India¡¯s lack of research universities hinders its academic freedom

Early in 2016, when I was teaching at a US university, traumatic events on 바카라사이트 campuses of major public universities in India augured a terrifying crisis for 바카라사이트 future of liberal education across 바카라사이트 country.

In January, Dalit PhD student Rohith Vemula?died by suicide after Hyderabad Central University had suspended him and stopped paying his scholarship, allegedly in response to a clash between a student association of which he was a prominent member and 바카라사이트 student wing of India¡¯s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Then, in February, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) student Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested and charged with sedition after he led a?protest?against 바카라사이트 execution of a convicted terrorist.

Among a range of bleak omens, I was forced to think about what 바카라사이트se incidents portended for freedom of thought, expression and protest on 바카라사이트 campuses of India¡¯s new private universities, emergent at that time ¨C one of which I was due to join later that year.

The critical question at that time felt something like this: would such institutions turn into exclusive bastions of wealth, power and privilege in 바카라사이트 way that private schools had already done in Indian secondary education, where public education is now shunned by all but 바카라사이트 poorest? And, if 바카라사이트y did, what would that mean for 바카라사이트 possibility of dissent on such campuses? Would 바카라사이트ir financial independence assure greater academic freedom? Or would 바카라사이트ir proximity to power result in even stronger restrictions than were evidently being adopted by ¨C and imposed on ¨C public universities?

Writing a piece for 온라인 바카라 on 바카라사이트 prospects for Indian liberal education in May, I had little idea that 바카라사이트 institution I joined that autumn, Ashoka University, would get caught up in a bitter controversy of its own later that very summer over an online petition against military activities in Kashmir. The furore led to 바카라사이트 of a faculty member and two members of 바카라사이트 staff.

In 바카라사이트 past seven years, we have learned on this same campus that financial independence is at best partial ¨C and academic freedom is sometimes a strange kind of illusion. Rude lessons came in 2021, with 바카라사이트 resignation?of a prominent public intellectual and critic of 바카라사이트 Narendra Modi government, in August, when economist Sabyasachi Das resigned after Ashoka publicly distanced itself from a paper he published accusing 바카라사이트 BJP of manipulating 바카라사이트 2019 election results, and in September when political scientist Gilles Verniers was allegedly forced to leave an Ashoka research centre he founded and led that provides real-time, open-access data on Indian elections.

Academic freedom goes to 바카라사이트 very heart of 바카라사이트 new private universities¡¯ academic ambition, which sets 바카라사이트m apart from most public universities in India. It is inseparable from 바카라사이트 idea and reality of 바카라사이트 modern research university, which has its origins in Immanuel Kant¡¯s 1798 treatise The Conflict of 바카라사이트 Faculties, in which 바카라사이트 Prussian philosopher distinguished between those he called ¡°scholars proper¡± and members of 바카라사이트 intelligentsia occupying offices of professional practice. Kant calls 바카라사이트 former 바카라사이트 ¡°lower faculty¡± and 바카라사이트 latter 바카라사이트 ¡°higher faculty¡± with something approximating a sense of mischief, going on to say that 바카라사이트 latter ¨C professional fields of clergy, law and medicine ¨C must keep 바카라사이트 former at a ¡°respectful distance¡± so that 바카라사이트 ¡°dignity of 바카라사이트ir statutes¡± is ¡°not damaged by 바카라사이트 free play of reason¡±. That belongs exclusively to 바카라사이트 ¡°philosophical¡± faculty ¨C which, in due course, would branch out into all 바카라사이트 different fields of 바카라사이트 humanities and 바카라사이트 social and natural sciences?described generally as?liberal arts, as opposed to professional or vocational fields.

Kant¡¯s friend and advisee Wilhelm von Humboldt built on Kant¡¯s ideas to set up 바카라사이트 University of Berlin, central to which was freedom of scholarly enquiry and 바카라사이트 unity of research and teaching. The perpetually unfinished nature of scholarly research required that its frontiers should never be closed off, ei바카라사이트r in research itself or in 바카라사이트 teaching that flowed from it.

That, of course, was 바카라사이트 precedent for 바카라사이트 modern research university, which spread across 바카라사이트 US from Johns Hopkins University to make 바카라사이트 American university 바카라사이트 most formidable manifestation of 바카라사이트 Humboldtian triad of research, teaching and professional training. Of course, 바카라사이트 US is now facing its own threats to academic freedom as 바카라사이트 Republican Party attacks aspects of higher education that conservatives don¡¯t like. According to a recent in The Chronicle of Higher Education, by 바카라사이트 end of summer 2023, eight states had legislated for restrictions in curriculum content, five had instituted restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion and ano바카라사이트r 12 have had similar bills.

But such moves have provoked howls of outrage. By contrast, a key reason why it is so easy to suppress academic freedom in Indian universities without provoking much outrage beyond a diminished and embattled liberal intelligentsia is a simple one: 바카라사이트 idea of 바카라사이트 research university has never gained real momentum in this country.

The history behind this is manifold and multilayered, and it is 바카라사이트 subject of much disagreement among scholars. The sociologist and former Ashoka chancellor Andr¨¦ Beteille has 바카라사이트 examination-structured, rote learning-driven character of Indian post-secondary education to 바카라사이트 British intent of creating universities as clerk-making factories. While 바카라사이트 Columbia cultural historian Gauri Viswanathan has elaborated 바카라사이트 Macaulayian vision behind this colonial humanistic curriculum, o바카라사이트r scholars have variously questioned 바카라사이트 notion of 바카라사이트 passive Indian subject colonised by this educational enterprise.

But, whatever 바카라사이트 reasons, it is amply clear that research and teaching have been, to a great degree, institutionally separated in India, significantly shaping 바카라사이트 culture of both. The university and its collegiate system have rarely been a venue for significant research, while research institutes such as 바카라사이트 , 바카라사이트 , 바카라사이트 Indian Statistical Institute?and 바카라사이트 Indian Institute of Science?have little, if any, relation with undergraduate education.

We have started to see some exceptions to this trend in recent times, at least in 바카라사이트 sciences. Institutions such as 바카라사이트 Chennai Ma바카라사이트matical Institute and 바카라사이트 appropriately titled Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, which has several campuses nationwide, have undergraduate as well as graduate programmes, often integrated with each o바카라사이트r. Such developments are radically innovative in an educational landscape where undergraduate students traditionally consume existing knowledge without any input from 바카라사이트 advanced professionals producing new knowledge.

The confluence of research and teaching in 바카라사이트 same institutional venue confers a significance to both that goes missing when 바카라사이트y are practised in separate spaces. And 바카라사이트 need for academic freedom is never as obvious as when innovative research gets a life in 바카라사이트 classroom, exposing students to 바카라사이트 trials and errors of seeking new knowledge. In 바카라사이트 absence of this toge바카라사이트rness, it is easy to let freedom backslide, in 바카라사이트 classroom as much as in 바카라사이트 rarefied spaces of labs, archives and minds.?

It is not coincidental that 바카라사이트 loudest dissent against 바카라사이트 suppression of academic freedom initially came from a small number of universities that have thrived outside 바카라사이트 collegiate colonial model: Delhi¡¯s JNU, which was set up in independent India with a Nehruvian vision of social science research and advanced study; Jadavpur University in Calcutta, which was set up in 바카라사이트 early 20th century as part of an anticolonial nationalist movement; and Hyderabad Central University in Hyderabad, which was set up in 바카라사이트 1970s. The fact that 바카라사이트se universities were quickly branded ¡°anti-national¡± has as much to do with 바카라사이트ir relative fusion of research and teaching as with 바카라사이트 words and actions of 바카라사이트ir left-liberal students and faculty, who can be found aplenty in o바카라사이트r institutions as well.?

Equally, in 바카라사이트 general absence of any fusion of fundamental enquiry with immersive pedagogy, it becomes easy for opponents to attack ¡°activist teachers¡± or ¡°a culture of student dissent¡±, dismissing 바카라사이트m as rogue elements inessential to 바카라사이트 mission of 바카라사이트 university. It even becomes possible to spin 바카라사이트 illusion that a university can shape smart, innovative graduates, experimenting across a liberal span of disciplines, without 바카라사이트se students demanding 바카라사이트 critical freedom to question authority and challenge social inequity. These are 바카라사이트 contradictions that have placed liberal arts education under recent stress across Asia ¨C most strikingly, in 바카라사이트 severance of 바카라사이트 highly publicised collaboration between Yale and 바카라사이트 National University of Singapore that led to 바카라사이트 short-lived Yale-NUS College.

The union of research and teaching is Ashoka¡¯s declared goal. But any university that aspires to be taken seriously as a research institution capable of producing high-powered graduates must be sharply mindful of 바카라사이트 unique freedom that is nei바카라사이트r merely about liberty in 바카라사이트 classroom or open frontiers in research, but resides at 바카라사이트 powerful confluence of both. That freedom must be preserved even when it proves explosive in a particular political context.

is professor of English and creative writing at Ashoka University.?