The decision by the National Medical Commission to withdraw the Letter of Permission (LoP) for the MBBS course at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence has triggered sharply divided reactions across Jammu & Kashmir and beyond.
For some organisations and voices, the move is being celebrated as a moral and ideological victory. For others, it represents a setback to medical education and institutional growth. Yet, beneath this binary framing of “victory” and “defeat” lies a deeper and more complex debate—one centred on funding, ownership, and the purpose of community-driven institutions.
Divergent Reactions: Victory vs Defeat
Among those welcoming the decision are the Mata Vaishno Devi Sangharsh Samiti, Rashtriya Bajrang Dal, Yuva Rajput Sabha (Jammu), and several independent voices who have consistently opposed the manner in which the MBBS course was initiated.
On the other hand, critics of the withdrawal argue that the revocation harms students and delays the development of a much-needed medical institution. Social media platforms have amplified these disagreements, with individuals such as Manoj Padha, State President of Ekam Sanatan Bharat Dal, publicly expressing concern over what they view as an avoidable institutional loss.
How the Controversy Began
To understand the present moment, it is essential to revisit the origins of the dispute.
The MBBS course at Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Institute of Medical Excellence was granted permission by the NMC in September 2025. Subsequently, admissions were conducted for 50 seats.
According to information that surfaced in the public domain, of the 50 admitted students, 42 were reportedly from Muslim community, seven were Hindu, and one student belonged to the Sikh community. This disclosure became the flashpoint of the controversy.
The Core Argument: Funding and Ownership
Unlike most medical or engineering colleges in India, which are funded through government expenditure and taxpayer money, this institution is widely perceived as being built entirely from donations made by devotees at the Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine.
This distinction became central to the protestors’ argument. They contended that while government-funded institutions rightfully operate under constitutional provisions of secularism and reservation, a college built exclusively through donations from a particular religious community raises legitimate questions of community interest and control.
The protesters repeatedly clarified that their opposition was not directed at any religious community or students per se. They pointed out that thousands of colleges across India—funded largely by public money—rightly serve students from all communities, including minorities, and often provide constitutionally mandated reservations. That arrangement, they argued, is neither contested nor controversial.
The objection, they maintained, arises only when funds donated by a specific community are utilised in a manner that, in their view, excludes that very community from proportionate benefit.
Escalation of the Movement
As the debate intensified, multiple organisations came together, leading to the formation of the Mata Vaishno Devi Sangharsh Samiti. What followed were protests, sit-ins, hunger strikes, and instances of police action, including lathi charge.
By early January 2026, the issue had gained national attention. Shortly thereafter, the National Medical Commission withdrew the permission for the MBBS course, citing regulatory and compliance-related deficiencies.
Was the Objective Achieved?
The central demand of the movement was clear: funds donated by the Hindu community at the Shrine should be utilised in alignment with what protestors described as “Hindu interest”.
From that standpoint, supporters of the movement argue that the withdrawal of permission achieves the immediate objective. With the MBBS course halted, they contend, Shrine funds will no longer be spent on students who do not belong to the donor community.
While the withdrawal may appear as a temporary institutional loss—since permission could theoretically be restored in the future—protestors see it as a permanent assertion of principle. In their view, the struggle was less about the continuation of a course and more about establishing control over how community funds are utilised.
A Broader Pattern of Demands
The debate does not end with the medical college. Similar concerns have been raised regarding Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University, the Narayana Super Speciality Hospital, and even employment policies within the Shrine Board itself, where recruitment is conducted on a secular basis.
These issues, too, have generated sustained discussion and criticism, suggesting that the present development may be only the beginning of a longer ideological and administrative contest.
Conclusion
So, is the withdrawal of MBBS permission a victory or a defeat?
If measured purely in terms of institutional continuity, it may be seen as a setback.
But if assessed against the core objective articulated by the movement—ensuring that Shrine donations are used in accordance with the expectations of the donating community—it is being widely interpreted by supporters as a victory.
What is clear is that the episode has reopened fundamental questions about community-funded institutions, governance, and the intersection of faith, education, and public policy—questions that are unlikely to fade anytime soon