What happened to Deepak Malghan at Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Bangalore is an example of how brazenly shameless institutions have become in sending a clear message that the era of academic freedom is now over. The messaging is quite clear from IITs, IIMs, and other elite institutions: academic excellence is excellence in getting top ranks, keeping out of controversies, and submitting reports on time.
What happens at these institutions matters a lot as any restriction on academic freedom at such places will have a chilling effect on other central and state universities and more importantly on autonomous or affiliated colleges all over the country. The battle for academic freedom at elite institutions is fought by an equally elite group of faculty and researchers who have high academic standing or at least are heavily networked in the national and international academia. Though the stakes are high, in terms of suspensions, dismissals, and even incarceration, the faculty at such institutions have built a decent support through their network with activist groups, and civil society.
Deepak Malghan’s insistence with continuing his challenge to the gag order on him, and pointing out the lack of diversity within IIMs is an instance of how such scholars of high academic standing and integrity are relentless in pushing the boundaries of academic freedom further. His act, although a singular one from the entire range of highly accomplished scholars at IIMs, stands out for its effect on others who believe in academic freedom but may not have the personal resources to face such big institutions from within. It is not the case that scholars like Malghan have some magical resource that others do not. It is a simple case of registering certain acts as necessary ethical behaviour that the profession of research and teaching demands from all. It is this idea that ought to be normalised: that the profession of research is a far bigger enterprise than the institutions that facilitate it. Research is not subservient to institutions, but it is the other way. Institutions ought to evolve to accommodate the progress of research, no matter how adverse the findings are to the reputation of the institutions.
The very character of academic institutions is that they cannot be static. They cannot have fixed objectives like a corporation. They ought to be self-reflective and continuously aware that they need to redefine their purpose and relevance based on what is happening around them. They need to interact with the society and develop an understanding of its needs. They should caution themselves against becoming complacent, or worse, a part of the power structure in the society. Not even for a moment should they feel that they are powerful or that they have authority over others. Institutions ought to become what we expect individuals in a democratic society to be. The idea of a university is one of a conscience keeper of society, they retain within themselves the very essence of what a democracy ought to be. Educational philosophers from Dewey to Paulo Freire have shown this to us very rigorously.
But more importantly, it is the students who have shown the value of free speech in universities worldwide. From opposing the Vietnam war in the 70s, to the recent protests against Israeli genocide in Palestine, students have offered us a model of practicing free speech. However, there is also a flip side to the exercise of freedom of speech, which if not pegged around the idea of universal justice, can descend into a crass project of political correctness. Free speech is a concept firmly embedded in the project of reimagining and reshaping our world into a socially just society, and it cannot be imagined as a tool that could be used to score points for political ideologies.
Notwithstanding the debate about free speech, what is happening in most places of higher education is increased monitoring of academic work, restrictions on what can be done or not done, and an insistence on aligning all that they do with the objectives of the ruling regime or market capitalism. Such objectives are so narrowly defined primarily to curb any kind of free thinking. Add to this the increased bureaucratization of academic work, you have another glass ceiling for academic freedom.
Institutions are now more interested in improving their rankings relative to others in their respective spheres. Academic work is geared towards producing reports. Teaching is incidental. Research publication is mandatory without the slightest idea of whether such research is breaking new ground in the discipline or is it just rehashing old ideas in new academic jargons. Critical thinking will be tolerated to an extent that it is not applied to the way the institution itself functions. The obsession with rankings and securing accreditations is a clever ploy to distract the researchers, faculty, and students, from the very purpose of such institutions, which is to create space for free thinking. This has now been internalised by most private and public institutions of higher education and we see college or university managements applying extreme caution in allowing discussion or research on political or social issues.
If this is one end of the spectrum in institutions where there is at least some presence of humanities education or research, there is another end of spectrum in institutions of professional education such as management, engineering, and medical, where the faculty and students are completely indifferent to the enterprise of critical thinking. This produces an interesting scenario in which the society oscillates from extreme ideological and identitarian battles in humanities and social sciences departments to a complete ignorance of fundamental debates shaping the fabric of our society.
Or, perhaps the attack is not so much on academic freedom, but more on what such a freedom stands for or leads to. Governments of all kinds are always wary of anything critical of their policies and are proactive in restricting anything that they may find adverse to themselves. However, institutions need not behave that way. The only scenario in which institutions can behave that way is when there is power hierarchy among the faculty, with some occupying positions that have power over others in terms of promotion, salary, and disciplinary action. Such an arrangement lends itself to easy control by government, market, and ideological regimes.
It is time for educational institutions to seriously rethink whether they should model themselves like a corporation with hierarchical power structure, or become truly democratic with a decentralised administrative and academic structure. They need to keep themselves out of the race for rankings and concentrate on creating a space for cooperation, inclusion, sensitivity, and free thinking. Social science and humanities departments need to first suspend their ideological and identitarian battles and address the threat that is posed to the very essence of their disciplines. Without free thinking there will no more be a need for social sciences or humanities. From Zemyatin’s We to Orwell’s 1984, this has always been the lesson.
This in no way is a utopian project as opposed to the dystopian world described in those novels. It is the most practical and an urgent social and political requirement. Institutions which still adhere to the idea of equality and justice need to show some mettle in at least initiating a dialogue about redefining the very idea of a university. There are institutions in India with a rich legacy of commitment to social justice. All we need to do is tap into that legacy built by some of the most exceptional scholars and teachers who saw research and teaching as an integral part of reforming society.
The author is Asst. Professor & Head, Department of English, St Joseph's College of Commerce (Autonomous), Bengaluru. Views expressed are the author's own.