8/18/2019 The University and Its Outside

1/3

 THE UNIVERSITY UNDER SIEGE

Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   MARCH 12, 2016 vol lI no 11 29

The University and Its Outside

Udaya Kumar 

Udaya Kumar (udayaxkumar@gmail.com)

teaches English at the Jawaharlal Nehru

University.

In the new conception being

put forward by the government,

the university is considered as

a skill factory which, through

mass production, will address the

needs of the country’s economy.

This model thinks of universities

not as laboratories of thought

but as factories where activities

are performed in unison. Instead

of a cohabitation of differences

in friendship and respectful,

heated disagreement, you have a

paranoid fantasy that gets rid of

all real diversity.

R  ecent events in the Jawaharlal

Nehru University (JNU) and the

 strong, widespread responses

they provoked indicate two things. First,

 what is at stake in the JNU crisis goes

beyond the destiny of a particular

university, or even questions of higher

education, foreboding wider repression

of freedoms in society. Second, in the

current contestation over the scope of

democracy, the public university as an

institution and intellectual space is

placed in a position of vital significance.

Similarities between the situations that

arose in the Hyderabad Central Univer-

sity, Jadavpur University and JNU have

been instructive. In all these instances,

the state and a section of the population

sought to reconfigure the university

space and enforce new limits to what

can take place there. Has the Indian

university become the visible site where

the imminent futures of freedom anddemocracy are being thought and

fought over?

Special Relationship

The university as an institution has a

special relationship to society at large: it

is commonly recognised that its larger

societal functions can be fulfilled only

under certain conditions of autonomy.

 At the same time, shifts in the relation-

ship between the university and its out-

side can have a vital impact on its space

and the energies mobilised there: they

may enhance the university’s autonomous

responsiveness to society or hamper its

institutional integrity.

The past four or five years, dating

from the last years of the United Proges-

sive Alliance (UPA)-II  government, saw

an intensification of government inter-

ference in the functioning of university

administrations. Fresh dimensions have

been added to this under the new regime:now government intervention has become

more blatant and direct; it is often

prompted and accompanied by aggres-

sive political campaigning against the

freedoms enjoyed by universities, some-

times leading to violent onslaughts from

politically organised vigilante groups.

Student protests have been increasinglyconfronted by belligerent mobs and a

police force that seems to abdicate all

autonomy of functioning. The events

that unfolded in New Delhi in the Patiala

court compound on 15 and 17 February

offer the starkest example of this, but

they are by no means unique. Occupy

UGC (University Grants Commission) 

protests and the students’ march near

the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) 

office in Jhandewalan in the wake of

Rohith Vemula’s suicide were handled

 with brute force, with newspapers and

television channels reporting the partici-

pation of plain-clothes men in the latter

crackdown.

Catchword of ‘Anti-national’

The catchword “anti-national” has been

prominent in these aggressive campaigns

as a tool for mobilisation and self-justifi-

cation. Although the phrase has been

in active use in right-wing politicaldiscourse for some time, it has acquired

a new salience in the attack on univer-

sities. It was heard repeatedly during

the developments in Hyderabad Central

University that led to Rohith Vemula’s

suspension and later his suicide. It has

acquired a new, deafening loudness in

the past weeks in the context of JNU.

Whether it be capital punishment, or

 judgments pronounced by courts, or

human rights violations by armed forces,

or the suppression of political dissent

by the state, the expression of views

critical of them within university cam-

puses are portrayed as “anti-national”

actions. Devoid of conceptual specifi-

city, the phrase “anti-national” does

not allow patient scrutiny: it does not

permit critical unpacking, invalidation,

or self-delimitation. Without any foun-

dation in the Constitution or legal

structures, the phrase works as aggres-

sive name-calling which singles outpersons and views to publicly incite and

direct punitive action.

8/18/2019 The University and Its Outside

2/3

THE UNIVERSITY UNDER SIEGE

MARCH 12, 2016 vol lI no 11 EPW   Economic & Political Weekly30

Branding adversaries as “anti-nationals”

allows political formations to mobilise

an irate public whose self-authorisation

as spokespersons for the nation resides

solely in the divisive force of accusation

and in the violent demand for punish-

ment. Courts have in the past cautioned

that opinions against the government orbelief in an alternative vision of society

cannot in itself be termed as illegal, in

the absence of evidence of actions

aimed at destroying the state. Such vital

distinctions are erased by the punitive

rhetoric of offended nationalism. The

alarming frequency with which cases

are registered and people arrested for

expression of views on social media or

campus publications indicates that the

harassment of prosecution is being used

as a form of punishment, regardless of

the legal tenability of the charges. The

convergence of state machinery, political

discourse, and mob aggression has pro-

duced an atmosphere of siege in many

university campuses.

Link to Other Changes

These recent developments, however,

cannot be viewed in isolation. Under the

UPA-II regime, major changes in higher

education were initiated and imposedon universities without consultation or

public discussion. This was dramatically

demonstrated in the case of Delhi

University, where a series of hastily

formulated curricular reforms were forced

 without serious academic deliberation

by making a mockery of institutional

mechanisms. Ironically, the very argument

about university autonomy was used then

in order to pre-empt critical scrutiny by

courts or Parliament. Autocratic methods

of bullying the academic community

into submission have been used in other

Indian universities as well. Such moves

have often been viewed by critics against

the backdrop of a projected transforma-

tion of Indian higher education through

increased privatisation and globalisation.

Their immediate consequence however

has been a dramatic erosion in institu-

tional procedures and academic standards

caused by the hasty cobbling together of

syllabi and teaching programmes, ques-tionable appointments, and a cynical dis-

regard for collective deliberation.

The recent escalation of government

intervention has made the university

alarmingly vulnerable to an outside

beyond its control. Over the past year,

newspapers reported several stand-offs

between the government and the ad-

ministration of central universities and

Indian Institutes of Technology. Many vice chancellors and administrative

heads now face the same sense of disen-

franchisement that faculty members in

universities experienced for the past

few years. Press reports on the high-

handedness displayed by the govern-

ment in its interactions with university

 vice chancellors and other institutional

functionaries seem to confirm the change

in the relations between the state and

the university. The earlier pretence of

non-expertise on the part of the Minis-

try of Human Resource Development

has given way to the discrediting of ex-

pertise and autonomy with an ugly

insistence on showing who is the boss,

taking the form, if the press is to be

believed, of asking “who pays your salary?”

Reconfiguring the Relationship

This question may be read as a sign of

current attempts to reconfigure the re-

lations between the university and itsoutside in a language of hostility and

control. This is present not only in

governmental intervention in the uni-

 versity ’s functioning; we also find it in

the recent prominence of the figure of

the “taxpayer” in public discussions on

education. Although tax regimes are

devised for the fulfilment of larger societal

objectives and do not confer any special

rights to those who pay personal taxes

as opposed to sections of the population

that are exempted from taxation, the

“taxpayer” is projected as a figure of

special entitlement in contrast to the

“public” or “society.”

The rhetoric around the taxpayer

subverts inclusive conceptions of public

interest by producing a distinction be-

tween “taxpayers” and “spongers,” and

arrogates a differential right to dictate

the terms on which public funds should

be spent. Education is seen less as a

 vital resource valued and maintained incollective interest than as a site of eco-

nomic investment where the funders,

that is, the taxpayers, have a right to set

societal agendas and objectives. This

differentiation of the public—dividing it

on the basis of graded rights in deciding

public matters—is interestingly accom-

panied by a trend in the opposite direc-

tion. That which is excluded appears not

as an inclusive, deliberating public be-fore which contesting views on public

interest and public spending—ranging

from military expenditure to health and

education—can be raised. It assumes

the form of aggressive trolls or politically

organised mobs that regard inclusive

public discussion as an enemy.

Expansion of the University 

We should not think that shifts in the

relationship between the university and

its outside have always been towards hos-

tile confrontation. The most significant

change in higher education in independ-

ent India has perhaps been the expan-

sion over the last decade of reservation

to backward classes, and this has led to

major changes in the texture of central

universities. This, combined with the

award of scholarships for MPhil and PhD

students who did not have funding

through the UGC’s  competitive Junior

Research Fellowship (JRF) examination(a measure whose withdrawal provoked

the Occupy UGC protests) made it possi-

ble for the first time for students of

 weaker social backgrounds to pursue

university education to advanced levels

on a large scale. This has significantly

altered the predominantly upper-caste,

middle-class character of the student

body and redefining the relations be-

tween the intellectual activities in the

university and the world outside. This

unprecedented enhancement of diversity

in economic, social and linguistic back-

grounds has posed important challenges

for mass higher education in India in

terms of facilities, infrastructure, provi-

sions for close academic support and

mentorship, and—importantly—atti-

tudes, much of which remains insuffi-

ciently addressed till now. However, the

presence of a large student population

from socially underprivileged sections

has increasingly inflected and trans-formed idioms of political thinking and

practice on campuses.

8/18/2019 The University and Its Outside

3/3

THE UNIVERSITY UNDER SIEGE

Economic & Political Weekly  EPW   MARCH 12, 2016 vol lI no 11 31

Many institutional habits which rem-

ained invisible, naturalised and unchal-

lenged over the decades have been questi-

oned in recent years for their discrimina-

tory character, and a new, more inclu-

sive academic culture is being demanded.

The public university seems placed at

the moment at the crossroads of thesetwo forces: the state and a punitive public

trying to curtail its autonomy as a space,

and the democratisation of the student

body altering the character, concerns

and relationship of the university to

society at large.

The last government and the present

one have emphasised the need for a

massive expansion of higher education

to larger numbers of students. However,

this is not conceived as an expansion of

 what we have known as the university

space. Mass higher education is increas-

ingly conceived as a technological en-

deavour realisable through online courses

or mass contact classes which does not

need to create the time and space for

debates and discussions typical of uni-

 versity campuses. Projected descriptions

of the public university dispense with

“critical thinking,” an idea that has been

central to the university’s self-image as

knowledge-creator for a long time. The vital contribution of the university to the

 world was understood not merely as

supplying skills needed by society but

also critical and innovative thinking

 which enabled social transformation in

accordance with the times. Criticism

 works by an inherent tension with domi-

nant norms and structures, through a

refusal to accept the authority of ideas

as given and by opening them up for

scrutiny. The acquisition and dissemination

of knowledge within the university takes

place within the horizon of this larger

aspiration to innovate and critically

transform existing fields of knowledge

and life.

University as a Skill Factory 

In the new conception being put forward

by the government, the university is

considered as a skill factory which

through mass production will address

the needs of the country’s economy. Crit-ical thought is regarded as an outmoded

ambition, an irritant that impedes the

smooth accomplishment of this aim. In

the protected space of the university, the

implicit valorisation of critical thinking

has served to link the classroom to its

outside: political debates and intellectual

conversations on campus connect in

creative ways with the classroom, and

serve as much as sources of education asformal academic instruction. Universities

can foster critical thinking only if they

permit students to engage and experi-

ment with diverse points of view in an

atmosphere free of fear and the threat of

 violence. New policies seem to envisage

a different kind of public university,

 where disciplined acquisition of skills is

the only role assigned to students. They

are not imagined as possessing any

non-curricular intellectual subjectivity.

Thought and expression outside the

classroom are being considered as part

of the domain of discipline. The sugges-

tion seems to be that governments will

decide what sorts of non-curricular

activities are permissible.

This approach does not recognise the

university student as an adult, as an

autonomous individual. He/she has voting

rights and can thus participate in the

most important political choice exer-

cised by citizens, but does not have theright to thought and expression and the

freedom to experiment with ideas in the

free and protected space of the university.

Such activities are becoming matters

for surveillance and disciplining. The

increasing obsession on the part of the

UGC  and university authorities with

surveillance measures such as closed

circuit TV  (CCTV) cameras and police

presence on campuses illustrates this. This

is particularly pronounced in relation to

 women students. This new idea of the

university denies adulthood to students,

and considers them as in a state of tute-

lage and intellectual heteronomy. The

university is being thought of as an

extension of the school, where external

guidance and necessary force are seen

as essential to the maturation of the

child into the adult.

These moves place not only the univer-

sity student in a state of tutelage; the

university itself as an institution isreconceived as properly belonging to

such a state. The university is divested of

the rights to decide for itself, to govern

itself, and set its norms and objectives.

It is treated as a child who cannot be

trusted to decide what is best for it. Who

decides then for the university? Who

has the right to say what is right for

higher education? In the current situa-

tion, the government seems to be usurp-ing that position from the university,

aided by political formations and self-

authorising sections of the public. RSS 

publications have compiled detailed

information on events that take place in

campuses like JNU  and have outlined

plans of “course correction.” In both

Hyderabad and New Delhi, right-wing

legislators, armed with such informa-

tion, asked the government to intervene

in the university space and set limits to

permissible activities.

Nationalism is used as a tool to legiti-

mise efforts to determine from outside

 what the university ought to allow by

 way of independent thinking. The gover-

nment, in a recent meeting, decided to

install large-sized national flags on

appropriately high flagpoles in central

universities to help induce a spirit of

nationalism. It has been suggested that

military tanks on display on university

campuses will have the necessary totemicforce. Instead of critical practices that

draw their energies from multiple voices

and debate, an intellectual ethos of

silent veneration or choric acclamation

is being proposed. This model thinks of

universities not as laboratories of thought

but as factories where activities are per-

formed in unison. Instead of a cohabita-

tion of differences in friendship and

respectful, heated disagreement, you

have a paranoid fantasy that gets rid of

all real diversity.

Which Future?

Which of these images will fit our public

universities in the years to come? Will

they emerge with a stronger sense of

autonomy and intellectual vibrancy by

drawing on the democratisation of their

space and the new energies of critical

thought this has brought in? Or will they

turn into extended schools which impart

skills and impose discipline? At stake incurrent battles is the fate both of the

university and of our democracy.