FREEDOM OF DISSENT & DEBATE IN ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS

From one lecture theatre to another, from one realm of subject to another: minutes pile up into hours as the economy of knowledge is regulated in the academic institutions but- unidirectionally! Confining the process of learning within the domain of a classroom wall is the worst any academic institution can do to limit the growth of the ‘Self’. Surprisingly not many endorse the growth of the ‘self’ to the highest level here. The world is suffering from a grave humanitarian crisis, and the need of the hour is not mechanized-robotic brains that have grossly reinforced the default system of easy acceptance to what is being taught and preached in the disguise of obedience and academic brilliance, presented quantitatively in the marksheet; but now the world demands more ‘thinking brains’ essentially; minds that have not submitted before the abstract customs, rather those that are still alive on the diet of logic and rationality; minds that are capable of evaluating the situations on their own, without being dictated what ought to be or how things should work. And all this can only be attained when the academic institutions provides its students with the space for dissent, debate and discussions and encourages independent thinking, no matter how informal the platform is. The thought process of students should not be maneuvered to fit the set of rules already established, rather the ‘thinking brains’ are inherently little rebellious and question the perfunctory beliefs. Students have to be taught that all which is prevalent around is not necessarily the right- the freedom to question is essentially the core value of any learning process. The majority is not always right. What better example than the dialectics of Socrates and its articulation by his student Plato, no matter what the restrictions were in place by the authorities- the philosophy that stood the test of times is evident now, and even in the 21st century where do we stand?
The reform movements in India,were mainly initiated and structured through the medium of academic institutions and also for generation of opinions. To have an opinion, wrong or right is a secondary issue, is the pre-requisite for the evaluation of the system, and to generate opinions is the task and duty of our academic institutions; how well they do it, I can’t say! And ironically crushing of opinions seems to be the new normal of academic institutions, these days.
Fetching degrees alone is not enough to determine the standards of the ‘self’, until you have grown as a better person than who you were when you first entered the gates of your school or college, etc.
Only in the atmosphere where conflicting views are allowed to co-exist and given the platform to assert and prove their points, only there can one explore the ultimate truth and this should be the purpose of academic institutions. As JS Mill recognized: behind a liberal government must be a liberal society. And therefore intellectual freedom should be the extension of social democracy which essentially becomes urgent with the extension of political democracy. Also not to forget, the role of the teacher in immense for this- a good teacher has to show the students where to look but not what to see.
And as Socrates, the great teacher, has said “I cannot teach anybody anything, I can only make them think”-this has to be the purpose of our academic institutions; not inheriting the monotony of facts but to inculcate rationality and reason: to make the students THINK!

—Sana Shah

Relevance of JS Mill's Thought on Liberty in contemporary world

In a democratic set-up, those chiefly cherishing the high ideals and ethos of democracy should never undermine the fact that they too are vulnerable to the loopholes and flaws of democracy.  In this regard JS Mill, a British philosopher and economist, has made a significant contribution. As has been aptly observed by George H Sabine in the analysis of Mill’s ideas on liberty, the questions on democracy and threat to liberty, have to be understood in the pretext of not just to state but to society in the broader perspective. The current debate on ‘intolerance’ and ‘infringement of intellectual freedom’ can be better understood in the light of Mill’s essays which still hold relevance in the changing times to a great extent. As put by Sabine:
“The threat to liberty which Mill chiefly feared was not government but a majority that is intolerant of the unconventional, that looks with suspicion on divergent minorities, and is willing to use the weight of numbers to repress and regiment them” Mill had recognized that behind a liberal government there must be a liberal society.
In progressive societies the room of discussions and debates should always be open to people and they should be provided with a platform where the “self” is allowed to develop and grow to its fullest. Because in an atmosphere where conflicting views are allowed to coexist and given a stage to prove their points following the method of dialectics, only there can one explore and empathize with what is right and what stands to be the ultimate truth. But instead the trend in our set-up has been the use of coercive means, suppressing the conflicting ideas if they don’t suit or fit our personal needs. The recent issues like that one, of detaining the students of JNU without any procedural investigations can be seen as another weapon for curbing the intellectual legacies of such institutions that uphold and cherish the democratic tradition of debates and discussions. Extending political forces to academic institutions is not acceptable to any democratic set-up by any means, especially when the powers of state are misused for assaulting the sphere of intellectual freedom wherein rational and critical thinking is propounded. When the state directly or indirectly interferes in the sphere of intellectual freedom, it robs the society of the advantages it might have had from free discussions and criticism of the opinions. JS Mill has over and again defined the role of state in securing the liberty of the individual and by no means has empowered the political institutions with the right to curb the individual’s right to free thinking.  Otherwise the apprehensions, in words of Voltaire “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” will come true. Also extending the state’s responsibility in securing the dignity of individuals, the state is not empowered to silence any voice by leveling baseless charges against people without any legal backing as prescribed by law. The abstract charges of sedition against students as in JNU delineates that the institutional legacy of such prestigious institutions of producing great statesmen, leaders, diplomats who have stood for the country’s sovereignty and integrity appears to have been undermined in the growing sense of intolerance in the nation.
Only in societies where in free-thinking and discussions are used for tolerance against rising discords, can rational minds develop who are capable of analyzing facts and then deciding what to accept and what to refute. If any opinion is not worth having, then don’t listen or prove it wrong but it cannot be banned without proper scrutiny. And EB Hall has aptly said “I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Further as JS Mill in his essay On Liberty has remarked, “If all mankind minus were of one opinion, and one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
Hence it must be reckoned that the abstract extension of democracy in social sphere eventually leads to the tyranny of masses, hence the need for intellectual freedom becomes more urgent with the extension of democracy.

— Sana Shah