Watch Video : Can Popular Writers Find a Place in Academia? Chetan Bhagat vs DU Syllabus – Fair or Unfair?

In 2017, a stir was created when Delhi University (DU) proposed including Chetan Bhagat’s Five Point Someone in its English syllabus under the Choice Based Credit System (CBCS), in the “Popular Fiction” elective. The idea was to allow students to study a contemporary, widely-read author alongside classics like Louisa Alcott, Agatha Christie, and JK Rowling.

However, the proposal met with resistance and was eventually put on hold. Critics — including faculty and literature purists — argued that Bhagat’s work lacked sufficient literary complexity, academic rigor, or “depth” as required of texts in a literature course. Meanwhile, Bhagat and his supporters argued that including popular fiction may bridge the gap between academia and the reading habits of the general public.

What Really Happened

Here are the key facts:

• DU’s CBCS committee proposed: Five Point Someone would be part of the Popular Fiction elective.
• The change sparked controversy among faculty members who felt the process was opaque — many said they were not consulted and felt the inclusion was “arbitrary.”
• One argument was that Bhagat’s works are designed for entertainment; they are “easy reads” with simple language and predictable plot structures, which some believe do not offer enough substance for critical examination in literary studies
• Other voices defended the proposal, saying literature should reflect both classic/traditional works and contemporary popular works, in order to remain relevant to students and culture at large. Bhagat himself called it an honour and a validation of his work.
• Eventually, the proposal was paused pending review. It was not implemented at that time.

Arguments for Including Contemporary/Popular Authors

Including writers like Bhagat has several potential benefits:

1. Relevance to Students: Students may find it easier to relate to themes, language, dialogues from popular fiction. This may increase engagement.
2. Bridging Academic & Popular Culture: Literature is not static; it’s shaped by current society. Including popular works acknowledges this dynamism.
3. Democratization of Literature: It challenges the notion that only elite or classical texts deserve academic attention. Being read widely is itself meaningful.
4. Diverse Skill Development: Even in popular fiction, students can learn to analyze plot, character, narrative technique, theme, social context, etc., if taught critically.

Arguments Against (or Concerns)

But there are also counterpoints, which are important in this debate:

1. Literary Depth & Complexity: Critics argue that many popular works (including Bhagat’s) lack certain literary qualities – layered symbolism, nuanced character development, etc. They feel such texts may not provide enough substance for advanced literary criticism.
2. Academic Standards: There’s concern over lowering academic rigor; what gets taught shapes students’ critical thinking, literary appreciation, etc.
3. Process & Procedure: Many objections centered not so much on if popular fiction should be included, but how the decision was taken — whether faculty were consulted, whether there was a transparent review, etc. Process matters in educational institutions.
4. Potential for Commercial Bias: Some faculty alleged that publishers or authors with strong market clout may benefit unfairly. There is concern that including “bestsellers” could sometimes be influenced by sales/market considerations more than literary merit.

What This Means for Contemporary Writers in India

For writers like Chetan Bhagat, this episode highlights both the opportunities and frustrations of being a “popular” author in India’s literary ecosystem.

• Visibility & Respect: Inclusion in academic syllabus, even if contested, serves as a recognition. It signals that writing for popular audiences can also carry value.
• Challenge of Literary Gatekeeping: Authors must often navigate a set of gatekeepers (professors, critics, institutions) who may have traditional ideas of what “good” literature is. This can lead to marginalizing or undervaluing popular writing.
• Balancing Quality & Popularity: There’s a tightrope — popular writers who want to be included in academic spaces may need to offer texts that lend themselves to critical study (themes, structure, language, subtext).
• Democratization of Readership: As more people read, popular literature can contribute to reading culture. For many readers, these are entry points to broader literary worlds.

Is It Fair?

Putting all that together, is it fair to contemporary writers like Bhagat that his inclusion was stalled or criticized so heavily?

I’d argue that there’s a case to say no — in that sometimes popular authors are held to different, harsher standards than those regarded as “canonical,” and the definitions of what qualifies as literature can be narrow or conservative. On the other hand, academic institutions also have a responsibility to maintain rigor, teach critical thinking, and not compromise educational quality.

So fairness may lie in finding balance:

• Transparent processes when changing syllabi
• Opportunities for dialogue between authors, faculty, students
• Syllabus structures that allow electives or papers devoted to Popular Fiction rather than replacing core texts
• Assessment methods that encourage critical thinking even in “easier reads”

Conclusion

The DU – Chetan Bhagat controversy is more than a single case — it reflects broader tensions in Indian literature and education: between elite vs mass culture, tradition vs contemporaneity, academic rigor vs popularity. For writers, students, and readers alike, this debate matters. It shapes what gets taught, what stories are considered worthy, and whose voices are heard.

We may not yet have a perfect model, but perhaps what we need is openness — openness in what we consider literature, how we teach it, and who gets to decide.