Silencing the Academy: From Trump’s Harvard Offensive to Modi’s War on Free Thought

“Every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship.” 

— Antonio Gramsci

In both, the United States and India, universities – once bastions of critical inquiry – are increasingly being reimagined as threats to national integrity. In May 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping crackdown on Harvard University, threatening to revoke over USD 2 billion in federal research funding over allegations of antisemitism and political bias. While framed as a culture war manoeuvre, this move serves as political discipline – punishing elite institutions for tolerating student dissent and pro-Palestinian activism.

In India, the Narendra Modi government has been charting a parallel course. Since 2014, public universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University have faced repeated assaults – from budget cuts and bureaucratic interference to arrests of student activists and the slashing of scholarships. Notably, in 2022, the government quietly scrapped the Maulana Azad National Fellowship, a crucial program supporting minority scholars pursuing PhD degrees. The message was unambiguous: support for marginalised voices in higher education is no longer a priority.

What binds these seemingly disparate actions is a growing consensus among right-wing regimes: dissent within the classroom is a political liability. Students who critique the state, question foreign policy or demand historical justice are increasingly treated not as engaged citizens but as internal adversaries.

In both countries, this assault on universities is being waged under the banner of the taxpayer. Trump's administration argues that public funds should not support "radical leftism" or "wokeness." Similarly, Modi's government accuses public universities of squandering resources on "anti-national" thought and fostering a liberal elite disconnected from "real" India.

This rhetoric constructs a false moral economy: critical thinking is recast as indulgence, the humanities as sedition and student protest as criminality. By claiming to represent the apolitical, hardworking taxpayer, these regimes obscure the essential role of universities in a democracy – to question, to debate, and to envision alternatives.

The campaign is not about accountability; it is about control.

The university curriculum has become a central front in this ideological war. In the US, efforts to defund universities are part of a broader culture war targeting critical race theory, gender studies, and climate science. In India, the New Education Policy promotes a sanitised, mythological version of Indian history, marginalising critiques of caste and erasing Muslim contributions to the subcontinent's past.

A recent and telling example is the recommendation by Delhi University's standing committee for academic affairs to remove Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus from the sociology syllabus.

The paper "Population and Society," which introduces students to foundational theories of population dynamics, currently examines Malthusian perspectives and Marx's critiques. According to faculty members, Malthus's theory remains essential for understanding population growth, and Marx's critiques provide critical context. The proposed removal of these thinkers reflects an ongoing effort to reshape academic discourse to align with a particular ideological narrative.

Such curricular changes are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic attempt to transform universities from spaces of open-ended inquiry into sites of nationalist education. The goal is not to produce informed citizens but compliant subjects.

The suppression of dissent within academia cannot be disentangled from broader racial and religious hierarchies. In the US, campus activism around Palestine has become a flashpoint. The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, targeting scholars and students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, was detained and faced deportation under a rarely-used provision allowing the Secretary of State to expel individuals deemed adverse to US foreign policy. A federal judge later ruled this action likely unconstitutional, highlighting concerns over free speech violations.

Similarly, Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, recounted his harrowing experience of being detained without due process, allegedly for social media posts critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. These cases underscore a disturbing trend where academic critique and political activism are met with punitive measures, eroding the foundational principles of free expression and academic freedom.

In India, the situation is more acute: Muslim scholars like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Dr. Hany Babu have been jailed under sweeping anti-terror laws for exercising their constitutional rights.

For Muslim academics, intellectual life is now entangled with existential precarity. They are compelled to demonstrate loyalty to the nation before being permitted to contribute to its scholarly discourse.

This systemic repression is not merely about individuals – it aims to silence a worldview that sees power as accountable, citizenship as plural and justice as an ongoing pursuit.

Despite these challenges, universities remain potential sites of resistance. Across campuses, students and faculty continue to challenge authoritarian drift. From Harvard's Palestine Solidarity encampments to Jamia's anti-CAA protests, the university persists as one of the few spaces where democratic dissent endures.

However, this space is shrinking. Funding is being slashed, fellowships are disappearing, international scholars face deportation and the cost of posing critical questions is escalating.

If we allow universities to become echo chambers for state power, we risk losing more than academic freedom. We jeopardise the very notion that public life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than fear.

The global assault on universities – from Trump's offensive against Harvard to Modi's dismantling of minority fellowships and curricular purges – is not coincidental. It reflects a political moment wherein the capacity for critical thought is perceived as a threat to national coherence. In place of knowledge, these regimes offer nostalgia; in place of critique, conformity.

To defend the university today is to defend the possibility of a freer, more just society tomorrow.

This defence must emanate not only from within the academy but from all who value democracy beyond a mere slogan. It must involve public intellectuals, journalists, educators, students, and civil society at large.

Because once critical thinking itself is criminalised, we find ourselves already inhabiting a post-democratic world.

Ismail Salahuddin is a writer and researcher based in Delhi, focusing on Muslim identity, caste and the politics of knowledge.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.