How Modi government remains silent as an absentee VC destroys a Central University in Assam

Tezpur University was imagined as one of independent India’s most symbolic educational institutions, born out of the Assam Accord and intended to embody the region’s aspirations for both academic excellence and political reassurance. Yet today, the Central University stands paralysed by an extraordinary campus uprising that has lasted months, hollowing out its academic life and leaving a vacuum at the top. At the centre of this crisis is a vice-chancellor whose controversial appointment, erratic governance, and prolonged absence have collectively driven the university into a state of institutional collapse. Equally striking is the silence from New Delhi, the appointing authority for central universities and the only body empowered to intervene decisively, whose refusal to act has bewildered students, faculty, and observers alike. For many, the crisis is no longer just about a failed administrator. It is about a system that allowed the failure to metastasise unchecked.

When Professor Shambhu Nath Singh took charge as Vice-Chancellor on April 4, 2023, concerns about his past—removed as Patna University VC in 2012 under clouded circumstances—did not translate into scrutiny from the Union government. Within months, however, Tezpur University was engulfed by allegations that pointed to a breakdown of academic integrity. 

In August 2023, Tezpur University’s Education Department became the centre of an alleged recruitment manipulation that later fuelled major faculty protests. The shortlist for an Associate Professor post, published on August 18 with 21 eligible candidates, was abruptly revised on August 24, just a day before interviews, to include Akhilesh Kumar, who had not met the required criteria initially. According to senior faculty members, Vice-Chancellor Shambhu Nath Singh pressured the department head, Prof. Nilratan Roy, and the Dean, Prof. Raja Rafiul Haque, to insert Kumar’s name despite the screening committee’s decision to reject him. Roy has since stated that Kumar failed to meet UGC eligibility norms, and colleagues recall that his interview performance was weak. Yet the VC allegedly silenced objections and ensured Kumar’s selection. Soon after, Kumar was elevated to Director of the Centre for Open and Distance Learning, an unusually high administrative post for a newly appointed faculty member. Kumar himself has acknowledged that he appealed his exclusion and was subsequently added and appointed.

 

A month later, on September 25, 2023 another controversy emerged during the hiring of an Assistant Professor in the Hindi Department. Goma Devi Sharma, who had not been shortlisted, having failed to meet essential requirements such as a translation or language diploma, was allegedly added to the list on the VC’s instruction. The Head of Department, Prof. Pramod Meena, has said that the VC not only compelled the screening committee to include her but also warned him “not to ask any question” during the interview, adding that if he objected, he “would not be allowed to stay in the university.” External experts on the interview panel were replaced with individuals believed to be close to the VC. Despite stronger candidates in the pool and Sharma’s interview being recorded as “not satisfactory,” Singh allegedly pushed through her selection. She was later granted out-of-turn benefits, including a hostel warden position and university housing. Faculty members who were aware of the irregularities say they were harassed or denied timely promotions for questioning the process. Sharma had been deemed ineligible when she applied for the same post in 2021, and an email alerting authorities to possible malpractice was sent two days before the 2023 interview, but it elicited no action.

Through 2023 and 2024, Prof. Singh’s prolonged absences from campus became a major point of contention. Between April 2023 and September 2025, he undertook 51 official trips, mostly to New Delhi, amounting to 388 days away from the university, effectively spending more than half of each month off campus. Students and faculty say this created sustained “administrative paralysis,” as crucial decisions were deferred, exam schedules and results were repeatedly delayed, and day-to-day administrative work slowed or stopped in his absence. The impact was worsened by the fact that Singh neither appointed a Pro-Vice-Chancellor nor set up any interim mechanism to ensure continuity. Each time he travelled, the university was left without an empowered head, and routine matters requiring the VC’s approval accumulated for weeks. For a long time, these frustrations remained internal, surfacing only occasionally as murmurs within departments. But as other controversies mounted in 2025, the pattern of absence began to be seen not as inconvenience but as systemic neglect.

The financial concerns that emerged in FY 2024–25 intensified these worries. The Tezpur University Teachers’ Association (TUTA) found that of a Rs 6.5-crore UGC capital grant, Rs 4.5 crore had been spent on books and e-resources in ways that appeared to violate procurement norms. Much of the spending was allegedly channelled to a handful of Delhi-based vendors, bypassing competitive tendering and flouting General Financial Rules. By mid-2025, faculty complaints had widened to include serious construction lapses in newly built hostels funded through substantial HEFA loans, buildings that developed cracks and faulty utilities soon after completion. Allegations also surfaced that the VC had created high-paying posts, such as that of a Computer Centre director, for preferred individuals, even as essential academic vacancies remained unfilled.

The crisis that engulfed Tezpur University began to surface publicly after September 19, this year, when beloved Assamese singer Zubeen Garg passed away and the state declared official mourning. While much of Assam fell silent, the university proceeded with regular classes and even held a student union election on September 21, a decision that many on campus viewed as indifferent at best and disrespectful at worst. When students requested a formal condolence meeting, the Vice-Chancellor, Prof. Shambhu Nath Singh, and his administration gave no response. Matters came to a head on the evening of September 22, when a group of grieving students confronted Singh about what they saw as the university’s callousness. Singh allegedly dismissed them, saying, “Don’t make things funny,” a remark that enraged the students. As tensions escalated, students surrounded him and demanded an apology. Instead of engaging with them, Singh abruptly left the campus—“nearly fled”, in the words of several witnesses—leaving students and staff stunned. The incident, seen as an insult both to a cultural icon and to the students’ emotions, ignited the first open revolt against his leadership.

The following day, September 23, the Sonitpur District Magistrate ordered a magisterial inquiry into the university’s conduct, noting not only the absence of any official tribute to Zubeen Garg but also the allegedly derogatory comments made by the VC toward students who organized their own memorial. The DM observed that the VC's actions “amounted to insult,” worsened by his decision to walk away without dialogue, thereby creating a volatile environment. The administration, now under public scrutiny, scrambled to announce plans for a statue of Zubeen Garg on campus and even floated the idea of conferring an honorary degree in his name. But the damage had been done. That same day, the university’s Public Relations Officer, Samaresh Barman, resigned in protest, accusing Singh of autocratic conduct and placing personal image above institutional needs. By September 24, faculty, students, and staff gathered in an unusually unified assembly to demand the VC’s immediate removal, framing the Zubeen incident as the latest example of a broader pattern of “neglect and paralysis.”

In the days that followed, the TUTA formally escalated matters by submitting a detailed memorandum to the Governor of Assam, who is also the university’s Chancellor, and to the Chief Minister. The memorandum listed a series of serious charges: financial irregularities in procurement, poor-quality infrastructure including newly built hostels riddled with cracks and faulty amenities, non-transparent award of contracts to repeat vendors, and pressure on faculty to approve work orders without proper documentation. TUTA also cited the decision to abolish the Pro-VC post and to fill senior administrative roles with favourites while key offices such as the Registrar remained vacant. The association noted that Singh’s remarks about Zubeen Garg had deepened the unrest and warranted immediate intervention. 

By late September, the crisis had escalated sufficiently for the Visitor (the President of India) and the Union Ministry of Education to constitute a formal fact-finding committee. On October 1, a three-member inquiry panel led by IIT Guwahati Director Prof. Devendra Jalihal, along with the Dibrugarh University Vice-Chancellor and a state Education Secretary, visited the campus to record statements on allegations ranging from financial misconduct to contract manipulation. Separately, the Union Ministry of Education dispatched a high-level team of officials to assess the situation.

Yet Singh remained absent and unresponsive, and by early October, the absence itself became a provocation. On October 8, 2025 16 days into the unrest, hundreds of students, joined by faculty and staff, marched across campus accusing Singh and senior officials of corruption, inefficiency, and insensitivity. That evening, they burned an effigy featuring the VC and four of his close associates: the IQAC Director, the Dean of the School of Engineering, the Executive Engineer, and the Finance Officer. Students described the act as symbolic, meant to “cleanse” the university of its troubles. They vowed to continue peaceful protests until transparency and integrity were restored. The anger was sharpened by the belief that Singh had effectively gone “missing,” with no communication for the third consecutive week. The same week saw legal escalation: TUTA President Prof. Kusum K. Bania filed an FIR against Ramakrishna Mathe, the VC-appointed Computer Centre Director, accusing him of criminal trespass, cheating, impersonation, and IT Act violations for allegedly accessing university systems remotely and acting without authorization.

The administration continued to unravel. On October 16, Acting Registrar Pritam Deb resigned, and his resignation was swiftly accepted by the acting Vice-Chancellor (the senior-most professor, since Singh remained missing). His departure, coming so soon after the PRO’s resignation, signalled deep internal dissent and reinforced the perception of a collapsing administrative structure. Around mid-October, Singh attempted damage control from afar by issuing an open letter calling for “sincere and respectful dialogue,” acknowledging that the period had been “personally challenging,” and promising not to penalize protesters. He urged unity and spoke of reconciliation, even praising the Assam government and the Ministry of Education for their efforts. But the message was met with outright rejection. Students and faculty derided it as insincere, evasive, and detached from the realities on campus, noting that it did nothing to address the allegations of corruption, mismanagement, or absenteeism. The protests continued unabated.

On October 18, media reports revealed detailed travel records that struck at the heart of the students’ grievances: Singh had taken 51 official trips totalling 388 days away from campus in just two and a half years, an average of 16 days per month. One trip lasted 22 days. For many, this data crystallized their experience of “neglect and paralysis,” and the revelation that Singh had not returned since the Zubeen incident intensified calls for his removal. An Acting VC, Prof. Raja R. Haque, was now effectively running the university, highlighting that Singh had withdrawn entirely from campus affairs. Meanwhile, despite being tasked to report within a week, neither the Governor’s fact-finding committee nor the district magistrate released their findings, fuelling frustration as October drew to a close.

By early November, the movement entered its second month. TUTA highlighted other anomalies: the unexplained non-establishment of the announced Bir Lachit Borphukan Defence Studies Centre, arbitrary extensions of key administrative tenures, delayed and denied payments to contractual workers, and abrupt terminations that constituted “mental harassment.” The breadth of grievances made clear that the unrest had grown far beyond the Zubeen incident; it was now a rejection of the VC’s entire administrative regime.

On November 5, a fresh media exposé revived the recruitment scandal in the Hindi Department from 2023, detailing alleged manipulation and pressure in selecting an ineligible candidate. The timing of this report, in the midst of campus-wide agitation, reinforced the protesters’ belief that Singh’s tenure was riddled with rule-bending and favouritism. By mid-November, the movement had evolved into a campus-wide coalition. At a press conference on November 17 in Guwahati, students described how academic life had collapsed—exams postponed, results delayed, certificates unavailable—and noted the hardships of daily campus life, from fees for open-source e-materials to broken equipment, deteriorating hostels, and even shortages of basic medicines.

On November 25, the 66th day of the unrest, a new collective called the Tezpur University United Forum (TUUF) was formed, bringing students, teachers, and staff under one platform. They announced that they had met with Vineet Joshi, Secretary of Higher Education, urging him to release the two inquiry reports. Joshi reportedly assured them of action within “2–3 days,” but as the week passed without any movement, frustration deepened. TUUF added new allegations: misuse of central hiring schemes such as PM Rozgar Yojana, and the illegal appointment of Ramkrishna Mathe as Computer Centre Director on a high salary despite his prolonged absence and unauthorized access to sensitive systems like email servers and CCTV. By then, Singh had been missing from campus for more than two months, and the forum demanded his immediate suspension and a judicial probe. Faculty members openly questioned New Delhi’s silence: “Why is Delhi not responding? 

With no intervention forthcoming, the campus moved into a more drastic phase. On November 27, the university community imposed a complete lockdown. Students, joined by teachers and staff, locked the gates, halted all academic and administrative functions, and declared that the shutdown would continue indefinitely until their demands were met. Their four conditions were clear: immediate suspension or removal of VC Singh; the physical presence of the Finance Officer to answer financial questions; the physical presence of the Executive Engineer to address construction lapses; and urgent intervention by the Ministry of Education. The disappearance of the VC became a rallying cry, with student leaders saying, “If he was innocent, he wouldn’t have run.”

The next night, November 28, anger peaked. Students burned effigies of Singh, the Finance Officer, and the Executive Engineer, chanting for their removal and calling for strict action against corruption. By November 30, the turmoil reached the state legislature. Opposition leaders in the Assam Assembly described the situation as “alarming and volatile,” criticizing the administration for ignoring public sentiment during state mourning and urging intervention. When the Speaker refused to admit the discussion on the grounds that Tezpur University was a Central institution, Opposition MLAs staged a walkout. Back on campus, stakeholders reiterated that new evidence had been submitted to authorities and warned that allowing Singh to remain VC in name continued to undermine institutional integrity. They again demanded the release of the inquiry reports and action from Delhi.

As of December 1, 2025, nearly two months into the revolt, Tezpur University remains paralyzed. Singh has not set foot on campus since September 22, and students, faculty, and staff refer to him as “in hiding” or “absconding.” 

India Today NE has reached out to Shambhu Nath Singh with a set of 25 questions regarding these allegations. A response has not yet been received.

What makes the crisis at Tezpur University especially troubling is not merely the conduct of one controversial administrator but the systemic failure of oversight that allowed the situation to deteriorate to an unprecedented standoff. A once-proud Central University now stands still, awaiting decisive intervention to curb the damage and restore its academic and moral integrity. The questions that now circulate across Assam’s academic circles are blunt: Why has the Ministry of Education remained a silent spectator? Why have inquiry reports not been made public? And why has a Central University, a national institution funded by the Union government, been left to fend for itself as it reaches the brink of dysfunction?

As the unrest stretches into its third month, the students, teachers, and staff waiting for relief are not just demanding the removal of one vice-chancellor; they are demanding that the system meant to protect the integrity of Central Universities finally do its job. Until then, Tezpur University remains a campus suspended between anger and uncertainty.