Academic freedom shrinking in a climate of fear

THESE days, whenever I reflect on my academic life, I feel that I have been immensely lucky. For more than three decades, I taught, delivered lectures, spoke in seminars and wrote on culture, politics, society and education. Nobody’s ‘sentiments’ were hurt; no FIR was filed; and, above all, nobody from the judiciary cautioned me about the content or the style of writing. Of course, not everybody agreed with my worldview. There were sharp differences, arguments and counter-arguments. Yet, at the end of the day, I could sit with the leftists, rightists, nationalists, postmodernists, Ambedkarites and feminists in the university cafeteria, laugh, crack jokes and share articles and books. Indeed, I cherished my freedom because I also wanted the freedom of my philosophic opponents. However, in these changing times, as I reflect on, for instance, what Ali Khan Mahmudabad, a young professor from Ashoka University, passed through for his somewhat subtle and nuanced reflections on Operation Sindoor, nationalism, war, gender and politics, I begin to tremble…. Yes, this young professor was arrested; and even when he was granted bail, the Supreme Court Judge didn’t forget to remind him that he ought to be cautious while commenting on such sensitive issues. Is it that we are fast normalising a toxic environment in which philosophic differences are suspected, dissenting voices are criminalised and the idea of academic freedom is discouraged? Is it that our teachers, professors and public intellectuals will need to take legal advice or guidance before they come to the classroom, speak or write something? There are two reasons why the all-pervading fear that surrounds our academic/intellectual space ought to worry us. First, it indicates the arrival of a sick society — a society that, despite its material wealth, might begin to lose the capacity to laugh, cherish humour, accept epistemological pluralism, argue, debate, engage in dialogic conversations and accept the inevitability of differences. In fact, a sick society is one that tends to abhor all dissenting voices — the voices that unsettle the status quo — and, thereby, escapes from the redemptive power of political/ intellectual freedom and libertarian education. A sick society tends to be authoritarian and suspects a vibrant academic/ intellectual culture. It is, therefore, not surprising that a ‘democratically elected’ authoritarian figure like Donald Trump feels terribly uncomfortable with the ethos of a vibrant academic culture and intellectual tradition that, say, a university like Harvard embodies. Who knows that possibly Trump is becoming a role model, whom some of our political bosses seek to emulate? Second, the absence of academic/intellectual freedom causes severe damage to the progress of a nation. It is high time we accepted that there is something more to development and progress than the statistics of economic productivity, military strength and technological innovation. Our values, collective aspirations and modes of living undergo a radical transformation because of creatively nuanced critical thinking, new ideas and intellectual freedom. For instance, because of the radical and innovative ideas implicit in Marxism, psychoanalysis, gender studies and critical theory, we gained a new kind of sensitivity. It enabled us to interrogate the ideologies of repression, domination, exploitation, patriarchal subjugation and the psychology of war and strive for economic equity, social justice and a democratic egalitarian peaceful world. However, if we suspect all radical/dissenting voices and destroy the spirit of free inquiry in our colleges and universities, none can prevent our societal/ cultural/political decay, even if we defeat our ‘enemies’ in war, showcase our military might and feel proud of our economic growth. It is certainly not a good thing if we witness a steady decline in academic freedom, in which, today, India ranks 156th out of 179 countries. Imagine a situation. Even though right now India has become the world’s fourth largest economy with $-4.3 trillion GDP, a professor is asking his students to not get carried away by the tales of this success. Instead, he wants them to go deeper, look at the harsh reality of the prevalent social/economic inequality in the country and examine critically whether there is any reason to feel proud of it. Imagine that he is asking his students to remember that the richest 10 per cent of Indians own 80 per cent of the country’s wealth while the bottom 50 per cent possess a mere 6.4 per cent. And, as per the Human Global Rich List, the total wealth of 284 Indian billionaires is nearly one-third of the country’s GDP. He asks his students to ponder whether it is the reason why, as the 2024 Global Hunger Index reveals, India ranks 105th out of 127 countries. And, he argues that without distributive justice, the fourth largest economy means nothing to the poor, the homeless and even the struggling middle class. He is not a conspirator or the enemy of the nation. Instead, it is his love for the country or his commitment to truth that inspires him to remain alert and not get carried away by the false nationalist euphoria. However, as everything has been turned into its opposite, the professor might be castigated as ‘anti-national’ and, eventually, arrested and taken to the police custody. It is sad that these days, the university administration seldom comes forward to protect the intellectual freedom of the academic community. Instead, many of our vice-chancellors, including those who run the much-hyped ‘liberal’ private universities, feel comfortable in following the ‘official’ line. However, under these hostile circumstances, those who love the vocation of teaching and believe that education remains futile without the spirit of critical pedagogy ought to overcome their silence and fight collectively for restoring an intellectual milieu, where, as Rabindranath Tagore would have said, “the mind is without fear, and the head is held high." Avijit Pathak is a well-known sociologist.

Comments