The withdrawal of an invitation to actor and public intellectual Naseeruddin Shah by the University of Mumbai is not an isolated incident. Instead, it is the emergence of new defining characteristics and a troubling transformation underway within Indian universities. The institutions of higher learning that were once meant to serve as spaces for critical inquiry, debate, and dissent are increasingly being reshaped into promotional palaces for a new form of institutionalised “cancel culture,” one that is sanctioned by university administrations and reinforced by the political establishment.The Mumbai University episode must be seen alongside a series of incidents from the past decade. The recent Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, conference titled ‘Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race’ faced immense political pressure and administrative hostility, leading to the initiation of a fact-finding committee to probe the intent of discussing caste and race.Similarly, Delhi University’s denial of permission for sociologist Nandini Sundar’s seminar series, titled ‘Land, Property and Democratic Rights,’ exposed how pedagogical censorship and gatekeeping have become a routine mechanism for controlling critical scholarship. These are not periodic peculiarities but part of an expanding pattern in which academic freedom is not merely compromised but actively undermined, through a tacit or explicit nexus between university leadership and political power.Academic freedom is not an abstract ideal; it is fundamental to the everyday functioning of a university. Philosopher Judith Butler, in Academic Freedom and the Critical Task of the University, defines “academic freedom as both a right and an obligation. It allows faculty to pursue lines of research and modes of thought without interference from government or other external authorities. It gives faculty rights of participation in the making of curricula and the governance of the university.”Her framing allows us to consider the normative parameters of academic freedom, which Indian universities fall far short of. The larger academic decisions regarding what one can teach in the classroom and what one can read and write have been mainly dictated by the establishment and its allies within universities. When these freedoms are curtailed, the university ceases to function as a space of critical knowledge production and instead becomes an extension of ideological apparatus.Based on studies of academic freedom in Western universities, including the US, the UK, and Canada, legal scholar Amy T. Y. Lai, in her work In Defense of Free Speech in Universities: A Study of Three Jurisdictions, argues that universities are among the last fortresses against authoritarianism. The erosion of free speech within universities, she warns, signals a death knell for democracy itself. In the Indian context, this warning resonates every day. The democratic culture of free speech on campuses has not only been compromised but systematically replaced by the valorisation of political conformity. Academic events are increasingly characterised as “national” or “anti-national” projects, not on the basis of intellectual merit but of ideological alignment.A closer look at conferences, seminars and workshops in premier public universities such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Delhi University (DU) reveals a disturbing trend. Departments in the humanities and social sciences, once vibrant centers of discussions, are being reduced to brand ambassadors of officially sanctioned scripts. Critical perspectives on caste, gender, minority rights, nationalism, or state violence are framed as “anti-national” or “politically motivated,” while ideologically agreeable scholarship is promoted as neutral and patriotic.Funding mechanisms play a crucial role in sustaining this transformation. Major public funding bodies, such as the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR), increasingly prioritise projects and events aligned with government flagship initiatives, such as “Viksit Bharat.” Conferences or research agendas that fall outside this framework – often dismissively labelled as “critical discussions” – struggle to secure funding.The concern here is not just about funding priorities. It also raises fundamental questions about the kind of intellectual and civic values being cultivated among students and researchers. When critical inquiry is penalised, universities fail in their responsibility to nurture independent thinkers capable of engaging with complex social questions. Ironically, this narrowing of intellectual space also harms governance itself.Policies that go unexamined and unchallenged are less likely to be effective, inclusive, or sustainable. Academic freedom does not merely produce critique; it strengthens policy perspectives and deepens democratic engagement.Therefore, what we are witnessing now is not simply the censorship of academic events and cancellation of individual speakers, but a systematic reconfiguration of the university spaces themselves. The question is no longer whether academic freedom is under threat, but whether universities can reclaim their role as democratic institutions committed to rationality, plurality, and dissent.As members of a critical intellectual tradition, we must think that if universities surrender this role, the consequences will extend far beyond campus walls. A democracy deprived of critical universities risks producing citizens without civic consciousness and a nation without a scientific temperament. In that sense, the struggle for academic freedom is inseparable from the struggle for democracy itself.Vidyasagar Sharma is a DPhil Candidate at the Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, Germany.This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.