When external political actors enter a university to intimidate students or disrupt the academic calendar, the administrative “teeth” suddenly go blunt. This raises a fundamental question: Is campus security merely a matter of logistics, or is it a matter of selective administrative will?
The sanctity of an academic institution is predicated on a fragile ecosystem of peace and discipline. Traditionally, universities were viewed as sanctuaries for intellectual pursuit. However, in recent years, a troubling dichotomy has emerged in the management of Indian campuses. While administrations show remarkable agility in addressing physical threats like the stray dog menace, they exhibit a curious paralysis when confronted with a far more insidious challenge: the “stray human system” comprising external political provocateurs.
The Policy of Selective Agility
The management of stray animals on campus is governed by a clear legal framework. Following Supreme Court guidelines and Animal Birth Control (ABC) rules, universities often constitute specialized committees to mitigate the risks of rabies and unpredictable animal behavior. This prioritization of public safety is logically sound.
Yet, the same logic of “safety and sanctity” is rarely applied to the human elements that infiltrate campuses. When external political actors enter a university to intimidate students or disrupt the academic calendar, the administrative “teeth” usually seen during stray dog evictions suddenly go blunt. This raises a fundamental question: Is campus security merely a matter of logistics, or is it a matter of selective administrative will?
The Constitutional Shield and Its Limits
The primary hurdle cited by administrations is often the complexity of “unwanted human interference.” Unlike managing fauna, regulating human entry involves navigating the delicate balance between Constitutional rights and institutional rules. Under Article 19, every citizen enjoys the right to free movement. However, it is a settled legal principle that educational institutions are “restricted zones.”
Also Read: India’s Medical Education Crisis: Empty Seats, Falling Standards
Moreover, the administration possesses the inherent right to bar anyone who does not have an academic or administrative purpose on campus. The rot sets in when university leadership succumbs to the “vote-bank” pressure of local leaders or former student union members who view the campus as their personal fiefdom. This failure to enforce entry protocols transforms the campus into a playground for a “stray human system“—one that is more dangerous than any animal because its disruption is calculated and ideological.
Reclaiming the Proctorial Mandate
The solution does not require legislative overhaul; it requires the revival of the Proctorial Board. In most Indian universities, the Proctor’s office has become a largely ceremonial entity. To reclaim the campus, the board must move beyond mere symbolism:
Digital Fortification: Just as there is a formal “Dog Management” policy, there must be a rigorous “Visitor Management System.” Mandatory digital ID verification and biometric access are no longer luxuries; they are necessities for campus security.
Political Decoupling: A clear demarcation must be drawn between legitimate student politics and external political interference.
Institutional Accountability: If an untoward incident occurs, the accountability must rest squarely with the Proctorial Board and the Chief Security Officer.
The Cost of Inaction
We must recognise that while a stray dog may cause physical injury, a “stray human system” creates a pervasive “safety deficit” that drives away merit. When external elements are allowed to hold the campus hostage to their agendas, the reputation of the institution—built over decades—is dismantled in a matter of days.
The Kerala and Madras High Courts have previously signaled that political activities must not come at the cost of academic quality. A university is, first and foremost, a center for research and teaching. It must be a haven for the student, the teacher, and the scholar.
Conclusion
A truly secure campus offers freedom from both biological threats and external anarchy. If an administration can demonstrate the administrative muscle to control the animal population, it must apply the same “Zero Tolerance” approach to those who violate the dignity of the classroom. It is time for our universities to stop being political arenas and return to being centres of excellence. The transition requires nothing more than the willpower to enforce the rules already codified in the university handbook.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author solely. TheRise.co.in neither endorses nor is responsible for them. Reproducing this content without permission is prohibited.