Galgotias University has recently been the center of intense public discussion following an event where a robotic dog was displayed. The presentation led many to believe that the high-tech device was researched and developed right on the university campus. However, it was later revealed through various reports that the robot was actually a product manufactured in China.

In response to the growing criticism, the university administration clarified that they never officially claimed to have invented the robot. They went on to describe the public backlash as a form of organized propaganda designed to damage the institution's reputation.

Despite these official denials, there is a significant amount of evidence suggesting that Professor Neha Singh, a member of the university faculty, had explicitly claimed the robodog was built at the school. While Professor Neha and others now maintain that no such campus-origin claims were made, the situation became quite serious. According to internal sources, the controversy escalated to the point where university representatives were reportedly asked to step away from the government-organized AI Impact Summit 2026.

As the university faces this wave of skepticism, the focus has shifted toward other high-ranking officials and deans. One notable figure currently under examination is Professor Ravikant Kisana. Although he is currently the Dean of the School of Liberal Education and Languages, the recent events at Galgotias have sparked a much wider investigation into the intellectual atmosphere of the school and the specific ideological viewpoints held by its leadership.

The dean who wrote ‘Meet the Savarnas’

Professor Ravikant Kisana is a public figure who identifies himself as an Ambedkarite and an intellectual representing the OBC community. He gained significant attention for his 2025 book, titled "Meet the Savarnas: Indian Millennials Whose Mediocrity Broke Everything," and has written several articles focusing on what he identifies as “Savarna culture.”

In the introduction of his book, he characterizes elite Savarnas as people "who critique everyone and everything but never themselves." This statement was not framed as a critique of specific people or certain organizations; instead, it was presented as a fundamental trait belonging to a very large group of people.

Two specific lines from his book have caused a massive stir on social media: "Savarna marriages are inherently narcissistic" and "Savarna movements are inherently anti-democratic." The specific use of the word “inherently” stands out because it suggests that these negative qualities are a permanent part of the community’s marriages and social movements. By using this language, the analysis moves away from looking at social structures and instead suggests that these flaws are part of the group's basic nature, regardless of the situation or individual beliefs. When a social analysis assigns moral failings to a whole community, it risks using the same kind of group-based judgment that it claims to be fighting against.

From privilege analysis to civilisational indictment

The very subtitle of Professor Kisana’s book makes a bold claim: that the "mediocrity" of Savarna millennials is the reason why "everything broke." In the chapters that follow, he writes that this group has "inherited institutions and shrank them." He argues that Savarna dominance is the primary reason for a lack of progress in Indian politics, the corporate world, universities, and general society.

He frequently uses the metaphor of a “glass floor” to explain his view that Savarnas are protected by social structures even when they feel stressed or anxious. While it is a normal academic practice to study social privilege, Kisana’s language often suggests that the struggles or anxieties felt by Savarnas are more of a "theatrical performance" than a real, human experience.

His criticism is not limited to just the way institutions work; it enters the territory of psychology. He portrays an entire demographic as being unable to reflect on themselves, morally shielded, and naturally resistant to democracy. While it is important to look closely at structural inequality, any argument that claims a broad group of people has an "inherent moral deficiency" risks promoting the same kind of collective stereotyping that modern laws and constitutions try to move past.

‘Shaadi like a Savarna’ and cultural disdain

In his article titled “Shaadi Like a Savarna,” Kisana takes a critical look at elite weddings. He describes these celebrations as "the ultimate barometer for a deeply conservative and exclusionary Savarna social order." He writes that these weddings are essentially performances of "power, pride and vanity." He even suggests that young Savarnas who call themselves progressive will eventually return to "Brahmanical conservatism at the altar" when they get married.

He compares these traditional weddings to "Satyashodhak" marriages and characterizes Savarna cultural events as empty shows that hide regressive social rules. People have been criticizing the practice of marrying within one's caste for a long time. However, by describing the wedding traditions of millions of people as naturally narcissistic and exclusionary, Kisana does not account for the many differences, reforms, or changing social habits within the community. Instead, he treats the cultural practices of an entire group as something that is fundamentally wrong. When someone targets the cultural expressions of a majority while claiming others are naturally better, they risk replacing one type of social hierarchy with another.

‘Laughing like a Savarna’ and the morality of humour

In another piece called “Laughing Like a Savarna,” Kisana argues that the history of Savarna humor is based on making fun of and humiliating the Bahujan working class. He describes how working-class characters in these jokes are treated like "humanoid appliances." He also mentions what he calls a "myth of eternal victimhood" that he believes is part of Brahmanism.

The essay does point out real problems with jokes that target marginalized groups. However, it frames the entire Savarna audience as willing participants in this process of dehumanization. This makes the line between criticizing a bad joke and accusing a whole group of being morally corrupt very thin. While humor that puts people down should be criticized, describing a whole community’s sense of humor as being rooted in humiliation ignores the many different voices and internal disagreements that exist within that community.

‘Dating like a Savarna’ and the psychology of purity

In the article “Dating Like a Savarna,” Kisana discusses how caste influences romance and attraction in modern Indian cities. He claims that dating in these areas follows a "secret language of aesthetics" and suggests that traditional ideas of purity influence how people behave romantically. He also writes about the "glorification of Savarna semen" in certain discourses and argues that Savarna men hold the highest position in the dating world.

The essay mentions specific examples where people have faced caste-based prejudice or slurs in their relationships. However, the overall framing again suggests that these are inherent psychological traits of all Savarnas. When a few instances of bad behavior are used to describe the psychology of a whole group, the analysis stops being about discrimination and starts being about labeling an entire identity. If we follow Kisana’s logic, it would seem that only one group of people objects to marriages outside of their caste, which is a factually incorrect idea.

The MBA critique and sweeping intellectual dismissal

In a piece titled “A Long Overdue Love Letter to the Mediocrity of the Millennial Savarna MBAs and their Feckless Technobabble,” Kisana is very harsh toward young managers. He calls them "gormless" and "dull-witted," and he accuses them of ruining public life with "aggressive loaded technobabble."

He goes as far as to say that management education in India has become "Brahmanised" and suggests that any stagnation in the business world is due to Savarna leadership. This language blames the supposed "mediocrity" of a specific caste for economic problems rather than looking at actual policy mistakes or market trends. While using such broad generalizations can make a piece of writing feel more intense, it rarely helps to create a strong or scholarly argument.

His position on UGC equity regulations

Professor Kisana has also been a very strong supporter of the UGC Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions Regulations, which were recently put on hold by the Supreme Court. On January 25, 2026, he posted on the platform X, describing the opposition to these new rules as an "absolutely shameful outrage."

A few days later, on January 27, 2026, he noted that it was "interesting to see Savarna media amplifying" the criticism, comparing it to the protests seen during the Mandal era. In another post, he warned that if the SC, ST, and OBC communities started to organize and mobilize, the situation could turn "explosive quickly." In an article written after the Supreme Court stopped the regulations, he called the protests against them a "virulent overreaction" and talked about what he calls "Savarna exceptionalism."

Many people raised concerns about these regulations, such as whether they were fair to everyone, if they could be misused, and if excluding general category students from protection was a good idea. Kisana dismissed all of these concerns as being driven by "caste anxiety." While discussions about equity must balance the need to protect vulnerable groups with the need for fair rules, Kisana framed all concerns as a negative backlash and ignored the genuine questions people had about the guidelines.

The responsibility of academic leadership

As the Dean of a major department, Professor Kisana is responsible for guiding students and shaping how subjects are taught. Universities are meant to be places where people learn to think critically and treat everyone with constitutional equality. When a senior leader at a university repeatedly describes things like marriages as "inherently narcissistic" or movements as "inherently anti-democratic" based on someone's caste, it raises serious questions about what is being taught in his classrooms.

While it is perfectly acceptable and common in India to criticize the caste system, a critique that labels an entire group of people as flawed can create new divisions. One cannot continue to claim they are fighting oppression while at the same time pushing an entire community away; this approach makes it very difficult for society to move forward with true equality. The recent events at Galgotias University have brought much-needed attention to the ideological views that are influencing the academic world. While people continue to debate Kisana’s views, it is clear that his language in his books, articles, and social media is very intense and creates a lot of polarization. India needs to move past the divisions of the past, and academic leaders have a duty to help with that. This cannot happen if professors like Kisana continue to teach divisive ideas to young students.