The Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, Mazhar Asif, has come under criticism following his remarks at a ‘Yuva Kumbh’ programme linked to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Addressing the gathering on campus, Asif said that despite differences in religion, language, and culture, “the DNA of Mahadev resides within all Indians,” framing it as a unifying civilisational idea.
The video of his speech quickly went viral, drawing mixed reactions across political and academic circles.
The remarks sparked protests led by the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), which criticised the Vice Chancellor’s statement as “deeply unscientific” and “regressive.”
In a strongly worded response, the student body alleged that peaceful protesters were subjected to administrative action.
The group also questioned the appropriateness of hosting RSS-linked programmes on a central university campus and demanded accountability from the Vice Chancellor and authorities.
However, it is worth questioning whether the Students’ Federation of India can be viewed purely as an independent student body in such controversies. SFI is widely known as the student wing of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and its positions often align with broader Left political ideology.
This raises a legitimate debate: when SFI frames an issue as “unscientific” or leads protests on campuses, is it acting as a neutral academic voice, or as a politically affiliated organisation advancing an ideological stance?
That distinction becomes especially relevant in university spaces, where the line between student activism and political mobilisation is often blurred.
Asif Azhar, Vice-Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia at an RSS event:
“We are different geographically, culturally, socially or by belief but we all are Bhartiya because We have Mahadev’s DNA” pic.twitter.com/pIreMrmvL7
— Megh Updates 🚨™ (@MeghUpdates) April 30, 2026
BJP defends statement as ‘Civilisational metaphor’
Backing the Vice Chancellor, senior BJP leader Amit Malviya said critics were misinterpreting the statement by viewing it through a purely scientific lens.
He argued that such expressions should be understood as “civilisational metaphors” reflecting shared ancestry and cultural continuity rather than literal biological claims.
“India’s identity is rooted in shared narratives and collective consciousness shaped over millennia. Reducing such expressions to literal scientific claims misses the broader meaning,” Malviya said.
He further emphasised that India’s history reflects deep cultural intermingling, citing figures like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Wahiduddin Khan to argue that Indian Muslims remain an integral part of the country’s composite heritage.
Malviya also referenced Muhammad Iqbal, noting his acknowledgment of India’s shared cultural legacy.
Debate over science, identity and expression
The controversy has reignited a broader debate around the intersection of culture, identity, and scientific reasoning in public discourse.
While supporters argue that the remark symbolises unity and shared civilisational roots, the reaction from the Students’ Federation of India appears less like a principled defence of “scientific temper” and more like a predictable ideological reflex.
As the student arm of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), SFI’s selective outrage raises questions about whether its objections stem from genuine academic concern or entrenched political positioning that routinely targets certain cultural expressions while ignoring others.
As tensions persist on campus, the episode underlines not just a clash of ideas, but the increasing tendency of politically aligned student groups to frame debates in absolutist terms, leaving little room for nuanced engagement within academic spaces.
