SOL prof’s ‘objectionable’ study material on Ambedkar, Manusmriti, caste sparks disciplinary action at DU SOL

New Delhi: A Delhi University faculty member facing major penalty proceedings over a study material on B R Ambedkar, Manusmriti and caste debates has pushed back — turning the case into a wider flashpoint over academic freedom and alleged institutional bias at School of Open Learning (SOL). However, an SOL official has alleged that the faculty member’s self-learning material (SLM) contains objectionable remarks on women and inappropriate references to Ambedkar, apart from other sensitive issues. An inquiry was initiated over allegations that assistant professor Saripalli V Ravikiran’s SLMs contained inaccuracies, bias, inappropriate or controversial content that did not conform to syllabus guidelines and academic standards. Ravikiran has questioned the integrity of the inquiry process, alleging “serious procedural lapses”. A probe panel has held him guilty of misconduct, citing “inaccuracies, biases, and some serious… inappropriate messages” in the material prepared for political science courses. The findings flagged portions dealing with caste and untouchability and references, such as consumption of beef, as controversial and not in line with expectations. In his response to the April 1 show cause notice, Ravikiran “categorically denied the findings” that his “conduct constitutes ‘gross misconduct’ or ‘negligence’”. He argued that Ambedkar’s critique of caste hierarchies and discussions around Manusmriti are integral to political science pedagogy and cannot be treated as violations, merely for engaging with sensitive themes. However, the SOL official claimed that the content included “deeply objectionable” statements about women, “portraying them as deceitful, overly materialistic and morally weak”. The official said, “These are not isolated lines; an entire section reflects this thinking. This is also about women’s rights. The kind of language used reflects a problematic mindset towards women.” The official added, “Ravikiran also used inappropriate language while referring to Ambedkar, including terms like ‘militant’, which is not acceptable in an academic context. The curriculum requires teaching Ambedkar in the context of caste, but instead there was disproportionate focus on Manusmriti and controversial claims, which could create division. Also, there were issues in a chapter on the Constitution and Gandhi, where the balance of content was questionable.” The official alleged that Ravikiran claimed he did not know Hindi after concerns were flagged about the study material, asserting this was incorrect as he had studied the language till Class X and declared his proficiency in Hindi in official forms. Ravikiran voluntarily reviewed the material, marked it “approved for printing,” and raised no objections at that time, the official added. The case has triggered concerns among sections of the academic community over whether engagement with politically and socially contested subjects is being subjected to administrative scrutiny. A representation by Democratic Teachers’ Front to the vice-chancellor alleged that the references to Ambedkar were presented by the director in the Academic Council meeting “without providing adequate context”, leading to a “misleading presentation” before university bodies. Ravikiran has claimed that the committee was reconstituted midway, and that he was denied a fair opportunity to present his case or revise the material. The outcome, he has argued, appeared “predetermined”, with no formal academic review mechanism or revision window before the punitive action. Records show that after initial hearings, the inquiry panel was altered, and the final committee later concluded that the charges were proved “beyond doubt”, raising questions over procedural continuity. Beyond the academic dispute, Ravikiran has alleged institutional bias, claiming his probation was extended without clear reasons, increments withheld and professional roles curtailed. He has described these as signs of “systemic marginalisation”. The teachers’ body has also flagged a “deteriorating work environment… marked by surveillance, intimidation, and threats”.