The importance of having Humanities and Social Sciences departments in technological institutes is more relevant today than ever before. Every advancement in today’s world directly affects people, as evident with recent developments like artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and robotics.
Published May 21, 2025 | 12:00 PM ⚊ Updated May 21, 2025 | 12:00 PM
The interaction between students and teachers is privileged communication where any topic, even challenging or controversial ones, can be discussed to expand understanding. (Representative Image/iStock)
Synopsis: Anonymous right-wingers in India, in their relentless pursuit of thrusting their misadventure towards Humanities and Social Sciences, are inadvertently highlighting why our technological institutions need to become more socially relevant.
In an earlier article, I discussed the diminishing importance of social science disciplines in Indian research settings. I highlighted that Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) research has taken the front seat while Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) are treated with apathy.
This trend is particularly visible on social media, where faceless and nameless individuals with right-wing ideologies predominantly express hatred toward HSS departments in the Indian Institutes of Technology. Now, these anonymous individuals have started publishing similar propaganda against social sciences in magazines as well.
In our country, every individual has the right to express their thoughts. However, writing for social media platforms is different from writing for magazines. Any portal with editorial responsibility should aspire to maintain an environment that encourages argument and counter-argument based on evidence rather than mere rhetoric and slander. Arguments should always be based on premises supported by evidence rather than anecdotes laced with overt motives.
Those who criticise higher education institutions (HEIs) for hosting HSS departments may not fully understand their importance, even if they received a tertiary education at a college or university. The interaction between students and teachers in a classroom is privileged communication where any topic, even challenging or controversial ones, can be discussed to expand understanding.
This freedom from external censorship, balanced with scholarly responsibility, forms the bedrock of knowledge acquisition, expansion, and exploration. Such academic freedom also creates vital opportunities for students to critically examine and potentially unlearn biases they may have developed throughout their educational journey. This principle applies equally to research that students undertake for their postgraduate dissertations or PhD theses.
The importance of having HSS departments in technological institutes is more relevant today than ever before. Every advancement in today’s world directly affects people, as evident in recent developments like artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and robotics. Therefore, there appears to be an attempt, primarily from right-leaning ideological ecosystems, to undermine the importance of HSS.
Labelling scholars in HSS departments as “radical intellectuals” is often ill-motivated. In reality, radical intellectuals play a vital role in higher education by challenging conventional wisdom, introducing innovative frameworks, and fostering critical inquiry.
Rather than undermining academia, they help expand its intellectual horizons. One should understand the difference between intellectual radicalism and radicalisation. Also, claims that the programmes offered in these departments follow outdated pedagogy are unsubstantiated.
One of the more blatant allegations made is that such departments are breeding grounds for leftists, propagating Marxist and socialist ideologies. Critics further claim that the courses are based on “harmful psychoanalysis, ghosts, and ghouls.”
While some HSS scholars engage with Marxist theory, this represents just one approach within a diverse intellectual landscape. Far from being ideological echo chambers, HSS departments across Indian and global institutions offer curricula spanning multiple perspectives—from liberalism and behavioural economics to feminism and post-colonial thought.
Courses undergo peer review and are approved through academic councils, ensuring methodological and theoretical diversity. Moreover, to label complex theoretical frameworks like Marxism as “harmful” or “ghost-based” is to grossly misrepresent the academic purpose of engaging with them. These frameworks are taught not as dogma but as critical tools to interrogate history, culture, politics, and society.
Further, they mischaracterise student organisations such as Ambedkar-Phule circles, often demonstrating a limited understanding of both social science scholarship and the valuable role these movements play in higher educational settings. Rather than spreading propaganda or hatred, these student organisations work to ensure equitable access and support for students from historically marginalised backgrounds within technological institutions.
Their advocacy is grounded in recognising systemic barriers that continue to affect educational opportunities and campus experiences. By creating spaces where underrepresented students can find community and support, these circles contribute to making technological institutions more inclusive while upholding principles of social justice that figures like Ambedkar and Phule championed. Their work complements rather than undermines the technical focus of these institutions by ensuring talented students from all backgrounds can fully participate and succeed.
Like STEM disciplines, social sciences have their scientific rigour, and it is childish for someone to call these programmes less rigorous. This criticism often stems from a STEM superiority complex. It is undeniable that entering IITs for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes is highly competitive, with JEE and GATE examinations.
However, these examinations never offer a level playing field for students from socially and truly economically marginalised backgrounds (not those whose family income is ₹8 lakh per annum).
Critics term these non-level playing fields, merely multiple-choice based examinations, as “rigorous entrance exams.” In this process, they also label those who secure postgraduate admission in HSS departments through entrance exams as gaining “back door entry.”
In their effort to uphold the superiority of STEM disciplines, they trivialise the importance of social sciences. There are observable parallels between certain rhetorical strategies used by right-wing groups in India and conservative Republican messaging in the United States.
However, when examining claims about political misperceptions across the ideological spectrum, it is important to rely on empirical evidence rather than broad generalisations. Public opinion polls suggest that American conservatives are prone to political misperceptions, typically claiming belief in more falsehoods than left-leaning liberals. Some scholars further argue that this pattern is evidence that conservatives are more biased than liberals.
These propagandists become conspiracy theorists when they draw inferences about international networks supposedly promoting scholars in HSS departments through grants and promotions. It is a well-known fact that research funding for HSS departments is already very low compared to STEM disciplines. Most funding comes from Indian agencies, and receipt of foreign funds is under the scrutiny of institutional leadership and existing government regulations.
Finally, they contend that HSS departments have the potential for valuable contributions to cultural research and scientific religious deliberation from scholarly perspectives. However, the underlying concern appears to be that these departments maintain academic independence rather than lending institutional legitimacy to particular ideological narratives about populist discourse, which aligns with the political ideology in power.
The tension stems not from HSS departments failing in their academic mission, but rather from their commitment to methodological rigour and evidence-based inquiry when examining cultural and historical claims. They maintain a clear distinction between studying cultural heritage using scholarly methods and uncritically endorsing specific interpretations of tradition, such as claims that drinking cow urine remedies clinical conditions. This scholarly independence, while essential to academic integrity, often creates friction with those who seek institutional validation for particular cultural or religious perspectives.
The HSS remain vital components of a complete education, especially in technological institutions where their perspectives can help guide ethical and human-centred technological development. Rather than diminishing their importance, we should recognise their essential contribution to creating well-rounded professionals capable of addressing the complex challenges of our time. By enhancing the role of HSS in technological institutions, we can cultivate leaders who innovate technically and drive meaningful societal change.
The goal should be to develop professionals who ask not only “Can we build it?” but also “Should we build it?” and “Who benefits from what we build?” Therefore, these anonymous, nameless, and faceless right-wingers in India, in their relentless pursuit of thrusting their misadventure towards HSS, are inadvertently highlighting why our technological institutions need to become more socially relevant.
(Shankar Prakash is a social and behavioural science researcher. He posts on X as @ENV_ASP. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
