Institutional heads giving in to thought policing
[by] ApoorvanandThe university is the only space in our hierarchical and deeply divided society where we can experiment with ideas that would be treated as sacrilegious in the wider society.
STREET JUSTICE: Protest outside the Central University of Haryana in Mahendragarh on September 22. Manoj Dhaka/Tribune
Are
we allowed to talk about academic freedom in these surgical times? But
just as a soldier has to defend the borders to save the integrity of the
nation, our duty as members of academia is to safeguard the integrity
of our academic space, to keep talking about the danger it is facing
from the enemies of intellect and creativity. Borrowing from Premchand,
one can say that since these enemies feel ashamed to show as their real
self, they come under the garb of nationalism.
Academics is under assault from banal nationalism again: this time in
Mahendragarh, a small town in Haryana, around 120 km from Delhi. The
teachers of the Department of English of the Central University of
Haryana are under attack from the ABVP, student arm of the RSS, and some
hitherto unknown organisations of retired army men. Dharnas and
demonstrations are being held daily at the university gate, demanding
the dismissal of the Vice-Chancellor and action against “anti-national”
teachers. There is a distinct possibility of sedition charges being
brought against them.
What is the crime of the teachers? Around two weeks ago, they organised a
programme to pay homage to Mahasweta Devi, the iconic Bangla writer who
earned respect across political lines for having dedicated her life to
portraying the struggles of the tribal communities. In this programme, a
dramatic adaptation of Draupadi, a short story by Mahasweta Devi, was
staged. This is the story of a tribal woman, Dopadi, who after having
been raped by security men rises in defiance, putting the shame of rape
behind her. She refuses to cover herself and confronts the security
forces with her nakedness.
The teachers decided to present the story, written decades back, in the
contemporary context. Now an epilogue was added to the story, which
listed certain crimes still being committed against tribal and other
communities by security forces. It asks the audience to spare some
thought for the victims and decide what their role should be.
The play was applauded by the packed hall and top officials of the
university congratulated the faculty for the creativity with which the
programme was designed and presented. But the teachers were in for a
shock the next morning when they found a demonstration being held at the
gate of the university against the programme. The charge was that they
had insulted the soldiers of India by putting up this show. The local
media took up this cause and a hate campaign was unleashed against the
faculty members. It was said that while our soldiers were dying in Uri,
these teachers were insulting them by such acts.
The ABVP complained against the “anti-national act” by the teachers. The
Vice-Chancellor readily took note of it and constituted a six-member
committee to investigate and fix responsibility. The university issued a
show-cause notice to the co-ordinator of the programme, Dr Snehsata
Manav. The notice “takes cognizance of some of the objections raised by a
group of people and the press reports… in various newspapers today,
particularly with regard to some sensitive statements made against the
soldiers of the Indian Army, particularly in the epilogue of the
play....” The alacrity with which the university acted shows that it was
under tremendous pressure. One can understand an effigy of the
Vice-Chancellor was burnt and action against him was being demanded. The
notice to the co-ordinators and the setting up of the inquiry committee
is definitely a move by the university authorities to distance
themselves from the faculty members. One must also note that the
university itself does not list any specific charge.
What is scary is there was no protest from within. The show was filmed
by some members of the audience and the clips circulated in the town.
Instead of doing anything on the campus, the ABVP held protest
demonstrations in the town, which is 12 km away. A concerted campaign to
rope in farmers is on and the Hindi media is adding fuel to it. People
are being mobilised against the university community.
One of the co-ordinators of the event, Dr Manoj Kumar, has been lebelled
a Maoist. The ABVP says that the event shows that some teachers are
active in spreading communist ideology in this town and state, as was
done in JNU and Hyderabad University.
It is encouraging that the teachers have not been browbeaten. Dr
Snehsata has bravely faced the notice and responded to the charges,
owning everything in the epilogue. She writes, “While in the epilogue I
have talked about only two incidents of rape done by the Army/police in
the disturbed areas, there are volumes of files full with such
incidents.” She refers to the observations by the Justice Verma
Committee and the Supreme Court asking the state to investigate the fake
encounters and acts of sexual violence that get shielded by the AFSPA.
The most disappointing aspect of the whole incident is the act of the
Vice-Chancellor, who has literally abandoned his faculty. It was his
duty as academic head to defend his colleagues. Instead, he chose to
save his skin. But Professor Kuhad is definitely not the first
Vice-Chancellor to have abdicated his responsibility. Five years back,
in the University of Delhi, two vice-chancellors buckled under pressure
from the ABVP and Dina Nath Batra, and removed “Three Hundred
Ramayanas”, a widely celebrated essay by AK Ramanujan.
When I see all this happening, I recall the words of Ashok Vajpeyi, who
was my vice-chancellor at Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi
Vishvavidyalaya. He told us that as people responsible for the
departments we were working in, we were the decision makers but he, as
head of the institution, would always be there to defend us even if we
committed some mistakes. Sadly, VCs of today are no longer of the same
league. They do not regard themselves as academic leaders, and therefore
lack the courage of intellect. Instead, they choose to act as agents of
the state and look helpless when faced with societal prejudices.
Dr Snehsata, Dr Manoj Kumar and their colleagues need support from their
peers. Instead, we have decided to treat this as a local matter of a
university. Dr Snehsata asks if it is not the duty of the academics to
question the state if it goes against the people. She also asks why the
security forces should be above scrutiny and criticism. Are they beyond
the Constitution?
We joined universities believing that we were entering spaces that would
have the freedom to subject everything to questioning and criticism,
that if there was anything sacred on the campus it was this freedom to
critique. The university is the only space in our hierarchical and
deeply divided society where we can experiment with ideas that would be
treated as sacrilegious in the wider society. Now the agents of society
are closing in and the universities are under real threat. Who’ll rise
to defend it?
The writer is a Professor in the Department of Hindi, Delhi University.
