top of page

By:

Bhaskar Nath Biswal

13 May 2026 at 8:30:30 pm

Dialogue, Not Disruption

The Union government’s latest initiative, the 'One Day, One University' programme, aims to deploy Union Ministers to higher education institutions across India on a daily basis to interact directly with Generation Z. As reported, this ambitious initiative seeks to create a direct channel between top policymakers and youth, allowing ministers to listen to student concerns, understand youth perspectives on national matters and raise awareness about government welfare schemes designed for...

Dialogue, Not Disruption

The Union government’s latest initiative, the 'One Day, One University' programme, aims to deploy Union Ministers to higher education institutions across India on a daily basis to interact directly with Generation Z. As reported, this ambitious initiative seeks to create a direct channel between top policymakers and youth, allowing ministers to listen to student concerns, understand youth perspectives on national matters and raise awareness about government welfare schemes designed for students. Spearheaded by Union Education Minister Pralhad Joshi and Youth Affairs and Sports Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, the program reflects a clear desire to engage young citizens where they are. Across the country’s vast educational ecosystem, spanning over 1,300 institutions including central, state, deemed and private universities, this direct reach initiative carries immense potential, provided it is executed with care for the core mission of academic institutions. The Promise of Direct Dialogue At its core, the policy holds significant promise. For decades, a noticeable disconnect has existed between policymaking hubs in New Delhi and the everyday realities experienced by students across various states. Having a Union Minister step onto a campus offers students a rare platform to present their views directly to those who formulate policy, bypassing administrative bureaucratic layers. Furthermore, such visits provide a valuable opportunity to inform students about relevant government schemes, grants and youth programs that might otherwise go unnoticed. When executed as a genuine, two-way exchange, this initiative can foster civic engagement, make young citizens feel heard and offer leaders direct insight into the aspirations, anxieties and constructive ideas of the nation’s youth. The Practical Bottlenecks on Campus While the intent to build bridges with youth is commendable, the operational realities of university campuses present serious practical challenges. Educational institutions are already grappling with frequent disruptions. Universities routinely organize a multitude of events, seminars, workshops and ceremonial functions every week or fortnight. Each event consumes critical academic working days and leads to lost instructional time, placing students and faculty under continuous pressure to complete syllabi and maintain research schedules. When a high-profile dignitary such as a Union Minister visits, these disruptions multiply significantly. University authorities often become absorbed in protocol preparations for three to four days prior to the event. Infrastructure maintenance, security reviews, venue setup and administrative meetings take precedence over regular academic duties. Furthermore, ministerial visits rarely occur in isolation; a considerable entourage of followers, security detail, party cadres and administrative staff typically accompanies them. The resulting commotion, heightened security cordons and elaborate stage arrangements convert a seat of learning into a temporary hub of political event management. These grand gatherings consume substantial public funds, precious time and administrative energy, often overshadowing the very objective of meaningful dialogue. Charting a Pragmatic Path Forward To achieve the genuine goals of the 'One Day, One University' initiative without compromising academic integrity, a fundamental shift in approach is required. The focus must pivot from grand public spectacles to understated, highly productive interactions. First, meetings between ministers and students should be stripped of high formal arrangements and stage-managed formalities. The emphasis ought to be on substantive conversation rather than ceremonial grandeur. To ensure academic schedules remain undisturbed, ministers should interact with students outside regular class hours, preferably in informal settings such as campus hostels, common rooms or university canteens. Such an unpretentious atmosphere encourages candid, unscripted feedback from students while keeping normal lecture hours intact. Second, official briefings with university authorities such as Vice-Chancellors, department heads, and faculty representatives should be conducted in closed meeting halls either strictly before or after scheduled academic hours. Closed-door interactions free from media grandstanding allow university leaders to present ground-level administrative, financial and infrastructural challenges accurately. Digital Feedback Channels: A Prevention Strategy To ensure that student voices are captured continuously without relying solely on physically demanding events, the government should establish official online feedback portals. Managed directly by the concerned ministry or designated nodal officers, these digital platforms would allow students, researchers and faculty members to submit their views, grievances and policy ideas in real time. Providing an accessible, transparent and direct line of communication with decision-makers serves as a vital safety valve for youth sentiment. By giving Generation Z a reliable digital avenue to express their perspectives and see their concerns acknowledged, the administration can proactively address dissatisfaction, thereby significantly reducing the need for students to take to the streets in disruptive rallies or public protests to make their voices heard. (The writer is a former college Principal and Founder of Supporting Shoulders, an Odisha-based non-profit Trust. Views personal.)

Selective Outrage

India’s left-liberal media has long prided itself on being the torchbearer of secularism, dissent and moral rectitude. In the aftermath of ‘Operation Sindoor,’ the precision military strike launched by the Modi government against Pakistan-based terror camps, it has revealed its not a principled commitment to peace or truth, but a disturbing penchant for ideological prejudice, performative sanctimony and selective outrage.


The operation itself was a textbook display of calibrated force and geopolitical prudence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, often caricatured as ‘authoritarian’ by the ‘liberal’ English-language commentariat, chose patience over provocation. He consulted opposition leaders, held detailed discussions with defence chiefs and took key international stakeholders, notably the United States and Russia, into confidence before authorising limited military action. The symbolism of ‘Operation Sindoor’ was also carefully crafted: a pointed reminder that the attack’s real victims were Hindu women widowed by Pakistan-sponsored militants in Kashmir. The government’s briefings were also strategic and symbolic as two ranking female officers, one of them Muslim, were made the public face of the mission, underlining a new Indian confidence that blends military muscle with democratic pluralism.


But this was unacceptable for India’s entrenched ‘left-liberal’ press, steeped in academic jargon, Western validation and a knee-jerk hostility to anything remotely ‘Hindutva.’ That a Muslim officer briefed the nation on ‘Operation Sindoor’ was branded ‘tokenism’ by such commentators. Others crudely alleged that the April 22 Pahalgam massacre was the logical culmination of reported atrocities against Muslims since Modi came to power in 2014.


The semantic nitpicking over ‘Operation Sindoor’ was maddening. An editor of a prominent magazine dubbed the operation’s name as ‘patriarchal’ and coded in Hindutva tropes. In a bizarre case of moral inversion, sindoor was likened to symbols of ‘honour killings’ and gender oppression, ignoring both its cultural resonance and the cruel reality that these women had lost their husbands in cold blood. For years, India’s ‘secular’ commentariat nurtured a preordained binary: the Congress may be flawed but was at least ‘secular’ while the BJP was an inveterate ‘fascist.’ Thus, the 2002 Gujarat riots are always focused upon but the Congress-backed pogrom of the Sikhs in 1984 is either downplayed or rationalised. Terrorism in Kashmir is tragic, but state retaliation is ‘jingoism.’ A strong Muslim voice in government is ‘tokenism’ but its absence is ‘exclusion.’ Even journalistic rigour is selectively applied. When Pakistan claimed to have downed Indian jets, some Indian outlets rushed to amplify the story before verification, inadvertently echoing enemy propaganda.


Dissent is vital in any democracy. But when its becomes indistinguishable from disdain, when editorial choices are dictated by ideological conformity, then the press becomes a caricature of itself. Ironically, many of these journalists enjoy robust free speech and loudly lament India’s supposed slide into ‘fascism’ from the safety of their X handles. Yet they turn a blind eye to Putin’s repression, Erdogan’s purges or Xi Jinping’s camps. In their eyes, Modi remains the greatest threat to democracy even as they broadcast their outrage freely, without fear of censorship or reprisal. ‘Operation Sindoor’ was a statement of cultural self-confidence. That confidence has rattled those who have spent their careers gatekeeping Indian discourse. Today, their monopoly is over. The people are watching and they no longer believe that the emperor has clothes.

Comments

bottom of page