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 Pluralism

There is something deeply revealing about the reflexive hostility of the global ‘Left-liberal’ establishment and their Westernized Indian counterparts towards the RSS. It seems less interested in what the organisation actually says than in what it has decided the organisation must mean.


RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat latest remarks in New York that if a Hindu believes there should be no Muslims in Bharat, he is not a Hindu is proof of his inclusivity and that of his organization, which has been relentlessly vilified since Independence.


Bhagwat went further in his remarks, stating that Hinduism required recognition that different paths lead to the same goal and that every human being possesses dignity.


Several people and outfits, not least New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, had gone out of their way to thwart Bhagwat’s American tour.


He described the RSS as embodying an “exclusionary vision” and invoked the India of his upbringing as a secular, pluralistic republic. It is strange that Mamdani, speaking from an American city he governs, chose to lecture Indians on which organisation does or does not represent their vision of India.


The RSS is routinely described as “right-wing”, “Hindu nationalist”, “paramilitary” and “exclusionary” by Mamdani and his ilk. The organizations enormous network of volunteers and social-service activities, regardless of creed, caste or religion, is either deliberately ignored or dismissed as propaganda. Its philosophy of vyakti nirman - nation-building through the formation of individuals - is scarcely examined by fancy liberals, ensconced in their comfortable perches.


The RSS is often treated as a permanent exhibit in the Left-liberal museum of Indian villainy.


The RSS, like any organisation of consequence, is perfectly entitled to be scrutinised, challenged and criticised. The problem is the refusal to apply the same standard of scrutiny to everyone else.


Where is the corresponding demand that Muslims explicitly reject Islamist supremacism? Where is the insistence that pluralism requires not merely Hindu restraint but reciprocal acceptance? Why is Hinduism endlessly required to prove its commitment to coexistence, while the most uncomfortable strains of Islamist and Christian politics are routinely handled with euphemisms, contextualisation or silence?


Pluralism cannot be a one-way moral contract. A Mamdani or a Rahul Gandhi is entitled to his political views. So are India’s Left-liberal intellectuals. But none of them possess a hereditary copyright over the meaning of secularism, pluralism or Indian identity.


Mohan Bhagwat and the RSS do not need Mamdani’s permission to exist and spread their message. It has spent a century building an enormous voluntary network in India. The BJP’s electoral success has given the broader ideological current associated with the Sangh extraordinary democratic legitimacy, whether its critics like that fact or not.


The real test of pluralism is not whether Hindus are willing to hear criticism. They have heard plenty. It is whether their critics are willing to hear them back.

Comments

bottom of page