Slated to be India’s answer to Ivy League schools, the nation’s premier liberal arts college has been undermined by political pressure. And that’s bad news for private universities in India.
Researched by: Rachel John & Aarthi Ramnath
Remind me why Ashoka is a big deal…
The basic deets: The university was set up in 2014 on a campus in Sonipat, Haryana. It was viewed as “the most ambitious attempt so far to set up a world-class university in liberal arts in India.” The university offered a 4-year undergraduate degree—similar to that of US colleges. The faculty was drawn from the most prestigious schools around the world. Ashoka’s mentors were just as A-list—be it historian Ramachandra Guha or Infosys’ Narayana Murthy.
While the fees were steep by Indian standards—Rs 20 lakh for four years—it was affordable for parents who couldn’t afford to send their kids to an elite foreign university. Today, the same program costs more than Rs 40 lakh. The number of students has also expanded from 127 undergraduate students to over 2,000.
The founders: The university was built by the first-generation of Indian entrepreneurs who had made it big in the post-1990s era of liberalisation. The four key founders were private equity rockstar Ashish Dhawan—the founder of ChrysCapital; Sanjeev Bikhchandani of Naukri.com fame; Vineet Gupta and Pranav Gupta who co-founded the college prep company Jamboree Education. Other supporters included the who’s who of India Inc at the time: Puneet Dalmia; Jerry Rao (Mphasis); Deep Kalra (Makemytrip).
The big vision: All these men had attended top-notch Indian institutions—ranging from St Stephen’s to IIT and IIM. But they believed that many of these had become stagnant and irrelevant:
Indian institutions are where they were in the 1980s. The students are outstanding, but the institutions very often haven’t progressed. These institutions of excellence are going into academic decline. Something is broken.
But the dream was bigger than just fostering a new set of skills. The plan was to nurture “public service-minded critical thinkers.” As Dhawan told the Financial Times Ashoka’s inception:
What we need in India is not just economic change — what we need is societal transformation. It’s about building a better democracy. You need people who are willing to question power, who are independent thinkers and who know how to write well and express themselves well in spoken form. India doesn’t have enough of that.
Point to note: The founders also believed that diversifying the university’s funding—raising $140 million from 101 founding donors—would protect Ashoka from outside pressure:
If you have collective philanthropy and collective governance, no one group, no one family or no one business house will have undue control or influence, and that ensures academic independence. In the long run, if you want to build a world-class university, the faculty has to have independence. This way, you structurally ensure it.
In fact, Ashoka’s autonomy was core to the founding vision of its board members: “This is the crux of institution-building that people don’t understand.”
So what went wrong?
TLDR: India. Ashoka soon found that none of its prestige or financial clout of its founders could protect it from Big Brother—i.e the Indian government.
How it started: The first big controversy around academic freedom was triggered by a petition:
A July 25 petition signed by 88 members of the university [was] addressed to the J&K government and the Centre, condemning the violence after militant Burhan Wani’s death and calling for demilitarisation of the state and the conduct of a plebiscite. Signatories included students, alumni, two employees and one faculty member
By December, three in-house signatories—the two staff members and assistant professor—had left the university. But Ashoka maintained that they had not been fired—and left of their own free will.
But, but, but: In March, Indian Express published emails that showed the decision had been taken by the four-person Governing Body—which included three founders. An email from the Faculty Council alleged that the professor was sacked as a “response to the pressures being placed on the founders by various powers.” Also: the founders directly asked the two staff members to resign.
Next, a very messy exit: Everything remained quiet until 2021—and the petition controversy was seen mostly as an anomaly. Then one of the university’s biggest names—Pratap Bhanu Mehta—quit his job. Mehta was the first vice-chancellor of Ashoka. He stepped down in 2019 to focus on his academic research, but remained highly influential. But Mehta also had a side hustle: an Indian Express column—which was often sharply critical of the BJP and the government.
According to his resignation letter, the founders communicated their unhappiness with his views: “My public writing in support of a politics that tries to honour constitutional values of freedom and equal respect for all citizens, is perceived to carry risks for the university.” Indian Express’ own reporting confirmed the same:
Sources told The Indian Express that Ashoka’s founders, including Ashish Dhawan and Pramath Raj Sinha, met Mehta recently and are said to have referred to the “current political environment,” while “suggesting” that his intellectual interventions were something they could no longer protect.
It gets messier: The embarrassment of Mehta’s noisy and very public exit was followed by the resignation of Arvind Subramanian—the former Chief Economic Advisor to the government. His resignation letter was far more blunt: “That even Ashoka—with its private status and backing by private capital—can no longer provide a space for academic expression and freedom is ominously disturbing.” Another Ashoka professor added: “If the founders think that Mehta’s exit is the way they will placate the powers that be, they are mistaken.”
Point to note: Follow-up reporting by the campus newspaper suggested that Mehta’s exit was linked to pressures around land acquiring land and fresh financing for expansion. But there was never any hard evidence—and authorities stoutly denied it. And despite outraged protests by students and faculty, the university refused to budge.
Fast forward to 2023: This year has once again been eventful for Ashoka. The university is in the news again for a flurry of faculty exits. But there is a key difference. The incidents in 2016 and 2021 involved actions taken outside the remit of the person’s job—signing a petition or writing a column. This time, the two prominent resignations involved the academic research of the professors—into election data—in the runup to a national election.
One: In July, a colleague of Economics professor Sabyasachi Das tweeted out the findings of a paper authored by him. It has not been published or peer reviewed. Das’ research alleged that the BJP won close elections in constituencies in states ruled by the party. And these victories were connected to vote manipulation—specifically of Muslims (this Big Story decodes these findings at length). The explosive findings soon triggered a Twitter war—and the university hastily distanced itself from the paper:
At Ashoka University, members of the faculty have the freedom to teach and carry out research in the areas they choose. The university affords its faculty and students the most enabling environment for academic freedom at an institution of higher education…This academic freedom also applied to Mr. Das.
The fallout: Das resigned soon after—under circumstances that remain unexplained by both Das and the university. Some reports suggest that this was in response to an inquiry instituted by the governing body. The Economics department went on strike—and then went back to work after three days—again without explanation. And in the middle of all this, the Intelligence Bureau decided to pay a visit to the Ashoka campus:
Sources maintained that the team, which visited the campus yesterday as well, interacted with the faculty of the Economics Department, of which Das was a part before his resignation was accepted. Sources added that the team met a few students who were available on the campus and asked them about the teaching methods adopted by Das while he was part of the faculty.
Two: This week, the founder/director of the university’s prestigious Trivedi Centre for Political Data also left his job—claiming he had been forced out. Ashoka claims that Gilles Vernier—one of the best-known names in his field—had to leave because he did not qualify for tenure. And the decision had been made a year ago. However, Vernier says: “I did not want to leave and they took that decision for me, without going through the tenure process. My file was stopped before that.” And the centre’s board dissolved itself soon after, claiming that Vernier was “forced to leave.”
Quote to note: When Das exited Ashoka, this is what Vernier told the Financial Times:
Ashoka was creating “a space where faculty can enjoy as much academic freedom as they can,” said Gilles Verniers, an assistant professor of political science who joined the university in 2014. “What all of us did not account for . . . is the rapid transformation and deterioration of the political climate.” He added: “In moments of crisis, the solutions sought by members of the governing body have been interference.”
And that was right before Vernier’s departure was made public.
What’s more notable: is the fate of the centre itself. The Trivedi Centre for Political Data focuses on research into national and state elections. Its analyses and datasets are widely cited by scholars around the world. Ashoka now plans to merge the centre with the newly created Centre for Data Sciences and Analytics—“in an effort to enhance its data-driven capabilities and foster a readily accessible collection of data sets.” It isn’t clear who will continue the TCPD’s research—or what will happen to its own datasets.
The bottomline: Academic research takes time, requires peer review and extended debate. How will voters understand their own democracy—if we don’t allow people to study it? Should we rely on TV news anchors and guests spouting analysis and opinion polls instead?
Reading list
Das’ exit prompted many unhappy pieces on academic freedom in NewsLaundry and The Telegraph. For a counterview, read Balbir Punj in Deccan Herald. Economic Times and Mint have more on the founding principles of Ashoka. NewsLaundry reported on the Mehta exit. We highly recommend reading Samarth Bansal’s careful analysis of Das’ controversial paper in this Big Story. The Telegraph is best on Gilles Vernier.
