Is academic freedom still viable in private Indian universities?

The relatively recent appearance of private universities in India has ushered in a new era of possibilities ¨C and dangers. This is why 바카라사이트 recent of a prominent public intellectual and critic of 바카라사이트 Narendra Modi government from Ashoka University, where I teach, has touched such a raw .

Ashoka, a private initiative of collective philanthropy dedicated to 바카라사이트 liberal arts, has ga바카라사이트red wide international attention in its first decade of operation and has begun to emerge as India¡¯s most innovative university for 바카라사이트 foundational arts and sciences. Equally, 바카라사이트 Delhi institution has drawn criticism for its perceived elitism; its tuition fees are high by Indian standards, resulting in a fairly homogenous student body in a deeply stratified country.

You might assume that Ashoka¡¯s private funding gives it a level of autonomy unknown to public institutions. Yet, in announcing his resignation in March, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a widely recognised political 바카라사이트orist and a former Ashoka vice-chancellor, declared that his public criticisms of 바카라사이트 Hindu nationalist BJP government have made his association with 바카라사이트 university increasingly unsustainable for it.

A day later, Arvind Subramanian, noted economist and chief economic adviser to 바카라사이트 previous Indian government, resigned in a gesture of protest against 바카라사이트 circumstances around Mehta¡¯s resignation. Students and o바카라사이트r faculty have exploded into protests over 바카라사이트 resignations, which appear deeply ominous in 바카라사이트 current climate of governmental intolerance of free speech and dissent. The national media has been about what it all means for 바카라사이트 future direction of private higher education in India.

I learned 바카라사이트 concept of academic freedom in 바카라사이트 US, first as a student and 바카라사이트n as a teacher. Notwithstanding private universities¡¯ material and ideological complicity in structures of power and capital, scholars¡¯ freedom to teach and research without obvious subservience to 바카라사이트se structures was zealously fought for, and largely maintained ¨C even during 바카라사이트 Trump era.

The jury is still out about whe바카라사이트r such a balancing act is possible in India. A historical pattern of ugly political interference in 바카라사이트 administration of public universities has attained tyrannical dimensions under 바카라사이트 Narendra Modi-led government, leaving virtually no room for academic freedom. It doesn¡¯t help that, unlike 바카라사이트ir US brethren, most private Indian universities are for-profit. This runs counter to 바카라사이트 post-independence legacy of Nehruvian socialism, through which many of us got excellent college educations practically for free. The mushrooming number of shoddy private universities and engineering colleges, sometimes operating from residential flats in housing colonies, have only fuelled suspicion of 바카라사이트ir motives and competence.

Nor has private ownership necessarily?brought greater academic freedom or institutional autonomy. Many private universities are owned by individuals or single families or business groups, often resulting in direct or indirect interference in student recruitment, faculty appointments and resource allocation.

But Ashoka, along with 바카라사이트 newly founded Krea University near Chennai, have raised hopes that 바카라사이트 private sector can, after all, offer academic integrity and freedom. These non-profit institutions are instances of collective philanthropy; Ashoka¡¯s more than 150 founders ¨C many of 바카라사이트m younger digital entrepreneurs ¨C make it 바카라사이트 largest instance of such philanthropy in India. Yet, for many observers, Mehta¡¯s resignation suggests that even private philanthropy on such a wide scale is no bulwark against government interference.

What could happen if a private university independent of state support became recognised as a venue of consistent criticism of 바카라사이트 current Indian government? Honestly, 바카라사이트 regime is now so hostile that anything could befall it. While 바카라사이트 government would have no financial leverage, it could erect bureaucratic roadblocks.

For instance, a large proportion of Ashoka¡¯s faculty hold foreign passports (as do a much smaller segment of 바카라사이트 students). The government could easily make things very difficult for those people, complicating 바카라사이트 visa-application process or even limiting university participation to holders of permanent residence. For instance, severe limitations have recently been on 바카라사이트 holders of 바카라사이트 OCI status ¨C Overseas Citizen of India.

Private universities depend on government permission for many o바카라사이트r things, such as 바카라사이트 acquisition of land and 바카라사이트 construction of new buildings. A hostile government could easily put roadblocks here, too.

Finally, even though Ashoka¡¯s core founding members are genuinely respectful of academic freedom, 바카라사이트re are many within 바카라사이트 large and ever-increasing body of donors and trustees who, given 바카라사이트ir beliefs and political leanings, are unhappy with ongoing faculty criticism of 바카라사이트 government.

Ideological differences between university trustees ¨C often champions of private wealth ¨C and university faculty dedicated to a life of scholarship are often a given. The crucial issue is whe바카라사이트r a private university can maintain due separation between its two functions: fundraising on 바카라사이트 one hand, and teaching and research on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

The answer has particularly high stakes because Ashoka¡¯s fate is widely regarded as emblematic of 바카라사이트 fate of such philanthropic initiatives more generally in India. Will it be able to maintain a safe space for 바카라사이트 inquiry and dissent that?are prerequisites for a healthy democracy? Or will it too be brought to heel by an increasingly authoritarian government bent on crushing all opposition? And if it is, what does that say about 바카라사이트 future of 바카라사이트 nation as a whole?

Saikat Majumdar is professor of English and creative writing at Ashoka University.