The vanishing culture of debate across Indian universities

The health of a society can be measured by how much dissent it tolerates

India’s college campuses are constantly in the news, unfortunately for the wrong reasons. Instances of violence have been reported from the Azim Premji University, the Jawaharlal Nehru University, and the University of Delhi.

Recently, Azim Premji University, in its statement, said that they did ‘not authorise any event’ and that the event in question ‘allegedly planned by a small group of students did not happen at all.’ FIRs have been lodged, and the university administration, along with the larger judicial and police administration, has come into the picture. Sadly, such instances have occurred innumerable times in the past.

Could this violence have been avoided? Does it tell us how universities — once places of learning, dialogue, and dissent — have turned into spaces of intolerance, and a lack of dialogue, becoming a safe haven for incubating new ideas through differences? One way to answer this is through the framework of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu: universities reproduce larger social and cultural structures, and what happens in society is represented within them. Another way is to see universities as sites where conflicts exist, and interact in an intellectual sphere.

The intellectual sphere has always been one of contestation, reproducing societal antagonisms and conflicts. Whether it was Socrates, Charvakas, Ambedkar, and Phule, social antagonism has always found expression in intellectual arenas. Hence, it should not be surprising that it happens today. What changes are the forms and nature of conflict. If the intellectual world, and more so the institutionalised intellectual/academic world, is a reflection of the societal antagonisms, then its conflict will mirror larger politico-economic and cultural contexts.

Those in power, with the support of repressive and ideological apparatuses, have always tried to ensure that alternative strands of thought do not find space. Across history, intellectuals have been exiled by governments such as in USSR, East Germany, Spain, or Kenya. Artists and intellectuals have also self-exiled. Coercion arises when words are feared for their potency to influence the masses and challenge the dominant ways of thinking. Hence, either the State imposes censorship or there are other forms of control exercised.

For instance, Iran has been extremely stringent with its censorship, or State control over every kind of intellectual or artistic production. Yet artists have devised mechanisms of working outside State control when it comes to making cinema. The same can be seen with countries such as North Korea, etc.

There is fear of any thought other than one’s own, and fear of losing out to the other side if dialogue is attempted. Hence, violence becomes an easy way out, whether by State or by non-State actors. This was evident during McCarthyism in the United States. Imagining a world where the contestation of ideas is resolved through dialogue rather than violence allows for a more intellectually enriched society. Societies thrive on dissent, and their intellectual health can be discerned by how much dissent they tolerate — expressed through dialogue and not violently. The recent violence at Azim Premji University does not augur well for a society that believes in plurality and coexistence of divergent ideas.

When campuses are attacked or programmes disrupted by political organisations, it emanates from fear — fear that they can’t intellectually withstand opposing ideas. Such instances are increasing around campuses. Even in a state like Karnataka or Telangana, does the Congress have a blueprint to develop an intellectual culture?

The onus lies on the ruling political forces to minimise such instances. The answer does not lie in FIRs, but in conversations. Growing violence reflects growing intolerance. Once universities become intolerant, all hope will be lost.

Is debate possible? The question matters because it requires the ability to engage with the other side, and the willingness to accept defeat in a society that discourages it.

Indian history has a long tradition of logical and epistemic debate. From the Upanishads to the Nyāyasūtra, scholars have tried to analyse how the idea of dissent was present. Those who display intolerance today can neither be located in the language of modernity, with its promise of liberty, nor in the ancient tradition of Gautam Buddha talking in the Aggaññasutta about the caste system or Jyotirao Phule offering an analysis of caste structure and local economy in Gulamgiri. Do we want to become like the politico-religious order which killed Galileo and Copernicus or furthered inquisition because they could not tolerate people who thought differently? The long tradition of accepting dissent and intellectual difference and not intolerance is the only way to enrich a nation and society’s intellectual prowess.

Ravi Kumar is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, South Asian University.