NIT-Calicut Gets Dean Who 'Praised' Godse: Rewarding Ideology Over Merit?

The controversy surrounding her appointment reflects a larger struggle over the ‘soul’ of educational institutions.

Dr Shaija Andavan's appointment as Dean at NIT-Calicut has opened a Pandora’s box of questions about the role of ideology in academic appointments.

(Photo: Kamran Akhter/ The Quint)

The recent appointment of Dr Shaija Andavan, a professor of Mechanical Engineering at the National Institute of Technology, Calicut (NIT-C), as Dean of Planning and Development, has stirred up a hornet’s nest.

Frankly, this was expected, given Andavan’s proclivity for belligerence in the past. At the heart of the uproar is her comment on a social media platform last year, praising Mahatma Gandhi's assassin Nathuram Godse and stating she was "proud of Godse for saving India."

While she later retracted the comment and clarified her stance, the incident has opened a Pandora’s box of questions about the role of ideology in academic appointments, the integrity of India’s educational institutions, particularly institutes of higher learning, and the broader implications for a nation already grappling with deep polarisation.

Reward for Ideology Over Merit?

The core issue here is not just Andavan’s controversial remarks but the troubling precedent her appointment sets. Is she being elevated for her academic credentials or for her ideological alignment with the ruling establishment?

Her comments, which are perceived as glorifying political violence, have raised concerns about whether ideological proximity to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is becoming a decisive factor in key academic placements.

As a matter of fact, this is not an isolated incident. Even those with limited political knowledge would agree that the BJP has long struggled with its dual stance on Gandhi and Godse. While officially lauding Gandhi as the "Father of the Nation," the party has been unable to fully distance itself from elements within its ranks who venerate Godse.

The 2019 episode involving BJP MP Pragya Thakur, who called Godse a "patriot," is a case in point. Defense Minister Rajnath Singh was quick to criticise her statement in Parliament, saying, “We condemn any philosophy which describes Nathuram Godse as a patriot." He went on to add that Gandhi’s philosophy remained relevant today — and even described him as a “guide”. 

Prime Minister Narendra Modi went one notch higher in his criticism:

“There is no place in society for such comments. She may have apologised, but I will never be able to forgive her.”

Despite such open condemnations against Thakur’s comments, her continued presence in the BJP only signalled a tacit tolerance for such views. Andavan’s appointment appears to follow a similar pattern, where figures with controversial ideological stances are strategically placed in influential positions, subtly endorsing their viewpoints.

One need not labour on the effects of such appointments.

When individuals with divisive ideologies are elevated to leadership roles in academia, it sends a clear message to the community and the public: ideological alignment with the ruling party may be more valuable and beneficial than academic merit or administrative capability.

This undermines the very foundation of academic institutions, which are meant to be bastions of free thought, critical inquiry, and inclusivity.

The role of a Dean of Planning and Development is crucial, as it involves shaping the institution’s long-term vision, fostering academic collaborations, and setting the tone for intellectual discourses on campus.

A person who has publicly expressed admiration a controversial figure raises legitimate fears about the potential biases that may influence decision-making, especially in matters such as faculty hiring, research priorities, and student governance.

Academic Freedom vs Institutional Responsibility

Academic freedom is the foundation of higher education, allowing scholars to explore and express diverse, even controversial, ideas. However, academics must know that this freedom is not absolute; it must be balanced against the responsibility of educational institutions to uphold values of secularism, inclusivity, and social harmony.

Andavan’s comments, without doubt, are divisive and inflammatory, and challenge this balance. While she has the right to her ideological beliefs, her elevation to a leadership role raises concerns about the message it sends to students and the broader academic community.

Educational institutions, particularly those funded by the government, have a duty to nurture an environment that promotes critical thinking, pluralism, and mutual respect, especially in a nation like ours that is proud of its heterogeneity. Appointing individuals with contentious and divisive views to positions of authority risks undermining these principles, especially in a polarised political climate.

Friction between academic freedom and institutional responsibility is not new but such tensions have unfortunately become increasingly pronounced in recent years. The glorification of figures like Godse who represent the antithesis of Gandhi’s vision of non-violence and pluralism undermines the foundational values of Indian democracy.

Here, we must distinguish between academic freedom and the overt promotion of divisive ideology. Academic freedom allows scholars to explore a wide range of perspectives, including controversial ones, but it does not extend to the glorification of figures who undermined the nation’s foundational principles.

Andavan may argue that her comment was taken out of context. But any academic publicly aligning with viewpoints that celebrate political violence raises concerns about their ability to uphold the principles of neutrality, fairness, and intellectual rigour.

The Polarisation of Academia

Those opposing Andavan’s elevation argue that the appointment is part of a broader trend of ideological bias in academic appointments under the BJP-led government. The Congress and student organisations like the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) have accused the government of promoting a "glorify Godse" mindset, pointing to similar controversies in the past. Of course, the NIT-C authorities have defended Andavan’s appointment, stating that it adhered to institutional statutes.

However, the allegations of bypassing seniority norms and the timing of her elevation – amidst an ongoing police case – suggest a lack of due diligence, which raises questions about the transparency and integrity of the selection process and further fuels perceptions of politicisation.

The broader implications of this trend are indeed alarming. When academic appointments are influenced by ideological considerations rather than merit, it erodes trust in the meritocratic process and reduces universities to ideological battlegrounds rather than spaces for objective scholarship.

This not only undermines the credibility of academic institutions but also alienates students and faculty members who uphold secular and democratic values. At a time when India is witnessing heightened communal and ideological polarisation, such appointments only add fuel to the fire. Educational institutions should be sanctuaries of reason and debate, not platforms for normalising extremist narratives.

The controversy surrounding Andavan’s appointment, as mentioned before, cannot be seen in isolation; it reflects a wider struggle over the ‘soul’ of India’s educational institutions. At a time when the nation is deeply divided along religious, caste, and ideological lines, universities must serve as spaces for dialogue and reconciliation, not as battlegrounds for partisan agendas.

The glorification of figures like Godse undermines the foundational values of Indian democracy.

In fact, educational institutions must consciously adopt proactive measures to safeguard secularism and inclusivity. This includes ensuring that appointments are made on the basis of merit and personal integrity rather than ideological alignment. Promoting a culture of critical inquiry and open debate, where diverse perspectives can be discussed without fear of retribution or favouritism, is paramount in universities.

Call for Reflection and Action

The appointment of Andavan as Dean is only a microcosm of the larger ideological battles being waged in India’s educational institutions. Undoubtedly, academic freedom must be protected, but it cannot come at the cost of institutional integrity and social harmony.

The government and university authorities must reflect on the message such appointments send to students, academics, and the public. At a time when the nation is grappling with serious issues, it is imperative to avoid controversies such as this that deepen divisions and undermine the values of secularism and inclusivity.

Educational institutions have a sacred responsibility to nurture the next generation of thinkers, leaders, and citizens. They must rise above partisan agendas and uphold the principles of pluralism and mutual respect that are essential for a vibrant democracy.

The NIT-Calicut controversy is a wake-up call—a reminder that the battle for India’s ‘soul’ is being fought not just on the streets but in the halls of academia. 

(The author is a Professor and Dean at Christ University, Bengaluru. This is an opinion piece. The views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for them.)