“Republic Day is a powerful symbol of our freedom, Constitution, and democratic values. This festival gives us renewed energy and inspiration to move forward together with the resolve of nation-building”, said Prime Minister Narendra Modi on January 26, 2026. On this occasion, the Prime Minister also shared a Sanskrit subhashita—
“Paratantryābhibhūtasya deśasyābhyudayaḥ kutaḥ. Ataḥ svātantryamāptavyaṁ aikyaṁ svātantryasādhanam.”
The meaning of this verse is that a nation which is subjugated or deprived of rights cannot progress. Therefore, only by adopting freedom and unity as guiding principles can national progress be ensured.
On the same day, Nageswara Rao, former interim Director of the CBI, said, “Today marks the 77th anniversary of the constitutional subjugation of Hinduism and Hindus in India. Yet many naïve Hindus continue to celebrate their own subjugation.”
There was no public outrage over this statement by Nageswara Rao, who once served as interim Director of the CBI. No one branded him anti-national. No arm of the state went knocking on his door, nor was any FIR registered against him. This is the same Nageswara Rao who, while serving as Director, was fined one lakh rupees by the Supreme Court and made to sit in court for an entire day as punishment. Twitter has previously taken down his controversial remarks. Allegations of corruption have also been levelled against him. Yet, while on the one hand he refuses to even acknowledge Republic Day, on the other he creates a controversy over the “Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race” conference held at IIT Delhi between January 16 and 18, 2026. It appears that Nageswara Rao has little understanding of social reality.
On January 13, the University Grants Commission issued new regulations aimed at ensuring that students are not discriminated against on the basis of religion, race, caste, gender, place of birth, or disability. Under these new rules, every institution—whether a government college or a private university—must establish an “Equity Cell.” This cell will function much like a court. If a student believes they have been discriminated against, they can lodge a complaint here, and based on the committee’s recommendation, the institution will be required to take immediate action. The UGC was compelled to introduce these rules because discrimination in higher educational institutions has driven many students to suicide. UGC data show that between 2019–20 and 2023–24, incidents of discrimination increased by 118 percent over five years.
Even today, people in India face caste-based discrimination, just as people in developed countries confront racial discrimination. The killing of a 37-year-old man by immigration agents in Minneapolis, USA, on the morning of January 24, 2026, and incidents of mob lynching in India are two sides of the same coin. This was the second such incident in the United States within three weeks. The US President has sought to justify this killing, portraying ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as patriotic, while the Mayor and Governor of Minnesota have been labelled arrogant, haughty, and accused of inciting rebellion. Such racial actions have also created an atmosphere of fear among Indian citizens living in the United States.
In India, Nageswara Rao wrote to the Director of IIT Delhi on Twitter: “I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the activities of the research study group named ‘Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race’ (CPCR) operating under the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi… Despite these ongoing anti-national and destabilising activities, reminiscent of elements that chant ‘Bharat tere tukde honge,’ no action has been taken by you either to dissolve the CPCR group or to prohibit such programmes… To demonstrate your commitment to safeguarding the institution’s reputation and to prove your own integrity, you must take immediate and stringent steps, including:
Dissolving the CPCR research study group;
Prohibiting any conference, workshop, or programme conducted under its banner;
Initiating disciplinary and other appropriate action against faculty members and staff associated with this group;
Conducting a thorough investigation into the group’s sources of funding and related matters.”
Rao is not merely making demands; he is also pressuring and intimidating the Director: “The fact that this conference was held in IIT Delhi’s Senate Hall indicates that it took place with your permission and approval, making you its tacit patron.”
Even before the inquiry committee’s report is released, he arrives at his own conclusion: “The committee appears to confine itself to procedural issues such as the selection of speakers, giving the impression that it is attempting to divert attention from the real issue and to cover up these anti-national activities.”
Nageswara Rao’s tweet and subsequent complaint are not really about a single conference or a single group. They represent a mindset that believes anything uncomfortable is anti-national; anything that raises questions is a conspiracy; and anything that does not align with the ruling narrative belongs to the “tukde-tukde gang.” The same language has repeatedly been used against JNU, Jamia, the University of Hyderabad, Aligarh Muslim University, filmmakers, writers, journalists, and social activists. Rao now views IIT Delhi through the same narrative.
Hungarian philosopher Georg Lukács wrote that fascism arrived in Europe through the destruction of reason, which led to the rise of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini. Today in India, slogans calling for the shutdown of JNU are raised. On the other hand, students are punished for participating in social movements and protest marches within universities. One group celebrates the closure of medical colleges, while government schools are being shut down elsewhere. Private schools in backward regions are being demolished by the administration after being declared illegal.
Today, “anti-national” no longer means conspiring to harm the country. It now means this: if you criticise the caste system, you are anti-national. If you speak about atrocities against minorities, you are anti-national. If you question state policies, you are anti-national. In other words, the nation has been reduced to a synonym for a political party and an ideology.
If not in academic institutions, where will seminars and debates take place? The real question is not who organised a seminar or who the speakers were, but whether universities in India have lost even the right to debate the fundamental structures of society.
If discussing caste and race is “anti-national,” then Phule, Ambedkar, Periyar, and Gandhi must all be placed in the dock. As the seminar’s concept note itself states: it seeks to learn from and celebrate India’s traditions that have struggled against social inequalities and injustices—traditions in which the most significant and influential contributions have come from social groups that have long been victims of these evils. The long historical process of subjectivation that produces internalised inferiority has repeatedly been broken by the refusals, resistances, and rebellions of thinkers, social reformers, and leaders from the oppressed. From the poetic-social efforts of saint-poets like Tukaram and Ravidas, to the scholarly and institution-building campaigns of Jyotirao and Savitribai Phule and Iyothee Thass; from the academic and political contributions of B. R. Ambedkar, Ayyankali, Mangoo Ram, Periyar, Sahodaran Ayyappan, J. J. M. Nichols Roy, Longri Ao, and many other visionaries—these egalitarian legacies have been carried forward. They later paved the way for struggles such as Kanshi Ram, the Dalit Panthers, and the rationalist movement, alongside a powerful stream of narratives and literary interventions rooted in the lived experiences of Dalits, Adivasis, and indigenous writers from the trans-Himalayan region.
If an academic discussion can break a nation, then that nation is already hollow. Is India now so weak that it cannot even think about its own society? Should the very idea of a university rest on the premise that it cannot hold seminars and debates on its own society, history, structures, and violences? Silence on caste, race, class, patriarchy, state violence, and capital does not make society safe—it makes it rotten from within.
The very title “Critical Philosophy of Caste & Race” makes it clear that this is an attempt at a critical examination of structural inequalities. Yet in today’s India, “criticism” itself is increasingly becoming a suspect activity.
This seminar was organised to mark 25 years of the Durban Conference. It is therefore important to recall some of the Durban Conference’s key points: victims often face discrimination on the basis of gender, language, religion, political and other opinions, social origin, property, birth, and other status. The conference outlined measures to address discrimination in employment, health, policing, and education. It urged member states to develop policies and programmes to prevent the incitement of racial hatred in the media and on the internet, and called for ensuring equal opportunities and positive assistance for victims in political, economic, social, and cultural decision-making processes.
Instead of placing obstacles in the way of universities, seminars, and the freedom to read and write, the Government of India should open these spaces further. Action must be taken against individuals and organisations that obstruct debate and discussion. Only a society rooted in debate and reasoned argument can build a modern India. It is not only the government’s duty, but also that of civil society, to resist those who seek to block debate and critical inquiry.
Finally, extending the Prime Minister’s own words, I would say this: as long as you deprive people of their rights, a country cannot progress. And if academic institutions are not free to express ideas openly, neither the institution nor the country will ever move forward on the path of development.
---
*Independent journalist and social activist
Comments