Demolition of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University: On campus, questions about vendetta politics

The order to demolish 38 out of 40 buildings of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh has raised serious questions. The chairman of the trust that runs the college is jailed Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. The university has been put in the dock by the district municipal authority, the income tax department and the fire department for alleged irregularities and violations in land acquisition, construction and permissions. The students protested the proposed demolition and were joined by the opposition parties, which have alleged that the BJP government is targeting the university as part of a vendetta politics. A stay order on the demolition by the Moradabad divisional commissioner on Monday provides a welcome pause. It is also a moment to look at the deeper malaise, of which this episode is a symptom.

India’s education sector suffers from both a quality and quantity deficit. Less than 14 per cent of institutions possess NAAC accreditation, and curricula remain outdated for an ever-changing job market. Shortage of faculty — about 29 per cent in central universities and 40 per cent in state public universities — and low research output continue to plague public universities. On the other hand, the demand for education continues to grow. The state alone cannot bridge the gap. However, regulatory barriers for the entry of private players are such that political patronage and connections are often a sine qua non for establishing a university. From land acquisition to municipal permits, a maze of red tape stands in the way of letting competition flourish in the sector. This has also left many young people at the mercy of fly-by-night degree mills.

When it was set up, Khan was a powerful figure in UP. Over the last decade, his political fortunes have waned. The question for the UP administration is this: Does it abide by the rules, or merely serve the party in power? If Jauhar University has flouted the rules, it should not have been set up in the first place. Caught between under-regulation and over-enforcement, and between two governments, the students stand to lose the most.

Overall Analysis

This editorial uses the proposed demolition of Mohammad Ali Jauhar University as a starting point to discuss a much larger issue—the intersection of politics, governance, and higher education in India. While acknowledging the allegations of legal and regulatory violations against the university, the editorial questions whether administrative action is being guided by the rule of law or by political considerations. Its central argument is that institutions should be governed by consistent legal standards, not by changing political circumstances.

The editorial begins by presenting the immediate controversy. It outlines the allegations against the university, including irregularities in land acquisition, construction, and permissions, while also noting the opposition’s claim that the action is politically motivated because of the university’s association with Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan. Instead of taking sides, the writer highlights the stay on the demolition as an opportunity to examine the broader governance issues behind the controversy. This balanced introduction establishes the editorial as an analytical discussion rather than a political attack.

The second part broadens the discussion to India’s higher education system. The author argues that the country faces both a shortage of quality educational institutions and insufficient capacity to meet growing demand. By citing issues such as low accreditation, faculty shortages, outdated curricula, and weak research output, the editorial demonstrates that higher education already suffers from structural deficiencies. It then explains how excessive regulations and bureaucratic hurdles make it difficult for genuine private institutions to emerge, often forcing educational entrepreneurs to depend on political influence. This shifts the focus from one university to the systemic flaws that affect the entire sector.

The editorial further argues that excessive bureaucracy creates two undesirable outcomes. On one hand, it encourages political patronage because obtaining approvals becomes dependent on influence rather than transparent procedures. On the other hand, it allows fraudulent institutions to exploit regulatory weaknesses, leaving students vulnerable. Through this reasoning, the author suggests that the problem is not simply inadequate regulation or excessive regulation, but inconsistent and selective enforcement.

In the concluding section, the editorial returns to Mohammad Ali Jauhar University and raises an important constitutional question: should governments enforce laws impartially or according to political convenience? The writer argues that if the university violated legal norms, those violations should have been addressed when they occurred rather than after political equations changed. The strongest concern expressed is for the students, who become the unintended victims of political and administrative failures. The editorial concludes that the rule of law must be consistent, transparent, and independent of political rivalry.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Vendetta – A prolonged campaign driven by personal or political revenge.
2. Irregularities – Actions that do not follow established rules or procedures.
3. Sine qua non – An essential condition or indispensable requirement.
4. Patronage – Support or protection provided by influential individuals, often for political reasons.
5. Malaise – A deep-rooted problem or condition causing dissatisfaction or weakness.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial argues that the controversy surrounding Mohammad Ali Jauhar University reflects deeper weaknesses in India’s higher education governance. While legal violations must be addressed, enforcement should be impartial and timely rather than influenced by political changes. The ultimate priority should be protecting students and ensuring that educational institutions are regulated through transparency, fairness, and the rule of law.

Tone: Analytical, balanced, critical, and governance-oriented.