Central to the American tradition of expanding protections for controversial speech is a robust distrust of potential censors to make reasonable judgments about what speech should be suppressed. But the arguments for a more restrictive approach to speech often implicitly or explicitly evince much greater trust in the likely decision-makers who will be entrusted with the authority to suppress speech. Whether restricting Communist speech, antiwar speech, “hate speech,” or “disinformation,” the case for empowering some authority figure—such as campus administrators, technology company employees, or government officials—builds on an assumption that those authority figures will be motivated by good intentions and be endowed with good judgment to make reasonable distinctions between the speech that should be tolerated and the speech that should not. Such confidence would often seem to be misplaced.

India is one of the most diverse nation-states in the world. After gaining independence from Britain in 1947, it adopted a constitution that was based on pluralism, secularism, and egalitarianism. This constitutional vision guided the national education policies until very recently. The current moment in all areas of public policy is being defined by the ruling party’s agenda of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalism. In education, the hallmarks of this move have been a rewriting of history to glorify a mythohistoric version of the Hindu past and a call to engage with ancient Indian knowledge systems and traditions. Unfortunately, Hindu nationalism is creating growing rifts between the majority Hindu population and other groups, including Muslims, Christians, and Dalits (formerly known as “untouchables” or “outcastes”). The aim of this essay is to understand what is happening in Indian education and to consider ways to return to an engagement with the constitutional principles of pluralism, secularism, and egalitarianism.