Freedom granted to youth without accountability has long been a hidden agenda of left-leaning student groups. Any form of disciplinary action is quickly labelled as anti-student and repackaged as an infringement on student rights—an old, familiar tactic from the Communist playbook. A recent case in point is the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit (SSUS), Kalady, where student protests erupted after the administration sought police assistance to control late-night entry and the presence of non-university individuals on campus. SFI (Student Federation of India) activists opposed the move, citing concerns over freedom of movement and expression within the campus.
The university authorities had received multiple complaints regarding non-students, including alleged drug peddlers, entering the campus during late-night hours. There were also reports of non-students occupying hostel rooms and the presence of women on campus well past midnight. In response, the university issued orders to monitor entry and exit through the gates after 11 PM and to restrict unauthorised vehicles.
In view of these developments, the university reached out to the local police department for support. A letter was sent by the university’s Registrar to the Ernakulam District Police Chief, requesting protection for implementing resolutions passed on July 1st and 8th . The Registrar sought police assistance to ensure enforcement of measures aimed at restoring order and discipline, including the closure of the main and hostel gates at 11 PM.
The Registrar also clarified that the concerns raised by students regarding the new rules had been addressed, yet protests continued. The continued agitation, he argued, enables drug mafias to operate freely within the campus. What makes this situation particularly intriguing is that the Registrar’s letter is based on decisions made by the University Syndicate, which is controlled by the CPI(M). Notably, K.S. Arunkumar, a CPI(M) Ernakulam district secretariat member, is reported to be one of its key figures. This has led many neutral observers to question why SFI is opposing policies devised by its own senior leadership.
The Syndicate had formed a sub-committee which, on 1st July, recommended these security measures. Following backlash from the SFI, the authorities held discussions with faculty, non-teaching staff, and student representatives. As a result, a revised order was issued, modifying three key points to accommodate concerns.
According to the amended guidelines, the university’s main gate and hostel gates are to be closed at 11 PM, and no entry will be permitted thereafter. However, the letter to the police notes that some students, allegedly supported by outsiders, are obstructing implementation. They gather at the gates, defy orders, and continue to allow unauthorised persons—including former students—to reside in hostel rooms illegally. The Registrar stressed that this agitation is unwarranted and jeopardises campus security. The students, he asserted, must comply with university regulations.
Since the Registrar’s letter was made public, the SFI has intensified its campaign against Vice-Chancellor Dr Geetakumari and also targeted the ABVP. The language used in wall posters against the female Vice-Chancellor has reportedly been abusive. SFI activists are demanding a rollback of the restrictions, again invoking concerns over freedom of movement and expression. In response, the university has issued show-cause notices to 22 students—mostly SFI members—for participating in the protests.
In a bizarre twist, SFI has now demanded that the ABVP apologise to the students. This has left many puzzled, as the orders in question were not issued by ABVP, but by a Syndicate composed largely of CPI(M) members.
Reports from the campus suggest that several vehicles, including luxury cars, arrive during late-night hours, and many former students continue to spend nights in the hostel. There are also indications of young women being present on campus well beyond permitted hours.
Clearly, the SFI’s demand amounts to advocating a ‘free-for-all’ atmosphere, which the CPI(M)-dominated Syndicate is unwilling to endorse. What has emerged now is an ironic and public confrontation between SFI and their ideological patrons in the CPI(M). Yet, it is the sincere and academically inclined students who suffer in the crossfire. Many now believe this is nothing more than a friendly sparring match between the CPI(M) and SFI—staged at the cost of peace and academic discipline in the university.
Critics argue that university spaces should foster the right and conducive atmosphere to educate and shape young minds for the betterment of society. However, pushing students towards unaccountability and drug abuse appears to be part of a larger conspiracy—one that seeks to subvert the energies of the nation’s youth through romanticised slogans of freedom that rarely come with responsibility. When campuses like Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit are specifically targeted, it is no longer mere activism; it signals a deeper agenda to destabilise young minds, potentially driven by the influence of drug cartels.
Comments