The Association of Indian Universities (AIU) has appealed to students to concentrate on their studies and not waste their energies in protests concerning the examination system like the one happening in New Delhi and many parts of the country. The concern for the education and future of students is understandable. Students must study, prepare for examinations and protect their academic futures. But the appeal also raises a fundamental question: What is the purpose of education?

Is education merely a process of attending classes, appearing for examinations, obtaining degrees and building individual careers? Or must education also teach us to recognise truth, question injustice and accept responsibility towards society? 

Mahatma Gandhi believed that education could not be separated from character, courage and social responsibility. When governance becomes unjust, the duty of citizens is not merely to obey. It is to resist injustice through truth and non-violence.

Obedient Subjects or Responsible Citizens?

The history of Indian education provides a powerful example. In 1920, Gandhi established Gujarat Vidyapith as part of the national struggle for self-rule. During the Non-Cooperation and Civil Disobedience Movements, educational institutions did not remain insulated from the larger struggle against colonial rule. 

During the Dandi Salt March and the Quit India Movement of 1942, students and educational institutions were not told that their only duty was to attend classes and appear for examinations. The deeper question was whether education should produce obedient subjects or responsible citizens.

Protests for Change

I have had the privilege of serving as Vice-Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad, founded by Mahatma Gandhi. That experience has strengthened my conviction that universities cannot be merely institutions that award degrees. They must also help build the moral conscience of society and the nation. This does not mean that students should protest on every issue, or that every protest is automatically justified. Students must not become rabble-rousers. Protest is not an end in itself. Its purpose must be to bring about necessary change. Students must understand this distinction and act with responsibility. This is what we attempted under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan in the 1974-75 Sampoorna Kranti Andolan.

But the present concerns raised by students cannot simply be dismissed as a distraction from education. Questions about the credibility, transparency and fairness of the examination system are questions about their future. If the lives and careers of millions of young people are affected by question-paper leaks, irregularities, administrative failures or unequal procedures, this is not merely a private problem of individual students. It is a problem of the entire society and nation.

The AIU appeal rightly cautions students against rumours and speculation. Rumours must certainly not guide public action. But in a democracy, government assurances alone cannot create public confidence. Assurances must be accompanied by transparency, independent inquiry and accountability. Recent developments surrounding the 2024 NEET-UG paper-leak controversy have themselves raised questions in the public mind. 

If a person alleged to have been a kingpin in the case is subsequently cleared by the investigating agency for lack of evidence of involvement in that particular case, students are entitled to ask how responsibility is being determined. How can they simply be expected to trust assurances that those responsible for present failures will certainly be identified and punished?

Is it enough merely to promise that examinations will be fair and secure in the future? What about examinations already surrounded by serious doubts and controversies? Who is accountable for failures that may have affected the futures of thousands or even millions of students? These are not unreasonable questions. They are the minimum questions that citizens in a democracy should be able to ask.

There are also larger institutional questions. What kind of system is it in which examination papers have to be transported by military aircraft? Has the country's armed forces no more important work than being drawn into the management of examinations? And, more fundamentally, does a university have so little confidence in its own teachers and employees that it cannot entrust them with the integrity of its examinations? If a Vice-Chancellor cannot assure students and the public of the reliability and integrity of the university's own examination system, what kind of education system are we creating?

Universities Need Serious Introspection

Students will naturally ask these questions. They have every right to do so. Parents and guardians should be asking them as well.

Our universities, meanwhile, need serious introspection. The quality of higher education in many institutions has declined to such an extent that, in some cases, by paying tuition and other fees, degrees are obtained without meaningful attendance or genuine academic engagement. If students question the quality of their education and examination systems, should they simply be told to concentrate on their studies and remain away from protest?

If my memory serves me correctly, I have also had the opportunity to serve on the Executive Committee of the AIU. I therefore speak from experience when I say that the university community has not been sufficiently effective in influencing policies affecting the quality and autonomy of higher education. Nor have we been able to influence the University Grants Commission as effectively as we should have. When the university community itself has not succeeded in resolving many serious problems confronting higher education, on what moral basis should students simply be asked to remain silent and trust the system?

The repeated crises in national-level examinations also require us to question excessive centralisation. When a single examination system serves millions of students, one administrative failure can affect an entire generation. Does centralisation necessarily ensure equality and justice, or can it create a vast and distant system in which accountability becomes difficult to locate? Gandhi was deeply sceptical of excessive centralisation. He believed in decentralisation, local responsibility and decision-making as close to the people as possible. Education too requires diversity, institutional autonomy, local accountability and responsibility.

Let there be no misunderstanding. We do not support violence, destruction or disorder. Student protest must be peaceful and based on truth. There must be no violence against any person. Public property must not be damaged. Respect must be maintained even for those with whom we disagree. 

Listen to the Students

But non-violence does not mean passivity in the face of injustice. Gandhian Satyagraha means standing firmly by truth, willingly accepting the hardships that may follow and offering a moral challenge to an unjust system. It is disciplined resistance, not disorder; courage, not anger; responsibility, not recklessness.

Therefore, my appeal to universities and their vice-chancellors is not merely to counsel students to stay away from protest. It is to listen to them. Students should continue their studies, but not by ignoring injustice. They should prepare for examinations, but not stop asking questions about their education and future. They should remain peaceful and non-violent, but they should not surrender to injustice. They should respect government assurances, but also demand independent inquiry, transparency and accountability.

A peaceful student movement for truth, justice and accountability is not a threat to democracy. It is evidence that democracy is alive.

(The writer is a noted Gandhian economist and the former vice chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad, a university founded by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920. The views expressed are personal. He can be contacted at editor@thebillionpress.org)