Are Academic Freedom and Institutional Neutrality Compatible?

The latest hoo-ha regarding Ashoka University and Professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad's arrest once again stoked a debate about academic freedom, free speech, and the place of educational institutions in politically charged times. The issue at the very heart of the storm is more profound: Can one be neutral if one speaks for the voices that breathe life into an institution?

Earlier this month, Sanjeev Bikhchandani, co-founder of Ashoka University and prominent Indian entrepreneur, responded to public condemnation by political commentator Yogendra Yadav. Yadav had questioned the university's stance on Mahmudabad's arrest, implying that it was not friendly to academic freedom. Bikhchandani described these allegations as "misguided," and asserted that the university's reaction had been intended to preserve institutional neutrality, rather than silence dissent.

Departmental head Professor Mahmudabad was detained in May 2024 for a post on Facebook criticizing a government briefing by the military. The post, seemingly taking a stand in solidarity with marginalized communities, including Indian Muslims, defied state narratives — and received critical flak. Though later released on interim bail by the Supreme Court, the incident has left a lasting taint on the institution's reputation.

In a statement, Bikhchandani explained that disciplining faculty for individual social media action does not equate to curbing academic freedom. While that stance may find favor with advocates of boundaries between personal activism and institutional congruence, it has found vocal opposition with advocates of unbridled expression.

Ashoka University, better known for its liberal ideology and activist student body, has also been criticized time and time again for so-called "woke" culture and tolerance of activism. From blaming Israel's policies to debating caste privilege, the university campus has time and again found itself amidst scholarship and socio-political commentary. But this is a different story — it challenges the very foundations of what the universities are doing in a democracy.

In his response, Bikhchandani admitted to the seriousness of the pressure he faces. He even considered resigning once, questioning whether the criticism and reputational wear and tear were worth the emotional toll. But then he remains faithful to Ashoka's founding principles — a high-wire balancing act between shielding free thinking and avoiding having the university turn into a political battleground.

The incident has thrown open the gates to questions that impact universities throughout India: Where does one place boundaries between personal expression and institutional responsibility? Do academic institutions need to keep away from the politics of their professors, or is defending them part of their responsibility?

While the debate continues raging, the judgment is yet to be passed. But one thing is sure: this case will settle the fate of academic freedom in India. As nation and world academies hold their breaths, Ashoka University will now have to walk a tightrope — living its commitment to intellectual freedom while staying strong as a neutral, inclusive space.

Because in modern-day India, where freedom of speech is increasingly policed and silence is politicized, the job of a university is not only to educate — it's to be a representation of what an unfrightened society is.