Academic freedom in peril
IT is obvious that in these troubled times, when the tyranny of power tends to suspect all alternative voices, our educational institutions cannot remain insulated as creative sites of scholarly debate, dialogue and intellectual contestation. No wonder, the spirit of academic freedom, as a series of incidents in recent times indicates, is in danger. It is becoming increasingly difficult to express even the slightest ambiguity in the ‘official’ truth. Take, for instance, IIT-Bombay’s cancellation of Prof Achin Vanaik’s proposed talk on the Israel-Palestine conflict; or the police complaint filed by some students of this institution against a professor and a guest lecturer for the screening of a documentary film, Arna’s Children. It is sad that instead of engaging in an informative and academically enriched conversation with their professor or the guest speaker, they saw the entire academic exercise as a ‘support for Hamas and terrorists’.
There should be no room for physical and psychic violence in the academic culture.
In another incident, OP Jindal Global University in Haryana asked Professor Vanaik to express regret over a teach-in session on the history of Palestine. Talk to any sensitive and intellectually honest academic from our universities — whether from elite/liberal/private institutions or our much-condemned public universities — you are bound to sense the fear among the faculty. In an era where even a select part of your lecture can be transformed into a ‘viral video’ for the consumption of those whose ‘nationalist’/‘religious’ sentiments are hurt instantly and quickly, leading to immediate filing of FIRs, and where university authorities seldom come forward to safeguard the dignity, safety and freedom of the faculty, what else can you expect? Indeed, our academic institutions are decaying.
Why should one strive for academic freedom? The reason is that the traditions of knowledge, the modes of enquiry and epistemological orientations evolve and grow through perpetual reflections, new findings, philosophic debates and contestations. In other words, an academic institution ought to be open to new ideas, new possibilities and even a radical ‘paradigm shift’. Furthermore, as far as liberal arts and humanities are concerned, not everything can be simplified as a solid/apolitical ‘fact’ like 2+2=4. Instead, the ethos of hermeneutic traditions and resultant sensitivity to plurality of perspectives enrich our understanding of culture, aesthetics, politics and history.
A student of history ought to enrich her horizon through diverse and even contesting perspectives — say the debate between a ‘nationalist’ historian and a ‘subaltern’ one. Likewise, a student of politics and sociology ought to be aware of diverse perspectives emanating from Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru and Savarkar. Even within a particular school of thought, there are subtle differences. To evolve as a good learner and researcher is to sharpen the art of comprehending the significance of this debate. Think of Marxism: isn’t it a fact that the Soviet Marxist ideological orthodoxy was contested by many creative thinkers, ranging from Gyorgy Lukacs to Antonio Gramsci? Likewise, can a nuanced understanding of the debates on nation and nationalism be possible unless students and teachers are allowed to engage freely with the discourses of Benedict Anderson, Rabindranath Tagore, Ashis Nandy and Partha Chatterjee? And even natural sciences cannot be taught meaningfully without an understanding of politics. Is science an integral component of technocratic developmentalism? Or, can science be experienced as emancipatory — a mode of thinking and practice for sustainable and ecologically sensitive development? Can the critical spirit of science be cultivated to interrogate all sorts of religious bigotry and oppressive thinking? Even if the Registrar of IIT-Bombay wants academics to be free from politics, the fact is that nothing is ‘apolitical’.
Of course, the spirit of academic freedom is inseparable from moral responsibility. I can cherish my academic freedom only when I value the same freedom for my philosophical opponents. Likewise, there should not be even the slightest form of physical and psychic violence in the academic culture. It is about nuanced dialogue, non-violent debate and contestation, and willingness to listen to other voices, or live with differences. For example, as a ‘left-Ambedkarite’ professor, you might not agree with your colleague who sees the world through the eyes of Golwalkar and Savarkar. However, this should not mean that you continue to castigate him as a sanghi and refuse to converse with him. Likewise, those who celebrate Marx and Foucault and raise their voice against the growing assertion of narcissism in the political arena should not be issued chargesheets or show-cause notices by the university administration. Furthermore, academic freedom needs the true spirit of studentship. As students, we grow, evolve and enrich our understanding of the world through openness, humility, perseverance and the art of listening. As a student, it is possible for me to disagree with my professor on his/her perspective on the ideology of Hindu Rashtra or the politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict. However, this difference should not mean that I will call the cops to arrest my professor. This is nothing but poverty of consciousness; this is the death of studentship; this is like allowing oneself to be hijacked by vested political interests.
And finally, I feel like appealing to our Vice-Chancellors. After all, they are not police inspectors. They are teachers/researchers/
educationists. If they continue to allow their ‘bosses’ to dictate how universities should be administered, they would not be able to inspire young minds. Can they demonstrate their fearlessness, intellectual honesty and moral courage to save and heal our tormented universities? After all, to protect academic freedom is to protect democracy.
