations? Why not on Hinduism or Sikhism?” reveals a desire to align academic content with a specific ideological vision, one that equates neutrality with bias and critical inquiry with disloyalty. Such arguments fail to recognize that the study of Islam, Pakistan, or China is not about glorification but about understanding complex global and historical dynamics. By framing these topics as threats, the university risks fostering a culture of intellectual timidity.
The Erosion of Academic Autonomy
The proposed changes also erode the academic autonomy of departments, a cornerstone of higher education. The Standing Committee’s directives bypass established processes, as departments are typically responsible for designing their curricula based on pedagogical needs. Forcing revisions based on external pressures undermines faculty expertise and stifles innovation. As Abha Dev warned, “Forced revisions are retrograde and are politically motivated. DU was known for its UG courses. These changes will adversely impact students’ scholarships.”
This erosion of autonomy is part of a broader trend of increasing governmental oversight over academic institutions in India. The blocking of The Wire’s website in May 2025, amid tensions with Pakistan, and the banning of Pakistani content on OTT platforms signal a growing clampdown on information and discourse. Such measures create an environment where universities, meant to be bastions of free thought, are instead coerced into aligning with state-driven narratives.
The Anti-Knowledge Paradigm
At its core, the decision to remove these courses is anti-knowledge, as it prioritizes ideological purity over the pursuit of truth. Universities are meant to challenge assumptions, encourage debate, and equip students with the tools to navigate complex realities. By sanitizing curricula of topics deemed “controversial,” Delhi University risks producing graduates who are less capable of critical thinking and less prepared to address the challenges of a globalized world. The exclusion of caste-related content ignores India’s social fabric, while the removal of courses on Pakistan and China blinds students to geopolitical realities. As Dr. Monami Sinha argued, these changes undermine “academic rigor and geopolitical understanding.”
Moreover, this approach sets a dangerous precedent. If universities can be pressured to remove topics based on political expediency, what prevents further encroachments on academic freedom? The inclusion of Indian epics like the Mahabharata in the Psychology syllabus, while potentially valuable, should not come at the expense of diverse perspectives. A curriculum that cherry-picks content to align with a narrow worldview stifles the intellectual growth that higher education is meant to foster.
A Call for Resistance
Delhi University’s proposed syllabus changes represent a troubling retreat from the principles of academic freedom and critical inquiry. By targeting courses on Pakistan, China, Islam, and caste, the university is not only limiting students’ exposure to vital knowledge but also undermining its own legacy as a centre of intellectual excellence. Faculty resistance, as voiced by Monami Sinha, Abha Dev, and Mithuraaj Dhusiya, offers hope that these changes can be challenged. The upcoming Academic Council meeting on July 1, 2025, provides an opportunity to push back against this narrow-minded agenda.
Universities must remain spaces for fearless inquiry, where students grapple with uncomfortable truths and complex realities. To do otherwise is to betray the mission of education and the needs of a society that depends on informed, critical thinkers. Delhi University must reconsider its approach, prioritizing knowledge over ideology and ensuring that its curricula reflect the diverse, interconnected world its students will inherit.
Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
