Debating Academic Freedom in India

• In Event: 18.014 - The Future of Academic Freedom: Identifying Global Threats and Defining Universal Values

Abstract

This paper considers how academic freedom gets defined in the world’s largest democracy – India. First, the authors address what should not fall under the conceptual umbrella of “academic freedom.” Their discussion covers three primary topics: 1) the frequent conflation, yet misguided, of academic freedom with institutional autonomy; 2) the mistaken belief that academic freedom ensures the right to speak on any topic; 3) and the importance of peer analysis and review to correct scholarly error.
Afterwards, the authors present how academic freedom gets defined in 21st century India. Currently, the role of universities in Indian society, in general, and the ability of academic staff (faculty) to speak out on an array of issues, in particular, has become a central concern. Research on controversial issues confronting society, such as caste and gender-related issues, regularly engenders a chilly climate for researchers who must worry about procuring financial and institutional support, as well as scholarly validation, for their research. All too frequently, governmental intrusion into the affairs of the university and the limits of academic freedom results in the harassment of individuals who are put in jail or physically harmed.
The authors maintain that, at its best, a university should be a noisy conversation where individuals are encouraged to argue with one another. Rather than a hesitancy to speak up for fear of retaliation, academic life ought to be one where Indian scholars are encouraged to challenge stated norms and engage in conversations about those issues that are of paramount concern for the well-being and future of the country. In closing, the authors’ purpose is neither to side with one or another interpretation of academic freedom, but instead to delineate a way to think about academic freedom such that individuals might engage in scholarly debate that neither threatens one’s physical safety nor shuts down conversation.

Authors

• William G. Tierney, University of Southern California

• Nidhi Sabharwal