Singh invoked a video clip of Roy in which she claimed that since independence, the Indian state has waged continuous warfare against various groups — Muslims, tribal communities and religious minorities — and asserted that Pakistan had not deployed its army against its own people in comparable fashion. He said the sweeping characterisation of internal conflicts as a “colonial state perpetually at war” is inflammatory and divisive. He added that intellectuals and public figures must refrain from such claims, arguing they “pollute children’s and citizens’ minds”.
The vice-chancellor also addressed electoral dynamics, stating that many politicians exploit hateful narratives for vote gains. “Are we more to blame than the politicians who peddle hate speech?” he asked, urging that public attitudes must shift to reduce demand for divisive rhetoric.
Roy’s comments, first made years ago, have long sparked controversy. In her critique of state power, she has often framed India’s internal security operations in regions like Kashmir and the Northeast in terms of enduring conflict and minority oppression. That framework has drawn support from progressive critics and condemnation from nationalist quarters alike.
Law scholars observing the exchange describe Singh’s remarks as part of a trend in which universities and administrators increasingly police the boundaries of permissible expression. Professor Anjali Menon of a Delhi law school remarked that “universities are becoming sites of political contestation over what counts as dissent”, and cautioned that labeling speech as “hate” risks chilling legitimate critique — unless robust legal criteria are applied.
Some legal academics differentiate between speech that incites violence and strongly worded criticism of state action. They argue that to constitute punishable hate speech under Indian law, statements must directly promote hostilities or discrimination against protected groups — a threshold not clearly met in contested critiques of government. Others point out that Roy’s language may cross into generalisation and collective condemnation, which weakens the act of public argumentation.
Within Delhi University and among student bodies, reactions are expected to be marked. Advocates for free expression warn that campus audits of thought are likely to intensify in an environment where administrative authority is more forthcoming to confront dissent. Some student forums are reportedly planning to organise responses or debates on the boundaries of academic criticism and civic responsibility.
Roy has not yet issued a fresh public response to Singh’s remarks. Observers note that such exchanges often polarise public attention: those who defend Roy emphasize her status as a critical voice against majoritarian narratives; those siding with Singh argue that criticisms must not transgress into broad condemnations or exacerbate societal divisions. Meanwhile, the incident adds to a series of high-profile clashes over speech, dissent and institutional authority in India’s universities.