Indian academia’s drift from reason to ritual

1. At a Glance

• The op-ed argues that universities are meant to be "temples of empiricism". Their legitimacy rests on finding truth through observation, experimentation and peer-reviewed verification, not through revelation, tradition or charismatic authority. [1]
• It warns that when institutions put spiritual performance and political deference ahead of intellectual rigour, they undermine their own mission. [1]
• Why it matters for UPSC: it links to scientific temper as a Fundamental Duty, academic freedom and university autonomy, the quality of higher education and research, and GS-IV themes such as intellectual integrity and dissent.

2. Why in the News

• An opinion article, "Indian academia's drift from reason to ritual", by C.P. Rajendran (geoscientist and science communicator) appears on page 10 of The Hindu's Chennai print edition dated 30 September 2026. [1]
• The trigger is the practice at institutions such as the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) of adopting "feudalistic, socially hierarchical etiquette". Examples given are requiring students to bow before dignitaries and holding convocations suffused with religious symbolism. [1]
• The article's subtitle states its thesis: "Academic institutions must remain spaces for scepticism, dissent and fearless inquiry." [1]

3. Background & Evolution

• Philosophical basis: the scientific method depends on questioning, falsifiability and rigorous doubt. The article presents these as directly opposed to belief, spiritualism and uncritical reverence. [1]
• Historical examples cited:
• Galileo, Darwin and Einstein each overturned "once-sacred truths". [1]

• Newton's "shoulders of giants" line was "half-jest". It was an invitation to build critically on past work, not to worship it. [1]

• Indian constitutional and intellectual lineage [2]:

• Jawaharlal Nehru used the term "scientific temper" in The Discovery of India (1946).
• Article 51A(h) makes it a duty "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform". It was inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976, on the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee.
• A Statement on Scientific Temper was issued in 1981, and a follow-up statement was released in 2011.

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Core concept	"Temples of empiricism": knowledge comes from observation, experimentation and peer review [1]
Epistemic virtues named	Questioning, falsifiability, rigorous doubt [1]
Practices criticised	Students bowing before dignitaries; religious elements in convocations; political deference [1]
Institution named	Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) [1]
Constitutional anchor	Art. 51A(h), Part IV-A (Fundamental Duties) [2]
Amendment	42nd CAA, 1976; Fundamental Duties borrowed from the USSR Constitution [2]
Enforceability	Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable [2]
IIT legal base	Institutes of Technology Act, 1961; administered by the Ministry of Education [2]
Policy link	NEP 2020 lists scientific temper and critical thinking among its goals [2]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Ethical / Governance

• The article calls the reason-versus-reverence clash a "profound philosophical contradiction", not "a harmless nod to cultural heritage". [1]
• Political deference by institutions can wear away institutional autonomy and the space for dissent. [1]
• GS-IV angle: intellectual honesty, courage of conviction, and the difference between respect and servility.

Social

• Rituals of hierarchy, such as bowing, can reinforce feudal and caste-like social hierarchies on campuses. [1]
• Religious symbolism at public institutions may alienate students from minority communities or students who are not religious. It also sits uneasily with secularism, which is part of the Preamble [2].

Scientific / Technological

• The article holds that knowledge advances by challenging the past, not revering it. It describes this iconoclasm as "the engine of human knowledge". [1]
• Implication: a culture that does not question produces weaker research output and less innovation.

Legal / Constitutional

• Art. 51A(h) (scientific temper) and Art. 28(1) (no religious instruction in institutions wholly funded by the State) [2].
• Academic freedom is not an explicitly listed right. It is usually argued from Art. 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) [2].

Historical

• The article places Galileo, Darwin and Einstein in a line of thinkers who overturned accepted doctrine. [1]
• The Indian parallel is Nehru's "temples of modern India" vision for science institutions [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 30 Sep 2026: C.P. Rajendran's op-ed in The Hindu criticises ritualism and hierarchical etiquette at IITs and in academia generally. [1]
• No other dated development could be retrieved because both searches failed (see the caveat at the top).

7. Prelims Hooks

• "Scientific temper, humanism and spirit of inquiry and reform" is the text of Art. 51A(h). [2]
• Fundamental Duties were added by the 42nd Amendment, 1976, in Part IV-A. [2]
• The Swaran Singh Committee recommended Fundamental Duties. [2]
• There were originally 10 Fundamental Duties. The 86th Amendment (2002) added the 11th, Art. 51A(k), on education of children aged 6–14. [2]
• Fundamental Duties apply only to citizens, not to foreigners. [2]
• The phrase "scientific temper" is associated with Nehru's Discovery of India (1946). [2]
• Art. 28(1) bars religious instruction in institutions wholly maintained out of State funds. [2]
• IITs are governed by the Institutes of Technology Act, 1961. [2]
• Falsifiability, the idea that a scientific claim must be testable and capable of being proven wrong, is named in the article as a core scientific virtue. It is associated with Karl Popper [2]. [1]
• National Science Day is on 28 February and marks the discovery of the Raman Effect in 1928. [2]

8. Why a Bow at Convocation Is More Than Good Manners

• The article's real worry is what the ritual teaches, not the ritual itself
• Making students bow before dignitaries is a lesson in who stands above whom [1].
• Science needs the opposite habit. A junior researcher must feel free to say "your result is wrong" to a senior professor.

• If the ceremony teaches submission on the last day, it confirms what the lab may have taught on every other day.

• Deference spreads from the stage to the lab

• The article links bowing to "political deference", meaning institutions obeying people in power instead of questioning them [1].
• Peer review (experts checking each other's work before it is published) only works if rank does not protect anyone from criticism [1].

• A campus that rewards obedience makes it harder for a young scholar to challenge a powerful senior. That is exactly where new knowledge comes from, says the article [1].

• Religious symbols at a public function send a signal about belonging

• A convocation is a public ceremony of a public institution like an IIT, not a private act of worship [1].
• When it is "suffused with religious symbolism", students of other faiths or no faith are pushed to take part or to stand apart [1].
• The author's point: the university's authority comes from evidence and doubt, so a ceremony built on revelation contradicts the university's own basis [1].

9. The Strongest Case for Ritual — and Where It Falls Short

• The opposing argument, in its best form
• Every university has ceremony. Gowns, maces and processions are rituals too. So why single out Indian rituals?
• Replacing colonial customs with Indian ones can be a way of reclaiming cultural confidence, not rejecting science.

• Respect for teachers (the guru tradition) is a real Indian value. Showing respect does not stop anyone from thinking.

• What this argument gets right

• Ceremony is not the enemy. It gives students a sense of occasion and belonging.
• The author himself says he is not attacking heritage as such. He attacks ritual that replaces inquiry [1].

• So "remove all ritual" is not the right answer, and a Mains answer should say so.

• Where it falls short

• A gown asks nothing of your belief. A religious rite does. The test is whether the ceremony demands faith or submission from the student [1].
• A bow is not the same as a handshake or standing up. It shows rank, which is why the article calls it "feudalistic" [1].

• Respect for a teacher and deference to a dignitary are different things. The first is earned by knowledge. The second comes from position.

• A usable line for the exam: ceremony should mark the achievement of the student, not the rank of the guest.

10. Why a Fundamental Duty Cannot Stop This

• Scientific temper is a duty, but nobody enforces it
• Art. 51A(h) asks citizens to develop scientific temper. But Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, meaning no court can order anyone to follow them.

• The duty is also written for citizens. It does not directly bind an institution's ceremonies.

• Autonomy cuts both ways

• IITs run under their own law and their own governing bodies. They decide their own convocation format.
• Autonomy is meant to protect institutions from outside pressure. But the article shows the same freedom can be used to bring in hierarchy and religious display [1].

• So the fix cannot be a government order, which would itself hurt autonomy. It has to come from inside the institution.

• No one measures a "questioning culture"

• Rankings count papers, patents and placements. None of them asks whether a student can safely disagree with a professor.
• What is not measured is easy to lose without anyone noticing.

11. Where Universities Actually Stand in Indian Research

• India spends little on research, and universities get a small slice of it
• GERD (Gross Expenditure on Research and Development — total money spent on research in the country) was 0.64% of GDP in 2020-21 [3].
• Of this, higher education institutions spent only 8.8%. The Central Government spent 43.7% and private industry 36.4% [3].

• So most Indian research happens in government labs and companies, not in universities.

• India is behind other developing countries too

• In 2017-18 India spent 0.7% of GDP on R&D. China spent 2.1%, Brazil 1.3%, Russia 1.1% and South Africa 0.8% [4].

• Why this matters for the article's argument

• When a university does little research, its public image comes more from ceremony and status than from discovery.
• That makes it easier for ritual to fill the space. The article's complaint is really about what a university thinks it is for [1].
• Total R&D money did more than double in ten years, from ₹60,196.75 crore in 2010-11 to ₹1,27,380.96 crore in 2020-21 [3]. The problem is less about the amount and more about the share and the culture.

12. Who Should Do What Next

• IIT Boards of Governors should make convocations secular and optional in their faith elements
• Keep the ceremony. Drop the requirement to bow, and keep religious rites out of the official programme [1].

• Any student who wants a religious observance can hold it privately. This keeps Art. 25 freedom for the individual without making the institution take sides.

• The Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) should push more research money into universities

• Universities now spend only 8.8% of India's R&D money [3].

• More research grants, especially for young faculty, create a culture where results matter more than rank.

• The Ministry of Education should turn NEP 2020's aim of "critical thinking" into something checked

• For example, accreditation could ask whether students can raise dissent through a protected grievance process.

• Institutions and scientists can revive the spirit of the 1981 Statement on Scientific Temper

• That statement came from scientists and thinkers, not from the government. The article shows the same thing: scientists speaking up in public is part of the answer [1].

13. Anchors for Answers

• Data: India's GERD was 0.64% of GDP in 2020-21; higher education institutions spent only 8.8% of it [3]
• Data: R&D spending in 2017-18: India 0.7% of GDP vs China 2.1%, Brazil 1.3%, Russia 1.1% [4]
• Report/Committee: Statement on Scientific Temper, 1981 (follow-up 2011); Swaran Singh Committee, 1976 (Fundamental Duties)
• Law/Case: Art. 51A(h) (scientific temper); Art. 28(1) (no religious instruction in wholly State-funded institutions); Institutes of Technology Act, 1961
• Comparison: BRICS peers spend more of GDP on R&D than India — China about three times as much [4]
• Scheme: Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) — can shift research funding towards universities; NEP 2020 — names critical thinking as a goal

14. Mains Relevance

• GS-I: Social empowerment; communalism and secularism; the role of science in society.
• GS-II: Issues relating to education and human resources; Fundamental Duties; autonomy of statutory bodies.
• GS-III: Science and technology, including developments, R&D culture and innovation.
• GS-IV: Ethics; intellectual integrity; dissent; the gap between public institutions and private faith.
• Essay: "Doubt is the beginning of wisdom" / "Temples of learning or temples of ritual?"

Plausible Mains question stems:

1. "Scientific temper is a Fundamental Duty, yet ritualism is spreading in India's premier academic institutions." Critically examine what this means for India's research ecosystem. (GS-II/III, 15 marks)
2. Is academic freedom a precondition for innovation? Discuss with reference to institutional autonomy in Indian higher education. (GS-II, 10 marks)
3. "Respect for tradition must not become reverence that forbids questioning." Discuss this in the context of public institutions. (GS-IV, 10 marks)

15. Related Topics to Study Next

• Fundamental Duties (Part IV-A): the constitutional home of scientific temper.
• NEP 2020: its critical-thinking goals and the proposed HECI regulatory overhaul.
• Academic freedom and university autonomy: includes the UGC and the proposed HECI framework.
• Anti-superstition laws (Maharashtra 2013, Karnataka 2017) [2]: state-level legislation that promotes rationality.
• Secularism in India (Art. 25–28): limits on religion in state institutions.
• Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) in curricula: where heritage promotion and empirical rigour can pull against each other.
• R&D spending and the Anusandhan National Research Foundation (ANRF) [2]: the research-quality side of the debate.

16. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Art. 51A(h) vs 51A(k): (h) is scientific temper; (k) is the education duty added in 2002. [2]
• Fundamental Duties vs DPSP: both are non-justiciable, but Fundamental Duties are in Part IV-A, while DPSP is Part IV (Art. 36–51). [2]
• 42nd (1976) vs 44th (1978) Amendment: the 42nd added Fundamental Duties; the 44th removed property as a Fundamental Right. [2]
• Art. 28 nuance: the ban on religious instruction applies to institutions wholly State-funded. It does not apply to State-aided or State-recognised institutions. [2]
• Misreading the op-ed: the author is not attacking cultural heritage as such. The objection is to ritual and hierarchy replacing scientific inquiry inside academic institutions. [1]