Who does Ashoka belong to?

Dheeraj Sanghi, the newly appointed Dean of Student Affairs, informed the student body that the Governing Body mandated the revised policies on Residence Life and Disciplinary Proceedings on 12th August. The Board Trustees, a group of businessmen who regularly donate to the university, backed the updated policies. The Governing Body consists of seven business executive-founders, the Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor, and the Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Department of Education.

In other words, Dr Sanghi’s email confirmed that the policies, which many students disagree with and are being coerced into signing an undertaking, at the risk of missing an entire semester, were approved by businessmen with minimal experience in running a university.

The founders have established successful business enterprises that generate millions in revenue each year. But managing a profitable business is not the same as running a university. Founders Ashish Dhawan and Sanjeev Bikhchandani, in 2021, insisted that the Trustees and founders have “nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the university”. Mr. Dhawan, in an email exchange with The Edict, explicitly stated that, “decisions about the day-to-day activities of Ashoka are taken by the ProVC (Admin). “If requested by the administration, I and the other Trustees of Ashoka provide assistance on matters including strategy, governance, financial sustainability, fundraising and other matters”.

Email from Ashish Dhawan (Founder-Trustee, Ashoka)

A few paragraphs from the email are blurred to maintain confidentiality

Changes in the Residence Life policy seem to fall within the ambit of day-to-day operations, usually handled by the Director of the Residence Life Office. In this equation, however, the Director of Residence Life, Ms. Sahana Majumdar, is absent and key decisions have been encoded into policy in her absence. Since Ms. Rama Malik, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Administration), resigned in 2024, Ashoka has not filled the position. The administrative office responsible for such policy and inviting the Governing Board or Trustees is vacant.

If, as Mr. Bikhchandani points out, founders do not interfere with the everyday running of the university, why are they included in the Governing Body with rights to influence policy decisions?  According to section 22 of Private Universities Act of Haryana, 2006, under which Ashoka University is established, the Governing Board consists of “five persons nominated by the sponsoring body out of whom two shall be eminent educationists, one expert in management or technology from outside the university and one expert in finance nominated by the Chancellor”. While these rules are followed, it does not go amiss that many members of the Governing Body responsible to “lay down the extensive policies to be followed by the university” also have financial stakes in the institution. Doesn’t this mean that money dictates policy? Are other wings of the administration, such as the Board of Management, which includes faculty, consulted regularly on such policy matters? Dr Sanghi’s email did not clarify these questions.

It is important to remember that both Mr. Dhawan and Mr. Bikhchandani made these comments in the aftermath of Professor Pratap Bhanu Mehta’s resignation. A firewall was established between the administration and the founders, which has only been breached multiple times since then. Despite repeated instances, including controversies involving faculty, this firewall has not been strengthened. The introduction of these policies, accompanied by punitive measures, to ensure the “safety and well-being of students,” symbolizes the complete collapse of any such barrier. The founders, who once sought to create a university of free inquiry and critical thinking, are seemingly tormented by the ghosts of their own vision; so much so that they now seek to radically change the Ashokan ethos. 

For any change at the policy level or the university level, the barrier between founders and the administration needs to be upheld. As the Ashoka University Student Government has been demanding, students must be actively consulted. In 2023, Neha Sheikh (ASP ’24) -led-interim Student Government demanded an observer seat in the Board of Management. As students, we must not only seek representation in policy-making committees but also aim to ensure that faculty and university administrators constitute these committees, not business executives. Their stake in the university is money and reputation, not student culture. Universities are not corporate conglomerates that function to produce profits. Universities are centres of learning, questioning and thinking: a culture that cannot thrive in an atmosphere of fear, excessive retribution and paternalism.

Mr. Bikhchandani, in his letter to an alumnus in June this year, exemplified the founders’ stake in Ashoka. “The founders will walk away. That will mean funding will walk out the door,” he wrote. Over the past decade, there has been a consistent increase in the amount of donations and the number of founders/donors joining Ashoka. Businessmen will invest and donate large sums of money to Ashoka only if they sense stability. The headlines involving protests, which the Ashoka administration seldom supports, do not make for good investment pitches.

The new policies, those pertaining to protests, seek to punish student protestors rather than provide a safe space to express their disagreements. According to the new Residence Life policy, the administration has the right to determine the place and time of protests. The administration can also refuse permission to use a particular area for protests or demonstrations. While these rules on protests were part of Ashoka University’s Guidelines on Protecting Freedom of Expression since 2017, or even earlier, it is the first time that it has been included in the Residence Life policy.

Failure to abide by these rules may result in disciplinary actions as determined by the university's officers. The punitive action for protesting without the permission of the administration or when they refuse to allow a protest has not been outlined either in the revised Residence Life policy or the earlier guidelines. One possible explanation for enforcing these guidelines through the Residence Life Policy is that it may result in the loss of resident accommodations on campus. This provision was included in an earlier version of the policy but has since been removed. A student, wanting to protest, too, will now live in a culture of fear. Critical thinking is promoted, but its expression in terms not agreeable to the administration might have consequences. Emails asking students to limit their participation in the housekeeping staff’s strike since 28th August reflect this disagreement.

A culture of student suspensions and expulsions has also begun to dominate Ashoka. New policies on mental health lean towards sending students home, rather than creating safe spaces to address these issues on campus. It violates the Mental Health Care Act, 2017, in two ways. First, Section 23 under Chapter 5 grants the right that every person with a mental illness shall “have a right to confidentiality in respect of (their) mental health, mental healthcare, treatment and physical healthcare”. The new Residence Life Policy now mandates students “taking prescription medication for mental health to declare this to Residence Life and provide a copy of their current prescription at the beginning of every semester, or whenever their prescribed medication changes”.

Second, information regarding mental health conditions can be released to other mental health or health professionals for treatment according to Section 23(2(b)). Section 23(2) outlines certain circumstances under which this information may be released: to prevent harm or violence, to prevent a threat to life, order by a “concerned Board or the Central Authority or High Court or Supreme Court or any other statutory authority competent to do so,” or for public safety and security.

The administrators in the Residence Life Office are not mental health professionals to whom this information can be released. Analyzing according to the definitions given in Section 2 of the Act, the Residence Life Office is neither the Central nor State Mental Health Authority, Mental Health Review Board, a caregiver, nor a statutory body with rights determined by the Parliament of India. On what grounds should a student or their parents sign an undertaking declaring sensitive information about mental health?

Even though the policies have such serious issues, students run the risk of missing a whole semester of classes if they do not sign the commitment to follow the updated rules. With such punitive measures, how does Dr Sanghi claim that the new policies on mental health incorporate “concerns some parents have expressed about the mental health of their children, and how we can co-opt them to take care of the students and help them graduate on time.” If more and more students keep going home instead of finishing credit requirements, how will students graduate on time? Students are refraining from seeking any help from university resources like the Ashoka Centre for Well-being, fearing that sensitive information might be leaked; again violating Section 23 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017.

These policies are geared towards protecting the stability of donations to Ashoka University and protecting the institution from any damaging headlines. But we must remember that Ashoka University is neither a non-profit to fulfil corporate social responsibility requirements nor an investment opportunity. It is a university for students, scholars and teachers; let us not lose that ethos.

*This article was written & last updated in August 2025.