PMO reviews Ambedkarite writings in university curricula after anonymous post calls them ‘poison’

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) has sought a review of key anti-caste and feminist texts taught in Indian universities, prompting the Higher Education Department to issue an urgent call to all central universities for comments on the readings and details of student enrolment in the relevant courses. The move follows an anonymous social media post that described the works as “poison” being fed to students and accused universities of “leftist” indoctrination.

How the review was triggered

According to an official communication sent online by the Department of Higher Education on Sunday, September 27, 2026, the directive references a communication received from the PMO regarding the social media post and asks universities to respond “at the earliest.” The circular, marked “Urgent,” asks each central university to share its views on the matter and to provide enrolment figures for courses where the texts mentioned in the post are prescribed.

“All the Central Universities are requested to furnish comments on the above. Further, enrollment in the courses mentioned in the tweet may also be apprised to the Ministry [sic],” the email stated.

What the social media post claimed

The trigger for the review was a post shared on X (formerly Twitter) on September 26, 2026. The anonymous account posted a list of books purportedly assigned in Indian higher education institutions, with the opening line: “THIS IS WHAT STUDENTS ARE BEING TAUGHT AT OUR UNIVERSITIES.”

“From patriarchy to Caste Annihilation to Debrahmanising the history to Curse of Manu we are feeding young minds with a poison which our leftist cabal use a apprenticeship for grooming their future rank and file [sic],” the post alleged, followed by a thread of six additional posts. It concluded with: “So, if you wonder who created Kanhaiya Kumar or Neha Bora? It is our education system, infested with such books and anti-Hindu propaganda propagated by left-leaning teachers who are also products of the same education system. We need to break this cycle.”

The thread included an image listing 35 works — notably including the Ramayana and the Mahabharata — and singled out several texts central to anti-caste discourse and feminist scholarship. Among those named were B.R. Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste; Against the Madness of Manu: B.R. Ambedkar’s Writings on Brahminical Patriarchy compiled by Sharmila Rege; Jyotirao Phule’s Ghulamgiri; Braj Ranjan Mani’s Debrahmanising History: Dominance and Resistance in Indian Society; Gail Omvedt’s Dalits and Democratic Revolution and Towards a Historical Materialist Analysis of the Origins and Development of Caste; and Pramod Ranjan’s Mahishasur, Ek Jananayak and Mahishasur: Mithak aur Paramparayen.

Other works cited in the thread included Bharat Ke Moolnivasi aur Arya-Akraman by Swapan Kumar Biswas and Bharat Ke Moolnivasi: Rigvedic Asur aur Sharanagat Arya by S.L. Nirmohi. The post also referred to Bhikku Bodhanand as the “godfather of the anti-Brahmin thesis” within what it called “leftist academic circles.”

Who and what is under scrutiny

The texts challenged in the post span a wide range of scholarship on caste, gender, religion, and social history. They include canonical anti-caste writings by Ambedkar and Phule, feminist critiques of Brahminical patriarchy, and sociological and historical analyses by scholars such as Gail Omvedt and Braj Ranjan Mani. Works exploring myth, tradition, and indigenous narratives, such as those on Mahishasur, were also listed.

Beyond the named authors in the thread, the accompanying image reportedly included works by E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar), historian R.S. Sharma, Savitribai Phule, Uma Chakravarti, Suvira Jaiswal, Aloka Parasher, Shireen Ratnagar, G. Aloysius, and Anupama Rao. Many of these texts, the post said, are prescribed readings at prominent institutions including Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the Central University of Punjab, the University of Delhi, and Asutosh College affiliated with the University of Calcutta.

Scholarly leanings and the left

While the post framed the reading lists as part of a “leftist” academic agenda, several of the scholars and texts it named are not typically characterised as left-leaning. In fact, a number of them have explicitly critiqued India’s traditional left politics from the vantage points of caste and gender, challenging class-reductionist approaches and arguing for a more expansive analysis of power and hierarchy in Indian society.

Reactions from the academic community

Writer and academic Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd, whose books — including the influential Why I Am Not a Hindu — figured among the 35 readings listed in the post, strongly criticised the review and its implications.

“Ambedkarism was always opposed to the leftist idea of class war. If the PMO stands for opposing Phule, Ambedkar being taught, then it stands against SC/ST/OBCs when the PM himself is an OBC and the President is ST. If the PMO stands for Patriarchy and Manudharma, then it is against man-woman equality,” Shepherd said.

He also questioned the propriety of the PMO intervening in matters of university curricula, contending that such decisions fall under the purview of the Department of Higher Education or the University Grants Commission (UGC), not the Prime Minister’s Office.

Autonomy and oversight

The Department of Higher Education’s urgent call for feedback — coupled with the request for course enrolment data — has raised concerns within sections of the academic community about the implications for institutional autonomy and academic freedom. Universities typically design syllabi through departmental boards and academic councils, with oversight from statutory bodies such as the UGC. The involvement of the PMO, as indicated in the department’s communication, has prompted questions about the appropriate channels for curriculum review and the criteria by which texts are assessed or deemed controversial.

Next steps

As of now, the department has asked central universities to submit their comments and relevant enrolment details “at the earliest.” There was no immediate clarity on the timeline for the review, whether additional institutions beyond central universities will be consulted, or what actions might follow once responses are received. There has also been no public statement from the PMO on the scope and purpose of the exercise.

Why it matters

The list at the centre of the controversy includes cornerstone texts for courses on caste, gender, and Indian social history, many of which are foundational to contemporary debates on inequality, rights, and representation. Any official move to question or restrict their presence in university syllabi could have broad implications for pedagogy, research, and public discourse on social justice in India.

For now, universities await further instructions as they prepare to submit their comments and data. The outcome of the review will be closely watched by students, faculty, and policy-makers amid an ongoing national conversation about academic freedom, ideological pluralism, and the role of the state in higher education.