[Reader-list] [fred at bytesforall.org: [goa-research-net] COMMENT: Autonomy of Scholarship and the State]

[Patrice Riemens]

----- Forwarded message from Frederick Noronha <fred at bytesforall.org> -----

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:44:26 +0530 (IST)
To: goa-research-net at goacom.com
Subject: [goa-research-net] COMMENT: Autonomy of Scholarship and the State


Source: The Hindu (http://www.hinduonnet.com)

Autonomy of scholarship and the state 
The Hindu, August 14, 2001

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.)
Copyrights: 1995 - 2001 The Hindu

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from Goa-Research-Net
-------------------------------------------------------------------
* Send us a brief self-intro to justify your interest in this
"specialized" forum. This should be     sent to
teodesouza at mail.telepac.pt or to fred at goa1.dot.net.in
* Send email to majordomo at goacom.com (NOT goa-research-net at goacom.com)
* Leave SUBJECT blank
* On first line of the BODY of your message, type:
subscribe goa-research-net YOUR at EMAIL.ADDRESS
or
unsubscribe goa-research-net YOUR at EMAIL.ADDRESS
-------------------------------------------------------------------

----- End forwarded message -----