The battle for the Indian mind

What do protests at the University of Hyderabad and Jawaharlal Nehru University tell us about India’s ‘messy democracy’?

May 5, 2016
Indian Youth Congress (IYC) demonstrators, Indian Parliament, New Delhi, India
Source: Reuters

Private liberal education and the future of dissent

On 15 October last year, Peter Salovey, the president of Yale University, gave a talk in Delhi titled “Liberal Arts Education in Asia”. The speech preceded the ceremonial signing of a memorandum of understanding between Yale and Ashoka University, a new Indian private liberal arts and science institution.

Salovey spoke, among other things, about Yale’s collaboration with the National University of Singapore to form Yale-NUS College, a new liberal arts college in the Southeast Asian city state. I asked him why Singapore, traditionally focused on professional and technological education, was sponsoring liberal arts education. Salovey’s answer was intriguing. He said that Singapore knows well that a messier, more pluralistic kind of democracy is not far away, and that a liberal arts education is the best way to prepare its citizens for it.

There is plenty of reason to be sceptical about Salovey’s claim, but it is highly relevant to India, where ideological conflict between groups at different ends of the political spectrum has intensified in the past couple of years. At its heart is the sustained attempt by Hindu revivalist groups – often with the support of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – to imagine a religiously and ethnically pure India, and the natural resistance to this ideological enterprise by various leftist and secular social and political forces.

While writers, journalists and bloggers have been sued, attacked and murdered, debates have raged about the blatantly ideological nature of influential appointments in academic administration. School and college boards have become embroiled in bitter controversies over attempts to purge curricula of “foreign elements”, and recently there was an attempt by a group led by a professor at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay to remove the renowned Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock from the editorship of a prestigious book series on account of his failure to meet the vision of classical Indian culture as imagined by the Hindu revivalists.

Going by the events of 2015 and 2016, it is clear that some of the most deeply embattled terrains are those of the literary imagination, the writing and teaching of history, the dissemination of scholarship in the humanities and, most recently, the legitimacy of student political activism on university campuses.

In January, Rohith Vemula, a PhD student from the Dalit (formerly known as untouchable) caste, committed suicide after the University of Hyderabad suspended him over his part in an allegedly violent protest against actions of the student wing of the Hindu-revivalist party. Student groups exploded into a nationwide series of protests against the administrative repression – including removal of Vemula’s PhD stipend and expulsion from his student accommodation – that they claim drove him to kill himself. Specifically, they accused the vice-chancellor, Appa Rao Podile, of engineering Vemula’s ill-treatment. The administration, however, has refused to relent. When the students protested Podile’s return from extended leave two months after the suicide, the university orchestrated a violent crackdown against them.

In February, Kanhaiya Kumar, the elected president of the students’ union at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in New Delhi and a member of the student wing of the Communist Party of India, was arrested at a campus event for allegedly shouting anti-India slogans at a protest against the hanging of Afzal Guru, a Kashmiri activist convicted of playing a role in the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. After being released on bail, Kumar returned to campus and gave an electrifying speech about poverty, caste and, most movingly, what it means to seek freedom within the nation rather than freedom from it. This inflamed passion at both ends of the political spectrum and marked Kumar out to opponents of Hindu revivalism as a possible future political leader, even though the university has subsequently taken disciplinary action against him and two other student leaders arrested at the same time, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya.

It is significant that, in a nation also known for prioritising education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, Kumar is a doctoral student in African studies. Vemula changed his research focus from the natural to the social sciences in 2011. Khalid and Bhattacharya are both PhD students in history.

While STEM education has long been seen in India as the perfect union of personal aspiration for upward mobility and the national dream of development, the 21st century has revealed that crucial aspects of the nation’s economic future and political conscience depend on how it educates its youth in the liberal arts and social sciences. Ashoka University is not a one-off. Realising that most of India’s public universities offer an outdated model of training, designed to serve the needs of a long-extinct colonial bureaucracy, a number of private universities have recently launched innovative liberal arts programmes, often with significant endowments and prominent academic faculty drawn from around the world.

It is important to note that some of these programmes complement existing curricula focused on professional development. In the Delhi-National Capital Region, for instance, Shiv Nadar University has instituted a strong liberal arts curriculum alongside its core engineering programme, while O. P. Jindal University has done the same to enrich its central mission to train legal professionals. This is because many business and corporate leaders in India are concerned not so much with graduates’ ability to negotiate pluralist democracy as their ability to solve problems and understand human behaviour.

Nevertheless, the bitter and bloody struggle that is unfolding between India’s political Right and Left is intimately connected to the defining concerns of the liberal arts: freedom of literary expression, the curricular construction of history, the dissemination of Indian literary and philosophical classics and arguments about citizenship and political consciousness on its university campuses.

The emergence of elite private colleges promises to change the prevailing Nehruvian socialism of Indian post-secondary studies by introducing significant alternatives to state-sponsored education. The critical question is whether such institutions will turn into exclusive bastions of wealth, power and privilege, as has happened in the US, as well as with Indian secondary education, where exclusive private schools have been established to supplement the essentially failed public system.

If this happens, they will be failing the nation at a crucial time. Unlike Singapore, India is already a messy democracy; perhaps the messiest there is. What it needs is a citizenship that is committed to its staying that way, while also being able to confidently negotiate the noisy echo chamber of dissent. We will not have to wait long before we see how accurate Salovey is about the critical relationship between Asia’s renewed focus on liberal education and its commitment to democracy.

Saikat Majumdar is an assistant professor of English at Stanford University. He is the author of three books, most recently a monograph, Prose of the World: Modernism and the Banality of Empire (2013), and a novel, The Firebird (2015).

Man holding 'Caste is social exclusion' sign

JNU incidents and the need to rethink India studies

Following the protests, suspensions and arrests that took place at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) in February, an international group of academics proclaimed their solidarity with the JNU protesters and criticised the actions of the university’s administration and the police.

wrote an article in the Indian press arguing that the academics risked providing ideological justification to terrorism. The JNU protesters, let’s recall, were sloganeering in favour of a convicted and executed terrorist who planned the attack in 2001 on the Indian Parliament. Among other things, I pointed out that academics would never dream of lending their support to students campaigning in favour of the murderers of British soldier Lee Rigby by Islamic extremists on the streets of London. So why did they feel able to express solidarity with the planner of an atrocity designed to wipe out India’s entire political class?

A recent survey indicates that a large majority of the Indian public – including in Delhi, where the party of national government, the BJP, does not hold power – support the authorities’ actions at JNU. Despite this, the events appear to have contributed to a not insignificant drop in applications to study at JNU, according to The Times of India. Word has got out among the savvy consumers of Indian higher education that JNU graduates may not easily find employment because the institution is now popularly seen as cultivating radical student activism at the expense of providing transferable skills in the employment sector.

The incidents and the reactions to them provide an opportunity to reflect on how academics have become used to certain ways of seeing and talking about India. In response to my article, I was accused by some of Islamophobia and of supporting the BJP and its repression. This is symptomatic of a narrowing of our ability to legitimately speak about India – for which academics bear much of the responsibility.

It is partly down to the fact that the study of India is trapped within a framework going back to the early Protestant theological polemics against India’s false religion, oppressive caste system and tyrannical government. As S. N. Balagangadhara and Jakob de Roover of Ghent University have explained, this distorted normative framework, constructed by the theological and colonial historiography of India, affects even secularised understandings of India to this day. Events are typically viewed by academics – both within India and more widely – through the lens of caste oppression and religious conflict. Work that does not focus on religious communalism and caste oppression is likely to get short shrift, while thinking about Indian traditions as viable alternatives to the question of how humans should live is not on the agenda. A brief survey of what doctoral theses and books on India are written should verify all that.

This legacy of orientalism was recrystallised in the context of Cold War-era area studies, specifically in the domain of contemporary South Asian studies. The projection of “soft power” by the US, in areas such as research funding, is such that this discipline has become subject to the US’ security and foreign policy agenda, which predominantly regards the identity politics of caste, religious and gender conflict as vital questions for the study of India. The prominence given to such cleavages in the research questions that academics address skews our knowledge about Indian society and culture and fails to examine the solutions to social problems that Indians came up with over millennia and that may be useful alternatives to the liberal secularism that is regarded by many South Asianists as the only antidote to India’s ills.

The same mindset lies behind the demands by some South Asia studies academics that the California Board of Education require India to be referred to as “South Asia” in school history textbooks, which they see as a sedative to the alleged rise of nationalism among Hindus both within India and among the diaspora. This is a stereotype based on perceptions of anti-liberal tendencies in India that is increasingly being used to deflect criticism of South Asianists’ bad human science.

South Asianists also constitute a core group of signatories to the petitions protesting against the JNU incidents and decrying the University of Hyderabad’s alleged role in the suicide of PhD student Rohith Vemula earlier this year on the ground of caste-based harassment – notwithstanding that his suicide note made no mention of any such events. Repudiating the academic freedom they ostensibly stand for, they urged the University of Cambridge Senate to disinvite Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, in protest at his government’s supposed role in increasing inter-communal violence.

But when confronted from within and outside academia about how academic work on India sits uneasily with evidence and experience, South Asianists reveal their confusion, conflating their narrow intellectual horizons with the actual state of India.

Joanna Williams’ important criticisms, aired recently on these pages, of a retrograde culture of political correctness on campus are extremely apposite in the case of India studies (“The corrosion of conformity on campus”, Features, 7 January). What we need today is not the kind of moralising discourses and identity politics that more widely infects education in the human sciences (and campus life more broadly) – in India as much as in the US and Europe. Unless we begin to find a way of researching India that goes beyond a framework based on recycled scraps of Christian theology, we will do a disservice to ourselves and to future generations.

Prakash Shah is a reader in culture and law and director of GLOCUL: Centre for Culture and Law in the department of law, Queen Mary University of London.

Please login or register to read this article

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Reader's comments (2)

Prakash Shah is a little unkind to South Asianists abroad who do have to make a living in demanding conditions that implicitly and explicitly enjoin meek intellectual and political conformity. My own personal recollection as an academic was that to resist what was essentially a Cold War paradigm in viewing India was unwelcome and put one's career in some jeopardy. By contrast, a Times editorialist could compare Zia ul Haq, the Pakistani military dictator, to Oliver Cromwell and warn India to seek approval for its conduct since Khalistan rhymed with Kurdistan. The late Benazir Bhutto was also compared to the Israeli Prime Minister, Goldar Meir while Indian premier Indira Gandhi was berated in another editorial for her alleged 'Brahminnical' (sic!) arrogance. Actually, revisiting press clippings from an earlier era shows that the archetype liberal Jawaharlal Nehru, now the mascot of the so called liberal Indian elite, fared much worse then subsequent nationalist successors like Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee. The Cold War stamp in the perception of India could not be less ambiguous than in the particular hostility towards Nehru who was determined to retain Indian autonomy on the world stage. While the supposedly nationalist Vajpayee, who sought to befriend the US, has been treated with much less venom. Rohit Vemula's death was most unfortunate but he wasn't a martyrs and his anger towards the Left has been studiously ignored by these lofty academics that included international luminaries like Charles Taylor. As for. Kanhaiya Kumar, the less said about him the better since his ilk seek the dismantling of India, no doubt a NATO goal too that us lesser breeds will determinedly oppose! All of a piece really and Indian social scientists abroad have written themselves out of the script by engaging in blatant fabrication and slander unlike any other national group of academics outside their own country.
Intolerance is the flavour of the season (pun intended). Feeling ignored and craving for attention, issue a public statement against intolerance or announce returning of award as a mark of protest. It is a sure recipe for instant publicity. It is also another way of reminding the world that you are a recipient of an award, a long forgotten occurrence. Interestingly, no one has returned either the medal/scroll or the prize money. Worse, they continue to enjoy all the privileges and benefits that go with such awards. Can there be a more apt example of hypocritical and duplicitous conduct? If you are a public figure, a jibe against intolerance will get you days of media attention. When Shah Rukh Khan or Aamir Khan accuses the prevailing political environment of intolerance, a storm breaks out. Newspapers are full of diatribes against the ruling party. TV anchors scream themselves hoarse with farcical debates. In fact, intolerance has become the most convenient tool to beat the government with. Whatever be the personal grievance, fire the salvo under the guise of intolerance and it works. Take the case of Shah Rukh Khan. Shah Rukh Khan has been highly critical of the allegedly-growing intolerance in the country. Well, his anger is understandable. Let us recount three incidents which caused him extreme distress. One, the Mumbai Cricket Association (MCA) banned him for five years from entering the Wankhede Stadium for the 'trivial misdemeanour' of manhandling a security guard and hurling the choicest of abuses on its officials after an IPL game in May 2012. How intolerant of MCA! It should have been more broad-minded and tolerated King Khan's gross misbehaviour in true sportsman spirit. Two, an illegal ramp constructed by Shah Rukh outside his house 'Mannat' to park his vanity van was objected to by the neighbours as it hindered smooth flow of traffic. Displaying gross intolerance towards the superstar's unauthorised construction, they had been demanding demolition by Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) for long. All was well for years as a tolerant BMC continued to ignore all pleas. However, BJP MP Poonam Mahajan showed a distinct lack of tolerance and sought its removal. The ramp was finally demolished in February this year. Naturally, King Khan was furious at the environment of intolerance in the country. Three, imagine the degree of intolerance of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in calling Khan to explain the sale of shares of the Knight Riders Sports and alleging forex violations of around Rs 90-100 crore. ED noted that the share transfers had taken place at par while the fair value was 8-9 times more. For King Khan, it was indeed a matter of gross sacrilege that a person of his stature had been doubted by the lowly officials of ED – visible signs of growing intolerance in the country. Similarly, Aamir Khan may be having his own grouses against the environment and his right to migrate to a 'safer country' must be respected by all Indians. But, does he honestly feel that India has become highly intolerant? His movie PK was a block-buster. In which country can one ridicule a god of the majority community by showing him hiding behind a commode? Could he have taken such liberties with any other religion, including his own? Riots would have broken out. Yet, he had the audacity to fault the country for intolerance. With a single imprudent statement, Aamir has undone all the good work carried out by him over the years as an ambassador of 'Incredible India' campaign to promote tourism. Now, he has told all foreign tourists not to visit an 'Intolerant India'. Although he supported return of awards as 'one way of getting your point across', Aamir opted not to return his Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan awards. Surprising indeed! Everyone has a right to express one's opinion and draw attention to the grievances, both real and perceived. There can be no dispute on that issue. However, two points must be kept in mind. One, if something goes wrong in a family, every member has a responsibility to correct matters right rather than choose the easier option of abandoning it. Similarly, it is a sign of cowardice to consider leaving one's own country instead of setting things right. Whatever be the rationale, no loyal citizen ever maligns his own country to play politics and garner publicity. It is rightly said that loyalty is a trait of character – either a person has it in him or does not have it. Two, it is only fair that all grievances are first projected to the concerned authorities and a reasonable opportunity given to the government for redressal. If not satisfied with the response in a reasonable time-frame, the aggrieved person is justified in going public. It is the right course to follow for all citizens – more so for the public figures as their allegations get huge publicity. Both Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan are matinee idols with mammoth fan following. Both have access to the top leadership of the country. Aamir Khan has met Modi at a number of occasions. One wonders if both of them approached their state Chief Minister, Central Home Minister and the Prime Minister with their anxieties and apprehensions before going public. In case they failed to do that, their allegations can be considered to be malevolent in intent and politically motivated. × When Tharoor declares, "It's safer to be a cow than a Muslim in India today," he puts the whole country to shame. The world media flashes such headlines with sinister pleasure. India's image takes a terrible beating. Just to score a brownie point against the government, Tharoor presented a convenient propaganda handle to the forces inimical to our progress. How low can a leader stoop! It will not be inappropriate to recall an old story here. An entrepreneur used to export frogs from India in lidless containers. When quizzed, he replied, "These are Indian frogs. When any frog attempts to rise and get out, others pull him down. So why waste money on lids?" The above is equally true of most Indian leaders and the intelligentsia. They have no scruples and can go to any extent to further their selfish agenda, including harming the interests of the country. They cannot digest the fact that Modi has been highly successful in kick-starting developmental revolution in a short period of 18 months. Therefore, they have resorted to the highly slanderous intolerance crusade to undermine his efforts. They want to undercut the 'Make in India' mission with their spiteful 'Hate in India' campaign, a la Indian frogs. Finally, it can be said with certainty that the well-orchestrated campaign of intolerance is malicious in intent. The sole objective is to stall all progressive reforms by tarnishing the image of the government. When Modi is visiting other countries and trying his best to attract investments to improve the quality of life of India's masses, the self-proclaimed champions of tolerance are busy dissuading foreign investors through treacherously detrimental utterances. How else can anti-nationalism be defined? Read more at:

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments