Schools, colleges, universities and other places of learning (higher or otherwise) in India are beset with certain fears, most of which are perfectly understandable. These anxieties can broadly be classified under two heads: the fear of the loss of autonomy and the fear of blatant or insidious ideological control. Both fears involve the agency of the State, in the form of the Central and state governments or unions patronized by political parties with unsavoury clout. The fear of ideological control - a subset of the fear of basic rights and freedoms - may not be confined merely to the country's educational institutions. But they take on a certain specificity when confronted with a national educational policy proposed by the Centre that has deeply discomfited not only 'minority' institutes but also all educationists, students and their guardians concerned with education as a liberal and secular entitlement for all. Yoga, Sanskrit or some sort of a revival of the gurukul system could add excellent value to education, but how they are pushed down the gullets of students and teachers, and who is doing that pushing, are what has begun to generate alarm. The Union human resource development ministry and the University Grants Commission may be seen as agents of the Hindu right. But the state government in West Bengal controlling the extension or reappointment of teachers, and thereby getting into the administrative machinery of institutions of higher learning, at the expense of academic excellence, merit and experience, is just as much a problem in a state like Bengal, irrespective of the colour of the flag flying high above the seat of power. That is where the fear of ideological control shades into the fear of the loss of autonomy.

In a modern - and dare one say, secular - democracy what is at stake are not only the rights of minority communities, but also the preservation and nurturing of the unique character of particular institutions of learning. Autonomy and independence must respect both, and the State's assistance, financial or otherwise, to these institutions must not come with explicit and implicit conditions that compromise either or both. Grant-awarding arms of the State must learn not to become regulatory and homogenizing agents that arm-twist institutions into conformity, levelling down their uniqueness and perpetuating the rule of an ungolden mean that ends up fostering mediocrity rather than excellence.