There is no doubt that our universities must have space for debate and dissent. However, when the narrative descends into calling for the nation’s destruction, the Government has to intervene to secure the nation-state
Universities are misnomers for the ideal of a multiverse that they must be. Diverse narratives of nationalism are part and parcel of a pluralistic nation-building process. Narratives need discussion and debate for understanding the diverse viewpoints and the dialectics of the arguments. The academic space must be open enough to accommodate the advancement of the dialectic of knowledge. After all, growth in any idea or discipline occurs at the seams, where the departure in the adventure of ideas sets the differentia.
Thus far, the argument for ideologically freeing the multiverse in the universities must seem to be perfect. But the chink in that welcome idea is, whether campus activism, performed way out of the class room, must exhort to the manifest overthrow of the nation- state, which harbours profound freedoms built over sacrifices by generationsIJ Should the ideals of our Indian way of life, rooted in a chaotic and slow but inclusive and century-spanning political movement, be allowed to be usurped by an extreme radical ideal like that of a separatist organisation of religious persuasion say the Islamic State terror group of tomorrow through the very spaces of intellectual adventure left open, such as our universitiesIJ
Should activism, going way beyond the academic space, be allowed the latitude to muster midnight protests calling for the Balkanisation of the Indian stateIJ Does the space for expression, allowed near ad libitum by the state, allow proxy justification of an attack on Parliament, which, imperfect as it may be, is still the great seat of our democratic freedoms and the watchdog of the multiverse we are free to sing inIJ
Does a university, in order to further the freedoms it cherishes, depreciate, albeit indirectly, the same Parliament which had the sagacity to enact itIJ Does the students’ defence, that provocative anti-state sloganeering, calling for the balkanisation of the country, did not result in actual violence, hold goodIJ Can one call for an attack on Parliament or the Supreme Court tomorrow and escape the firm hand of the law, even if that call did not materialise due to logistical failures or the effectiveness of law enforcement agenciesIJ
Isn’t it better to draw a line when a public university, the result of the sweat and toil of the masses and the vision of the top leadership, is used clandestinely by masked faces to develop a proxy ideological war against the state for whatever reasons statedIJ Or does the state look on helplessly when the ideological subterfuge, a mere prelude to the real threat, is unleashedIJ
It is interesting that Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, though enacted by the British in 1898, is suddenly facing a libertarian test. The provision withstood the liberalism of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and successive Home Ministers, including left leader Indrajit Gupta, who were drawn from a diversity of political opinions. A state legally incapable of resisting attack on its legal person, ie, its physical and ideological basis, cannot hold itself together. The degrees of freedom that its legislative arm will allow the citizens, which it will not consider subversive, is its informed choice.
What should the state call a transgression of its sovereigntyIJ A state’s right to exist is reflective of its maturity, self-confidence and threat perception. A lot of this is driven by history and experience in governance. In their sagacity, Nehru and the other elders thought that Section 124A was in order and allowed under reasonable restrictions to be imposed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
In a different age and time, maybe the legal construct of Section 124A can afford a change to re-classify ingredients of offence and make an exception for academic calls against the state or Government. But that will bring upon the state the additional burden of proof to demonstrate that the cause effect of each anti-national exhortation in specific transgressions. This is a debate for the future. It needs a thorough analysis of the law enforcement experience under the present formulation, which many feel is only successful partially.
Till then, the need for criminalising public anti-state exhortations is clear. Most European states have similar curtailments on the denial of the Holocaust, for example. A state which cannot protect itself from calls of subterfuge from within and without, is in no position to safeguard the freedoms of its constituents. If citizens’ peace and freedom can be periled by a subversive call academic or activist the state needs sufficient legal teeth to penalise the caller. The state’s total loss marks the beginning of chaos and erosion of the identity of the nation state. Whether that nation-state is globally withering away, as some postulate, is a pertinent question on the horizon. But that is a different debate altogether.
(The writer is a former Vice Chancellor and a civil servant)
