More than 215 vice chancellors, former vice chancellors and academicians have expressed support for IIT Madras Director Professor V Kamakoti after Congress MP Priyanka Gandhi Vadra reportedly referred to him as a “cow urine expert” during a Lok Sabha debate. In an open letter, the academics described the reported remark as deeply disappointing and argued that personal labels should not replace substantive debate on academic or scientific claims.
The letter was issued in the backdrop of a parliamentary discussion on the Centre’s proposed task force on examination reforms. The signatories said the controversy raised a wider question about how scholars and academic institutions are treated when their views become part of public or political debate.
Academicians Criticise Priyanka Gandhi’s Reported Remark
The vice chancellors and academicians said Parliament should provide space for rigorous discussion of ideas, even when there are strong disagreements. They argued that criticism should focus on the substance of an academic’s views rather than reducing the person to a dismissive description.
“Whether intended as sarcasm or political rhetoric, such a characterisation raises concerns that go far beyond one individual.”
Among those named as signatories were Nalanda University Vice Chancellor Sachin Chaturvedi, former NITI Aayog chairman Rajiv Kumar, NAAC Director Ganesan Kannabiran, former UPSC chairman D P Agarwal and former AICTE chairman Anil Sahasrabudhe.
‘Criticise Ideas, Not Scholar’
The academics highlighted Professor Kamakoti’s academic and research record while defending his right to participate in scientific and public discussions.
According to the open letter, Kamakoti holds MS and PhD degrees in Computer Science and Engineering from IIT Madras. He has authored more than 150 research papers and led over 50 research and development projects. The letter also cited honours including the DRDO Academic Excellence Award and the Indian Electronics and Semiconductor Association Techno Visionary Award.
The signatories further pointed to Kamakoti’s role in guiding the development of India’s first industry-grade microprocessor.
They argued that scholars should be able to present hypotheses, discuss traditional knowledge and participate in scientific debates, while their claims remain open to scrutiny.
“To dismiss a scholar through a label rather than engage with the substance of his views risks undermining the very scientific temper that our Constitution calls upon every citizen to develop.”
Academics Say Scientific Claims Should Be Examined Objectively
The open letter also addressed the broader meaning of scientific temper. The signatories said scientific inquiry requires claims to be examined objectively rather than being accepted or rejected solely because they appear unconventional.
They argued that the history of science contains examples of ideas that were initially dismissed but later received scientific validation, as well as beliefs that were once accepted but subsequently disproved.
The academics also warned that dismissive comments about scholars could discourage scientists, researchers and educators from taking part in public discussions.
“Our scientists, scholars and educators deserve to know that they can participate in public debate without fear of being reduced to dismissive labels.”
At the same time, the signatories stressed that academic arguments can and should be challenged, with evidence subjected to scrutiny. Their objection, they said, was to diminishing scholarship itself rather than debating the substance of a claim.
Why V Kamakoti Had Faced Controversy Earlier
The latest controversy has brought renewed attention to remarks made by Kamakoti during a Pongal celebration at a cow shelter in Chennai in January 2025.
During the speech, Kamakoti narrated the story of a sanyasi who, according to his account, recovered from a high fever after drinking cow urine. A video of the remarks subsequently circulated widely, attracting criticism from scientists, politicians and social media users.
Kamakoti responded to the criticism at the time by maintaining that his comments were based on published scientific literature.
‘Mockery Is Not a Substitute for Reasoned Engagement’
The academicians said disagreement remains an essential part of democratic debate, but argued that public discussions involving scholars should remain focused on evidence and reasoning.
“In a democracy, disagreement is essential. Mockery is not a substitute for reasoned engagement.”
The signatories said they hoped future parliamentary debates would uphold respectful and informed discussion, particularly when questions involving science, education and academic research are being debated.
The open letter therefore frames the dispute not only as a disagreement over remarks about one academic but also as a wider concern about maintaining the dignity of academic discourse and encouraging scholars to participate in public debate.
