Opinion Universities are finally becoming democratic and inclusive. This is progress, not decline

The strongest charge in the critique is that appointments are increasingly ideological, privileging loyalty over talent. But to claim that earlier appointments were purely based on merit is disingenuous. Merit has always been socially constructed. Fluency in English, international exposure and alignment with dominant paradigms were considered as proxies for brilliance. These were advantages of class and caste networks, not objective measures of ability. The “Myth of Merit” is based on socio-cultural capital, reflecting historically embedded structural hierarchies. We are deeply saddened by the propositions of the author of the above-mentioned article and feel humiliated when all we have ever asked for is parity, not priority. Merit for us has always been a tool for exclusion. But, as a source of hope, there is the rule of law. Still, when appointments of Dalit, Bahujan, Adivasi, or faculty from rural India are called “political”, it is not merit being defended but privilege.

What you term “intrusion” and “erosion of autonomy” has, in many cases, enabled the democratic inclusion of the ideologically and culturally excluded people. For decades, reserved posts for SC/ST/OBCs in Delhi University were left vacant or filled up with adhoc/guest faculty under one pretext or the other. Creating a workforce without job security and having to pander to certain power centres just to get their contract renewed were seemingly the norm. However, in the past four years, DU was able to fill up more than 4722 permanent posts, out of which 2941 were in the reserved category. There are at least 7799 cases where pending promotions have been cleared. The charge that Indian universities are being “destroyed” overlooks signs of renewal. The expansion of state universities into semi-urban areas has opened doors for students whose parents never dreamt of higher education. Classrooms today have a diversity of accents and perspectives unimaginable a generation ago. This is democratisation. Excellence does not “trickle down” from privilege — it must be systemically and consciously designed. Equity is not a by-product of good universities; it is crafted by delicate policy measures.

Coming to autonomy, I agree that it is indeed valuable for institutions. But certain critical questions must be raised: Autonomy for whom? What is the nature of this autonomy and at whose cost? In India, non-critical and vapid calls for autonomy reproduce the unequal privileges in universities rather than dismantling them. For much of Indian history, “autonomous” universities catered to elites from metropolitan, upper-caste, English-speaking people. Institutions kept reserved posts vacant for decades, and romanticised a Eurocentric definition of excellence while dismissing vernacular scholarship. Autonomy without accountability means universities raising fees, diluting reservation policies, or operating as elite clusters detached from social responsibility. The current reforms, special drives for reserved appointments, centralised testing through CUET and greater state oversight over hiring, are decried as “intrusions”. If institutions had faithfully filled constitutionally mandated quotas, there would have been little need for government pressure. If admissions processes had not been riddled with opaque criteria and bias, a common testing agency would not be necessary.

As young scholars, we are not undermining universities. We are breathing life into them. The “mortgaging” of Indian higher education lies not in the entry of marginalised voices, but in their continued erasure. Autonomy without equity is elitism. Autonomy without socio-economic equality is the undoing of democracy. The idea of autonomy for ages has been defined by the power networks, surnames, and elitism. We have been taught to romanticise it in the name of merit – a shield against inclusivity.

The writer is assistant professor of Sociology, Lakshmibai College, Delhi University