The Long March Into Our Campuses: Why The TISS Incident Demands Urgent Reckoning

शहीदों की चिताओं पर जुड़ेंगे हर बरस मेले..
वतन पर मरनेवालों का यही बाक़ी निशाँ होगा..

These eternal lines, penned by Jagadamba Prasad Mishra ‘Hitaishi’ in 1916, were a clarion call for Indian revolutionaries to join the national movement. They have inspired generations of Indians to seek loftier causes beyond their immediate material existence. These verses speak volumes about how martyrdom moves masses, stirs sentiments, and propels individuals to act beyond their perceived limits.

The Naxalite Left, particularly its intellectual vanguard, has long lived in anachronism and continued irrelevance. Marxism, ironically, applies to everyone but themselves, and while Marx referred to the intelligentsia as parasites, we are now asked to treat these leftist intellectuals as visionaries.

Their movement, being structurally anti-tradition, is incapable of creating its own cultural legacy. Hence, they resort to appropriating larger socio-cultural themes of nationhood and civilisation.

This appropriation is evident in the new Naxal quest for the “invention of martyrs,” recognising the mass appeal of nationalism. The recent sanctification of Stan Swami as a martyr is a perfect example of this process.

Indeed, while only dead Naxalism is good Naxalism, a dead Naxalite may inflict more damage than a living one. What transpired at the TISS Mumbai campus on 13 October 2025 must be viewed in this light.

The FIR against students of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, for commemorating the death anniversary of G. N. Saibaba and raising slogans in support of Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid is not a mere legal footnote. It is a flashing red light. It signals a deeper ideological infiltration into our academic institutions, one that has been decades in the making.

The Ideological Capture of Academia

Christopher Rufo, a prominent critic of radical ideologies in public institutions and author of America’s Cultural Revolution (2023), describes this phenomenon as the “long march through the institutions.”

He writes:

“The long march through our institutions, begun a half-century ago, has now proved largely successful. Revolutionary ideas of the ’60s have been repackaged, repurposed, and injected into American life at the institutional level.”

This framework applies disturbingly well to the Indian context. What began as intellectual dissent has, in some quarters, morphed into ideological indoctrination. Campuses once known for rigorous debate now echo with slogans that glorify convicted radicals and vilify the State.

In fact, one may argue that India’s urban Naxalism and America’s cultural revolution are consanguine—both born from the failure of Marxist claims of historical inevitability. They substitute class consciousness with middle-class intellectual activism. There is so much ideological heresy in new Marxists that one might surmise Marx is continuously turning over in his grave.

What we consider a new phenomenon, urban Naxalism, is as old as Naxalism itself. V. S. Naipaul, in India: A Wounded Civilization (1977), observed:

“But the movement lasted long enough to engage the sympathies of young people at the universities. Many gave up their studies and became Naxalites, to the despair of their parents. Many were killed; many are still in jail. And now that the movement is dead, it is mainly in cities that people remember it. They do not talk about it often; but when they do, they speak of it as a middle-class – rather than a peasant – tragedy. One man put it high: he said that in the Naxalite movement India had lost the best of a whole generation, the most educated and idealistic of its young people.”

Professors or Propagandists?

The role of faculty in this ideological drift cannot be ignored. Indian academia, largely situated within the higher middle classes, recollects Naxalism through the lens of its own corporate-bureaucratic interest, protecting their turf in the prestige economy from the onslaught of performance and social utility. Using young idealist students to further personal agendas is an essential part of this corrupt equilibrium.

Allegations suggest that some professors go beyond academic engagement, offering students access to drugs, alcohol, and off-campus spaces for grooming. This is not mentorship; it is manipulation. It exploits youthful idealism and channels it towards anti-state activism.

Once upon a time, we called our teachers Acharya. Today, one wonders whether any sane parent would want their child to emulate their university professors.

Romanticising Rebellion

Romanticisation of rebellion is one of the core gospels of the new Left. When students gather to honour such figures without permission, it sends a chilling message: that extremism is not just tolerated, but celebrated. The slogans raised in support of Imam and Khalid, both facing serious charges, further underscore the normalisation of radicalism.

This is not academic freedom. It is ideological freelancing that undermines the very fabric of democratic society.

Rights and Revolutionary Hypocrisy

Defenders of these activities will cry foul, invoking rights enshrined in the Constitution. But they will not tell you that Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism have no place for rights within their own frameworks. Just as radical Islamists demand multicultural rights in liberal democracies while enforcing Sharia unquestioningly in Muslim-majority nations, these leftists invoke rights only in liberal states. Try claiming rights under Mao or Stalin.

G. N. Saibaba, often portrayed as a rights activist, is not ultimately advocating for constitutional entitlements. He is engaged in a Gramscian “war of position”, overloading and vilifying the State with unreasonable demands to erode its legitimacy and expedite violent revolution, the ultimate Maoist dream.

They have misled the masses who hold immense faith in the Indian Constitution by masquerading as champions of constitutional rights, while actively weakening the Constitution and its institutions from within, a long-stated goal of Indian Communists.

Indian constitutionalists must broaden their horizons. While Granville Austin rightly argued that the Constitution institutionalises a social revolution, Uday Mehta’s insight that Thomas Hobbes could be seen as its intellectual father is equally valid. Hobbes believed that when society is divisive, politics must be unifying. The State must prevail over violent, fissiparous, and secessionist tendencies with full force.

We have rights because we live in a State. If we sharpen our rights to the point that the State is stabbed to death, there will be no one left to enforce or protect those rights. That would lead to a war of all against all.

India’s founding fathers understood this very well. They were intelligent, practical men of prudence, thankfully not tenured university professors. This explains the reasonable restrictions on our fundamental rights, which have served us well in securing national unity since independence.

It is imperative that the judiciary and legal fraternity do not lose sight of the context behind these constitutional provisions. Law and justice must bring harmony to society, not serve as ideological tools for a microscopic minority.

What Is to Be Done(!)

Institutional Oversight: Universities must enforce strict protocols for events, especially those with political undertones.

Faculty Accountability: Professors who cross ethical lines must face disciplinary action.

Student Awareness: Students must be educated about the difference between dissent and destabilisation.

Legal Vigilance: Law enforcement must act swiftly against unlawful assemblies and incitement.

The TISS incident is not an isolated case. It is a symptom of a deeper malaise, a culture where rebellion is romanticised and the State is demonised. If we do not reclaim our campuses as spaces of constructive dialogue, we risk losing them to ideological extremism.