A university professor has been suspended after an examination paper set by him included a question referring to “atrocities against Muslims”, triggering a political storm, student protests and a formal inquiry into academic conduct and freedom on campus.The controversy erupted after postgraduate students flagged the question, which appeared in a political science examination and asked candidates to critically analyse whether violence and discrimination against Muslims could be understood as a structural feature of majoritarian politics. Images of the question paper circulated widely on social media, drawing sharp reactions from political groups, alumni associations and sections of the academic community.
The university administration moved swiftly, placing the professor under suspension pending an internal inquiry. In a statement, the institution said the decision was taken to ensure that “the academic evaluation process remains free from controversy” and to allow a fair examination of whether established guidelines on assessment and neutrality had been breached.
The professor, a senior faculty member with decades of teaching experience, has denied any wrongdoing. In a written response submitted to the university, he argued that the question was grounded in established scholarship, peer-reviewed literature and classroom discussions that had taken place throughout the semester. He maintained that the purpose of the question was to encourage critical engagement with contemporary political debates, not to promote or endorse any particular viewpoint.
The episode has divided opinion across campuses nationwide. Student groups affiliated with ruling-party organisations accused the professor of introducing ideological bias into examinations and politicising the classroom. They claimed that the wording of the question amounted to an unsubstantiated allegation against the state and society, and demanded disciplinary action beyond suspension.
Conversely, several student unions and teachers’ associations described the action against the professor as disproportionate and chilling. They argued that social science disciplines, by their nature, examine power, violence and exclusion, and that penalising faculty for framing such questions risks narrowing academic inquiry. A group of academics from multiple universities issued a joint appeal urging the administration to protect scholarly autonomy while following due process.
Legal experts note that universities operate under regulatory frameworks that grant autonomy over curriculum and assessment, while also imposing codes of conduct for faculty. Examination questions are typically expected to reflect course content, avoid inflammatory language and allow students to respond using evidence-based arguments. Whether the phrase “atrocities against Muslims” crosses that threshold is likely to be central to the inquiry.
Officials familiar with the proceedings said the internal panel will examine the syllabus, recommended readings, previous examination patterns and moderation procedures. The panel is also expected to assess whether the question was vetted through standard academic channels or set unilaterally. Students who appeared for the examination have been assured that their evaluation will not be adversely affected, with options including re-examination or revised marking schemes under consideration.
The issue has also revived a broader debate about shrinking space for dissent and critical scholarship in higher education. Over the past few years, several academics have faced administrative action over lectures, research projects or public statements dealing with religion, citizenship and minority rights. Supporters of stricter oversight argue that publicly funded institutions must remain sensitive to social harmony and avoid content that could deepen polarisation.
Those defending the professor counter that terms such as “atrocities” are not uncommon in human rights discourse and have been used in judicial observations, commission reports and academic texts. They warn that sanitising language in the name of neutrality can obscure realities that social sciences are meant to interrogate.