India’s academic openness under strain

The recent denial of entry to noted Hindi scholar Francesca Orsini from the U.K., despite holding a valid visa, has brought to light the need for a more balanced and thoughtful approach to understanding and assessing the role of critical academic engagement, and to recognising the broader value of scholarly exchange both within and beyond India.

It seems that a rather difficult situation is emerging for international scholars who have critically engaged with Indian society, politics, or history. Entering on a tourist visa and participating in academic events can expose them to procedural complications related to visa regulations, while applying for an academic visa may itself become challenging in light of their critical scholarly work. This places such scholars in a constrained position, limiting opportunities for academic exchange and dialogue.

The long-term consequence of this paradox is clear: independent and critical voices from abroad will gradually be silenced, rendered rare, and eventually made invisible in India’s academic landscape. This situation raises a fundamental question about the spirit of inclusiveness in Indian academia. Universities and research institutions have historically thrived on exchange, critique, and intellectual diversity. The presence of global scholars — sometimes sharply critical, sometimes sympathetic — has enriched debates, introduced new frameworks, and helped Indian academics situate their work in global conversations.

Sign of vitality

In a democracy, criticism is not a threat; it is a sign of vitality. From anthropologists studying caste to historians revisiting colonial legacies and economists questioning policy orthodoxy, these critical engagements in Indian academia have helped refine national self-understanding. India’s reputation as a vibrant democracy has never been undermined by such scholarship. On the contrary, it has been strengthened by the openness with which these voices were received and debated. It is important to recall that no government in India has ever fallen because of academic criticism. Universities and research programmes across the country have long demonstrated maturity in accommodating a spectrum of ideas, including those critical of state policies. Research funding agencies such as the UGC, ICSSR, ICHR, and DST have historically supported projects examining sensitive social and political questions without censorship or hostility.

Intellectual loss

The danger today is not only administrative. When international scholars with a critical perspective grow hesitant to apply for visas, when Indian researchers hesitate to engage with interrogative frameworks, and when conferences avoid certain topics to ensure permissions, academic life itself becomes impoverished. The loss is not merely institutional but intellectual and moral. Nations that have prized only conformity have rarely advanced in the long run, either in knowledge or in innovation. India, which has always projected itself as a civilisation rooted in dialogue, samvad, must not turn its back on this tradition.

Editorial | Free world: On the deportation of Francesca Orsini

Furthermore, academic collaboration today operates in a deeply interconnected global environment. Research in areas such as digital culture, climate change, migration, artificial intelligence, and postcolonial theory cannot be meaningfully pursued in isolation. When certain scholars are denied access, entire research networks fragment. Students lose opportunities to interact with international peers; projects lose comparative depth; and the overall quality of scholarship declines. The effect is cumulative, slow but lasting. Inclusiveness in academia, hence, is not simply a matter of hospitality but of democratic responsibility. A confident democracy has nothing to fear from critique; in fact, it thrives on it. The most effective way to counter misunderstanding or misrepresentation is through open dialogue, not exclusion.

The history of Indian scholarship offers numerous examples of such engagement. The work of sociologists, historians, and anthropologists, both Indian and foreign, has shaped global understanding of caste, gender, religion, and modernity. These studies have sometimes been uncomfortable for those in power but have helped India appear as an intellectually vibrant society fearless of bureaucratic scrutiny. This pluralism is a hallmark of democracy, and it has always coexisted with patriotic commitment.

Risk of echo chambers

If it begins to appear that India is using visa restrictions as a means of selective control over academic engagement, the message sent to the world will be unfortunate: that India no longer welcomes the exchange of ideas unless they conform to official narratives. Over time, the space for independent thought would shrink, and universities would risk becoming echo chambers. What India needs instead is a renewed commitment to academic openness, a framework that differentiates between political subversion and intellectual dissent, that trusts scholars to engage in debate without ulterior motives, and that recognises the long-term benefits of a plural academic environment.

It is not that there are no initiatives to promote international academic collaboration; the Global Initiative of Academic Networks (GIAN) is a notable example of such efforts. However, for initiatives like GIAN to be truly meaningful, they must also create space for critical scholars to engage freely and thoughtfully with Indian academia, enriching dialogue through diverse and independent perspectives. To build a future-oriented, knowledge-driven society, India must invite all serious thinkers to participate in its academic life, irrespective of their critical positions.

An inclusive and confident academic culture is the best reflection of a mature democracy, one that listens, argues, and learns.

T. T. Sreekumar is a professor and writer based in Hyderabad. Views are personal.

Published – January 07, 2026 12:45 am IST