Autonomy of scholarship and the state

By Itty Abraham & M.S.S. Pandian

THE RECENT decision by the Supreme Court to dismiss the PUCL writ petition contesting the Government's move to put new restrictions on international academic conferences is indeed a disappointment. The Government order is a major setback for Indian academia, for relations with our neighbours, and for Indian civil society more generally.

The broad scope of these restrictions raises a number of important issues. For instance, what is the meaning of the word ``semi- political''? Can we slice the topic of politics so finely that we now have a spectrum, from full politics to semi-politics to demi-politics and so on? Who carries the authority to pigeonhole different themes as belonging to these different categories of politics? The question of communalism is presumably any subject that deals with Hindu-Muslim relations in particular and inter-community activities more generally. Does this mean that the academic discussion and debate of the history, sociology, politics of communal relations is off limits? One can understand that conferences that seek to exacerbate tension between communities are not in the public interest. But we already have so many sources of such tensions, from the Shiv Sena rag Saamna to the hit Bollywood film, `Gadhar'. Is there no discrimination possible between these sources of communal hatred? In fact, it is precisely through rigorous academic conferences that we may acquire a more nuanced and informed understanding of the causes of inter- communal relations. Not only that, but academics are also sensitive to other examples of communal relations, where groups have worked out ways of living together and of addressing common problems within their own institutions, without the intervention of the state. Should we not learn from these examples and publicise them so that others may also copy these `best practices'? That human right also falls under this category is an important indicator of what lies below the surface.

It is well known that the Government of India is enormously sensitive to its international public image. Its dubious efforts to prevent the issue of caste being brought up in the World Conference on Racism is only the latest example of such sensitivities. As a result, the Government's response to most forms of international criticism - whether about violation of human rights or caste-based discrimination - has traditionally been to sweep it under the carpet. What one must question is the colonial mentality that suggests that an airing of one's shortfalls leads to a decline in the nation's well being. It could rather be the opposite. It is only a confident nation that allows free expression on all matters, with the assurance that the outcome will lead to a stronger public and greater legitimacy for the state. The fragility of the Indian Union that is implied by these restrictions flies in the face of the resilience and popular strength of its democracy.

The Government's reasoning here is course independent of the fundamental rights to speech and association guaranteed by the Constitution. But one realises that the problem is structural when one associates this latest rule with, for example, the difficulty in passing a reasonable set of national laws that guarantee the public's right to information, or, denying private radio stations the right to produce news programmes. What is most troubling is the all-too-easy recourse to invoking the sacred cow of national security when in trouble and the even greater ease with which so many intellectuals and commentators swallow this line.

There are actually very few things that really affect national security. Selling certain kinds of national secrets is one, provided these are really secrets. Where Indian armed forces are positioned, the level of their ammunition stocks, the level of their morale - this is information one may not want some enemy to know. Yet, as Tehelka showed, these are things that are probably easy to find out in New Delhi, provided one has some contacts and a little ready cash. There are other things that affect the nation's security too, like bankrupting the country through unwise or corrupt financial practices, practices that cause enormous number of innocent people to suffer and take years to repair. But a lot of things have nothing to do with national security. It is extremely difficult to identify national security concerns related to any international conference, even those on human rights, most things to do with the Northeast and nearly everything to do with religion. What we mean in practice by national security are usually the activities of one or another Government Ministry or agency which is keen not to have its activities scrutinised by the public. Atomic Energy is of course the easiest case in point. As long as national security is defined by the same people who get to carry it out, its scope inevitably expands until it reaches the present ridiculous extent.

The heavy-handed efforts of the present Government to prevent dialogue from taking place across national boundaries are likewise doomed to fail. Two obvious responses will take place. Those who really have something subversive or seditious to say will find other ways of getting their message across. The means are too many to control. The other is that major academic conferences will no longer be held in India. One can do the same conference in Bangladesh, Nepal, or Sri Lanka, with no effort at all - the only difference being the local audience. The real losers will be the students and junior faculty who have the most to gain from attending these events. If these restrictions continue, it might even reach the point when even holding an international conference in India will become suspect. There will be those who will wonder what political connections the conference organisers had or what deals they struck in order to get foreign participants in. The credibility of these conferences will be suspect by default, the quality of their discussions notwithstanding.

The power of the state over Indian academic institutions and scholarship has derived both from ideological reasons and financial ones. In the early days after Independence, there was little question among politicians, bureaucrats and academics alike that the purpose of social science scholarship was for national developmental needs. Both the support given to fields like economics in particular and to the setting up of institutions like the Delhi School of Economics and the Institute of Economic Growth had this larger purpose in mind. Agencies like the Planning Commission provided a convenient channel both for policy ideas as well as for academics shuttling between theoretical and applied pursuits. These conditions are no longer true. In the present context, both ideological unanimity and financial support have withered away. Except in the hard sciences, and there too in some technology fields in particular, it is becoming clearer that unless institutions are able to generate their own sources of funds, they are likely to wither away through neglect. Under the impact of neo-liberal policies and the excessive politicisation of the advanced centres of learning under the present Government, the contradiction between the excessive legal power of the state over academic institutions and the shrinking resources and support it provides them is stark and growing.

In this changed context, what is required is a debate both over the appropriate role of the state in relation to determining the direction and content of scholarly research and the question of a contemporary rationale for social science scholarship. The first is easier to address - given the constitutional right to free speech and assembly and structural conditions that see the state selectively withdrawing from the field of higher education - the state has no standing for censoring the free flow of knowledge. The latter question is more complex. Responses could range from liberal definitions of a good society to the need to generate new ideas to renew society and respond to social demands. Perhaps most important, however, is the need for critical perspectives on the state and society that are unconstrained by fashion or fear. Even as we agree that the second issue needs far more sustained attention and discussion, we must also be clear that the legitimate voices in that debate are the community of social scientists, not the state.

(The writers are, respectively, Program Director, Social Science Research Council, New York, and Fellow, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai. The views expressed are of the writers and not of the institutions they belong to.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : For a ''Swarna'' Andhra Pradesh
Next     : A loss of faith