Vijai Sardesai’s opposition to uniforms in colleges has reignited a debate that goes far beyond dress codes. When the Goa Forward Party chief said universities are not schools and young minds should not be controlled, he was making a political statement, but also a philosophical one. At its core, his argument challenges how India understands higher education and the role of students within it.
Sardesai’s resistance to college uniforms stems from his belief that universities must function as spaces of autonomy. In his view, students at the higher education level are adults, capable of making choices and bearing responsibility for them. Enforcing uniforms, he argues, reflects a lack of trust in young people and an urge to regulate rather than engage. For him, individuality is not a threat to education but a prerequisite for independent thinking.
This perspective resonates with the traditional idea of a university as a place where identities are shaped and ideas contested. Unlike schools, colleges are meant to expose students to the diversity of thought, background, and experience. Clothing, while not the most important form of expression, is often the most visible. Restricting it can signal an institutional discomfort with difference. Sardesai’s emphasis on students as “stakeholders” reflects a growing demand that universities treat learners as partners in the academic process, not passive recipients of rules.
There is also a practical argument embedded in his stance. Higher education is supposed to prepare students for life beyond campus, where decision-making, self-regulation, and negotiation of social norms are essential skills. Shielding students from freedom until graduation can be counterproductive. Critics of uniforms argue that learning to manage choice is itself part of education, and that universities should guide this process rather than suppress it.
Yet, the case for uniforms cannot be dismissed as mere authoritarianism. Many educators and administrators defend uniforms on the grounds of equality. In campuses marked by sharp economic differences, clothing can quickly become a symbol of privilege. Students from poorer backgrounds may feel pressured to match fashion trends they cannot afford. Uniforms, supporters say, reduce visible class divisions and create a sense of belonging that transcends income and background.
There are also concerns about decorum and academic focus. Some believe that a uniform or strict dress code reinforces the seriousness of the learning environment and minimises distractions. In professional courses, uniforms are often justified as early exposure to workplace expectations, where dress codes are common and sometimes mandatory. From an administrative perspective, uniforms also make identification and campus security easier.
Sardesai’s opposition implicitly challenges these arguments by questioning whether enforced sameness is the right way to achieve equality and discipline. His position suggests that universities should address inequality through financial aid, counselling, and inclusive policies, not by regulating appearance. While this is an appealing ideal, it assumes institutions have the resources and intent to tackle deeper structural issues, which is not always true.
The debate also raises a crucial question about governance. Who should decide what students wear? When rules are imposed from above without consultation, resentment is almost inevitable. Universities that claim to promote democratic values must reflect them in everyday decision-making. If dress codes are necessary, students should have a meaningful role in shaping them. Sardesai’s remarks strike a chord because they echo a wider frustration with paternalistic policies that ignore student voices.
A middle path may be more realistic than absolute positions. Instead of mandatory uniforms, universities could adopt flexible dress guidelines that ensure dignity and inclusivity without erasing individuality. Such policies, if developed through dialogue, could balance freedom with sensitivity to social realities.
Ultimately, Sardesai’s opposition to uniforms is less about clothing and more about control. It forces institutions to confront an uncomfortable question. Do they see students as adults capable of judgment, or as children who must be managed? The answer will shape not just what students wear, but what kind of citizens universities hope to produce.
