The ongoing structural and institutional changes in Indian higher education have led to the emergence of highly political academic environments, where ideological affiliations and political patronage have increasingly replaced merit and scholarship as the primary markers of academic legitimacy. Since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power, the central government has implemented systematic measures to restructure the secular and egalitarian landscape of higher education. The recent University Grant Commission (UGC) Draft for “Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education Regulations, 2025” can be seen as representing the broader agenda to saffronise the faculty recruitment in Indian universities.

Over the past two years, central universities such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Delhi University (DU), and Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI)—long celebrated for their academic rigour and critical scholarship—have witnessed a systematic dismantling of their intellectual foundations. This has been achieved through ideologically driven recruitment processes, where research and teaching aptitude have been sidelined in favour of political and ideological affiliations, particularly to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). This saffronised turn in Indian universities has created a landscape where the upcoming generation of researchers across disciplines is compelled to align with certain ideological expectations to secure faculty and academic positions in higher education institutions.

In this article, I examine how the recent UGC Draft will change the faculty recruitment process into a ritualised mechanism for ideological gatekeeping. By focusing on research standards and publications-related regulations in the proposed draft, the faculty recruitment process will become a strategic tool for the ruling BJP government to exclude applicants critical of state policies and governance. The new UGC Draft intends to homogenise academic spaces, undermining the pluralism and critical scholarship that have historically defined Indian higher education.

(Re)Defining Research Standard

The noted sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has argued that adapting to a dominant position implies a form of acceptance of domination. In this context, the ongoing saffronisation within Indian academia through faculty recruitment equates to ideological domination. The proposed UGC Draft has several systemic ambiguities, which will enable the recruitment process to be biased toward certain sections of applicants. The first significant issue lies in the composition of the selection committees. According to Section 4.2.I, the Vice-Chancellor serves as the chairperson and nominates three external subject experts from a panel approved by the university’s statutory bodies. This clause grants substantial discretionary power to the Vice-Chancellor, who could be influenced by political or ideological considerations. Moreover, the Vice-Chancellor is also responsible for nominating representatives for SC/ST/OBC and minority groups (Section 4.2.I, Note 2). This centralisation of authority creates opportunities for favouritism and tokenism in appointments under the guise of inclusivity.

The second lies in the assessment criteria for “notable contributions” in teaching, research, and other areas (Sections 3.8 and 3.11), which are unexplained. This lack of explicitness allows selection committees to interpret the criteria subjectively and unanimously, potentially skewing decisions to favour candidates with certain political or ideological affiliations. The same vagueness applies to promotions under the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) outlined in Sections 3.8 and 5.2, where subjective metrics such as contributions to community engagement and Indian Knowledge Systems can be manipulated.

The third lies in the dual regulatory system for state-affiliated colleges (Section 3.17). Colleges under state governments may choose to follow either the UGC guidelines or state-enacted regulations, creating a pathway for political influence at the state level. This “flexibility” undermines the uniformity and fairness intended by UGC regulations, as state governments could impose recruitment norms aligning with their political agendas. The provision for contractual appointments in Section 8.0 also raises concerns. Such appointments, lasting up to six months, bypass the regular selection process, leaving room for politically motivated hires without proper scrutiny.

Students who aspire to enter such an exclusive and ideologically charged recruitment system will eventually become disenchanted and forced to show their patronage to the establishment and ruling ideological apparatus.

Ideology and Politics of Publications

Research publications, including scholarly articles and books, have been significant in faculty recruitment until now. The existing recruitment process considers the Academic Performance Index (API), where publications have been given crucial weightage. To facilitate this, the UGC has designed the CARE List of standard journals and publications. However, the proposed regulations will lead to the discontinuation of the CARE List. According to Section 3.11 of the draft, “The selection committee shall decide whether the research publications are in a peer-reviewed journal, whether the publication of a book/book chapter is by a reputed publisher, and whether the contributions are notable, based on the recommendations of the three external subject experts of the selection committee constituted in accordance with these regulations.” Interpreting this further, one can see the extreme possibility of biases attached to the committee’s recognition of specific journals and publishers.

The draft further overvalues Indian Knowledge Systems and publications in Indian languages as criteria for notable contributions to recruitment and promotion (Sections 3.6 and 3.8). While these provisions aim to promote cultural heritage, they risk favouring candidates whose ideological affiliations align with certain political narratives. Such emphasis, without clear safeguards, may disadvantage those working in transnational disciplines or languages.

In conclusion, the ongoing saffronisation of the selection process enables the ruling political system to integrate its affiliates into the academic system. However, this ideological infiltration will disadvantage future generations of students in higher education, limiting their ability to acquire critical and rational knowledge. Such knowledge is essential not only for navigating the job market but also for engaging meritoriously with the international educational system.

References:

Bourdieu, P. (2018). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste In Inequality (pp. 287-318). Routledge.

Draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations, 2025. Available at: https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdfnews/3045759_Draft-Regulation-Minimum-Qualifications-for-Appointment-and-Promotion-of-Teachers-and-Academic-Staff-in-Universities-and-Colleges-and-Measures-for-the-Maintenance-of-Standards-in-HE-Regulations-2025.pdf  (Accessed: 16 March 2025).

***

Vidyasagar Sharma is a PhD Candidate at the Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany. His research focuses on affirmative action policies, belonging, higher education, and social justice.