“Even though from childhood I had been taught that the idolatry of the nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown the teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will truly gain their India by fighting against that education which teaches them that a country is greater than the ideal of humanity… Nationalism is a great menace. It is the particular thing which for years has been at the bottom of India’s troubles.”

These words were spoken by the poet whose song has been converted by a military band into the national anthem of India. Were Rabindranath Tagore to utter those words on a university campus in India today, he would be called “anti-national” and arrested for sedition.

I first encountered Tagore’s Lectures on nationalism in a political thought class at the University of Calcutta in the 1960s. We were the first generation born after independence. Brought up on string tales of patriotic heroism and sacrifice, we did not quite know how to deal with Tagore’s eloquent condemnation of modern nationalism. Later, in the course of my own research, I delved into the careers of many revolutionary nationalists. Needless to say, they rejected Tagore’s critique of their politics. But I was struck by the way in which virtually all of them recounted in their memories their deep immersion of Tagore’s poems and songs as a source of solace and inspiration during their darkest days underground or in prison. At that time, the best patriots had an immensely rich and subtle grasp of the culture of their country.

Image courtesy Tweenyjodd

Today, I also find it remarkable that my professors in the university — in the early decades after independence — should have required us to read Tagore’s passionate critique of the very idea of the nation. Were they challenging us to get underneath our comfortable patriotic common sense to seek new and nuanced rebuttals to Tagore’s arguments? If they were, they were in fact teaching us that neither reverence for the nation nor reverence for Tagore was the right approach to true knowledge. The attitude of bhakti has no place in the modern university.

We are now being told that it is a criminal act to question the integrity of the nation or the provisions of the constitution or even a Supreme Court Judgment within the premises of a university. The utterly bizarre application of the sedition law to words spoken at a gathering of students deflects comprehension. It shows utter disregard for the very concept of a constitutional democracy and its place in the university.

First of all, a serious argument can be made that the sedition law, as defined in section 124 A of the Indian Panel Code, had no place in a constitutional democracy based on the sovereignty of the people. The colonial law was designed to protect a government that was necessarily external to those over whom it ruled. One can see why any word, sign or visible representation that brought into hatred or contempt or excited disaffection, including disloyalty or enmity towards the government, might have been considered punishable by the colonial state. But how can the same argument apply to a government that is set up through periodic elections within a constitution that the people have given to themselves? The government in India today is not external or prior to the people constituted as a sovereign republic. Given the enormously wide meaning of “sedition” under this law, any criticism of the government of the day could be designated as incitement to disaffection and punished. Our courts, so fond of the modus vivendi rather than clear interpretation, have shied away from pronouncing section 124 A unconstitutional but have instead, in repeated judgments, emphasised the distinction between advocacy and incitement, and insisted that mere speech unconnected to actual harm caused against the state cannot be punished under this law. But who cares? The administration in every state has used the law to harass and intimidate the political opposition.

Entry into the University

Now we see this applied in a vicious form to the Indian university. This is not the first time the police have entered a university campus in India to arrest students. The old British convention of the sanctity of the university began to collapse in India from the 1970s when the campus became a site of political agitation drawing supporters and critics from outside. But leaving aside the years of the Emergency, never has a general campaign been launched by a national party in power that targets university students and teachers on the evidence of their speech alone as “anti- national” and charges them with sedition. It matters little if the charges do no stand up in court t in the end. Till then, intimidation and violence will be pursued by loyal vigilance gangs with impunity. It could lead to the tragic death of Rohith Venula, the horrific beating of Kanhaiya Kumar inside the premises of a court, or the harassment of hundreds whose names have been found on the phones of the arrested students.

There is a concerted campaign in the political arena, the media and even Parliament questioning the presumed autonomy of the university. The law must apply equally everywhere, we are being told, and so why should the university enjoy a special privilege? There is a fundamental confusion here, caused by lazy thinking or deliberate obfuscation, about the actual limits to freedom of speech in the university and the appropriate authorities who can enforce them. It is not as though anything can be said on a university campus. I cannot imagine a physics teacher wasting valuable time in class, except perhaps as a comic diversion, on someone claiming that the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth. Depending on the appropriate forum, discipline and standard, university authorities always make decisions on what kinds of speech are irrelevant , confused or plain wrong. This includes discussions held outside the classroom which are an essential part of a vibrant campus life. But the crucial point is at the agencies of the state cannot be the appropriate authorities to make that judgment.

Take the issues involved in the latest controversy over University of Hyderabad and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Are we to accept that the present boundaries of the Indian nation state cannot be critically examined in the classroom or seminar? Are History students not to be encouraged to explore the archives to unearth the history of colonial conquests, treaties and partitions that resulted in the territorial boundaries of present-day India? When the sovereign state of India has added a territory (such as Goa and Sikkim) or given up any territory (most recently through a treaty with Bangladesh), are those not to be studied? And since when are judgments of the Supreme Court exempt from public discussion in India? Can students of law and the constitution not be expected to answer questions about the Afzal Guru judgment when eminent persons who oppose capital punishment as a matter of principle and others who feel the weight of evidence in that case was insufficient to merit the death penalty, have gone on record with their views? Is the status of Kashmir and the northern Eastern states a taboo subject in the university when the daily news is full of stories of protests and violence in those places? Can resistant forms of religious and cultural practice that differ from those of the dominant mainstream not be discussed by teachers and students? In that case, the university might as well be declared dead. Instead , let the government build national seminaries designed to produce patriotic morons.

Limits on freedom of speech

Should there not be limits to freedom of speech on campus? There already are. There are governed by conventional practices that are not always the same on every campus and are enforced by appropriate university authorities. Last week, an MA student made a presentation in my seminar on the publicity material and school textbook produced by Daesh (or ISIS) in Syria and Iraq. The material was spine-chilling in its crude militarism and in the intensity of hatred. But the students were able to engage in a serious discussion on why this poisonous message might attract some people. That is what a university should be able to do. Perhaps the discussion might not have been appropriate for younger, less mature students. But that is a judgment that teachers have to make.

We must insist that a judgment on what can or cannot be said within the precincts of a university cannot be made by the agencies of the state because they are not equipped to make such judgments. There must be a clear separation of jurisdiction. If there is a murder or robbery or riot on campus, the university authorities will recognise their inability to deal with the matter and hand it over to the appropriate state authority. On all matters concerning speech and expression, however, the university authorities must be the sole judge to decide on the limits. No other principle is compatible with the ideas of the modern university.

Why has the attack on the university come in this form at this time? We could explain it by pointing to the evaporation of the Modi magic, the collapse of his promises of quick economic prosperity, and the recent electoral reverses of the Bharatiya Janata Party. That does explain the increasing assertion by the core right-wing Hindu organisations and the impunity with which their cards can indulge in violence and intimation. But who are their targets on university campuses? Both at the University of Hyderabad and JNU, they have targeted students and teachers associated with a new, somewhat loose, platform that bring together dalit, adivasi and minority students with radical left groups. This is a new formation that has emerged in the last decade or so, especially in the campuses of the central universities where admission policies have brought in larger numbers of students from socially and economically marginal groups. This form does not quite reflect the party structures at national or state level and, as a result, has shown itself to be far more innovative and adventurous than the traditional parties in picking its causes and mobilising support.

This is the formation that the Hindu Right-wing has targeted on the university campus. Perhaps it thinks that the recent and rather loose organisation of these campus groups will make it easy to isolate and corner them. Whipping up fears of lurking terrorists and hatred towards their anti-national sympathisers might silence the mainstream opposition parties. The latest campaign is not unlike that against “Un-American Activities” launched by the right- wing Joseph McCarthy in the United States in the 1950s. The targets then were Communist and Soviet Sympathizers in the universities, the Science laboratories and the film industry. Something similar is happening today in India.

Broad-Based Resistance

Fortunately, the resistance has been dramatic, resolute and broad-based. The lead has been provided, most remarkably, by the accused students themselves. Nothing has galvanised the protest more than Rohith Vemula’s incredibly moving suicide note and Kanhaliya Kumar’s allegedly “anti-national” speech. They are testimony to the indomitable struggle against adversity that brought these two young men into the best research-based universities in the country and the utter sincerity of their commitment to a just and human future. That young people like them, who should have been the pride of their communities and nation, were instead attacked as anti-national criminals for noting more than their expressed opinion, has outraged everyone associated with the university everywhere in the world.

If the criminal charges against these students collapse in court, it might perhaps serve as a damper on the Hindu right-wing campaign, but it would be unwise to count only on that. The university is too precious a place for critical thought to be left to the vagaries of uncertain judicial decisions. Those who have a stake in the pursuit of knowledge as a vocation must mount a resolute defense of the autonomy of the university in India. And here, teachers would do well to learn a thing or two from their students.

Partha Chatterjee is a political theorist and historian. He studied at Presidency College in Calcutta, and received his Ph.D. from the University of Rochester. He divides his time between Columbia University and the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, where he was the Director from 1997 to 2007.
We thank the EMS Smrithi Organizing Committee, Ayaanthole for allowing us to publish this essay from Idea of India, Background Papers, EMS Smrithi Series compiled by M.N. Sudhakaran et al, Thrissur, June 2016.
 

The post Freedom of Speech in the University appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Barely three hours after the first cruise missiles slammed into Baghdad, a wave of demonstrations started in Asia and Australia and rolled swiftly across Europe and the Middle East toward the United States, where anti-war activists planned hundreds of protests later on Thursday.

In the Arab world, thousands of protesters vented their fury at the start of the war to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, with demonstrators in Egypt and Syria demanding the expulsion of US ambassadors.

In Cairo, the Arab world’s biggest city, riot police used water cannon and batons against hundreds of rock-throwing protesters who tried to storm toward the US embassy.

"This war is a sin," said 43-year-old Cairo taxi driver Youssef, as religious music blared from his car radio. "It’s a sin because ordinary Iraqis will suffer. It’s not a sin because of Saddam, who was too stubborn. He’s got a head of stone."

In Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is one of Washington’s staunchest allies on Iraq, the three biggest trade unions staged a two-hour strike.

Italian cities were thrown into chaos as tens of thousands of protesters took to the streets, in many cases blocking train stations and highways. The biggest demonstration was a march on the U.S. embassy in Rome.

In Germany, more than 80,000 schoolchildren, many with faces painted with "No War" or peace signs, protested in the capital Berlin and the cities of Stuttgart, Cologne, Munich and Hanover.

"Let’s bomb Texas, they’ve got oil too," read one banner.

In Berlin, people lay in pools of red paint outside the heavily guarded US embassy to symbolise civilian casualties.

Swiss police clashed with hundreds of protesters, mainly students, who marched on the US diplomatic mission in Geneva, firing tear gas into the air to disperse them.

Spanish police in riot gear fired rubber bullets at anti-war demonstrators, including well-known actors and celebrities, who gathered in central Madrid in protest at Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s support for the US-led attacks on Iraq.

Earlier they beat some demonstrators with batons in an attempt to move them on.

Violence also erupted in Calcutta, eastern India, when about 1,000 protesters waving banners reading "US warmongers go to hell" tried to storm a US cultural centre. At least 12 policemen and six demonstrators were injured when cane-wielding police drove them back, a senior police official told Reuters.

Thousands of British anti-war campaigners, enraged by the involvement of British troops in a war they see as an illegitimate grab for oil by Washington, blocked roads and scuffled with police as protests spread across Britain.

At the biggest rallying point in London’s Parliament Square, police hauled away demonstrators, including many schoolchildren, who were sitting in roads and blocking access points.

"We’re here for peace," said schoolgirl Tallulah Belly, 14, at Parliament Square. "We’ve walked out of school — we are the future generation and they should be listening to us."

The only reported clash outside a British embassy was in the Lebanese capital Beirut, where around 1,000 protesters were sprayed with water from a fire truck when they crossed barriers outside the mission. Witnesses said police beat several of them.

In France, more than 10,000 people, mostly students, surged through Paris chanting anti-war slogans, reflecting their government’s rigid anti-war stance which has infuriated Washington and split the international community into two camps.

Huge protests also took place in Greece, Spain and Austria.

In the Gaza Strip, about 1,000 Palestinian women and children marched in the Rafah refugee camp, holding Iraqi flags and posters of Saddam and setting fire to Israeli and US flags. About 150 people marched in Bethlehem in the West Bank.

On the other side of the planet, protesters brought Australia’s second largest city, Melbourne, to a standstill. Organisers put the crowd at 40,000, police said it numbered "tens of thousands." Australia is a staunch ally of the US and a supporter of the use of force to disarm Saddam.

Anti-US sentiment was also strong in Muslim Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan, where many saw the attack as the start of a US campaign to subjugate the Islamic world and seize oil.

In Pakistan there were scattered but peaceful rallies across the country against what some called "American terrorism," while in Indonesia some 2,000 people from a conservative Muslim party sang and chanted anti-American slogans outside the US embassy. 

(Courtesy: Reuters).

Archived from Communalism Combat, March 2003 Year 9  No. 85, Cover Story 1

The post Listen to the world appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Text of Taslima Nasreen’s speech at the Mumbai Marathi Granth Sangrahalaya in Mumbai on March 6, 2000Iwould like to express my gratitude to  the organisers for having invited me here. 

I am a newcomer to Mumbai. As a transit passenger I came here for the first time last November. Though it was past midnight, I was surprised to find friends of mine waiting for me. This time also I am in transit. A few hours later I will be flying to Paris. I know Mumbai is a great Indian city. I know Calcutta closely through long encounters. This is my first time here. I am grateful for the kind affection you have shown to me. I thank you again for this warm reception. 

I am a writer. Whatever I have to say I say with my pen, either in prose or in poetry. I write, I am not like an another agitator. The agitation you see around me is not for my political or social activities. It is simply because of my writings. I have not written much. As a young doctor in a Dacca hospital I started writing columns for newspapers in my country. My primary concern was the plight of ordinary people, especially women. By our standards, those writings were popular and received wide publicity. 

My poems also reflected the concerns of everyday life of our people. Particularly women-folk who suffer a lot because of patriarchy and religious zealots. So my writings received attention, and became controversial.

Some extremist groups even put a price on my head. Unfortunately my government, instead of taking action against the fundamentalists, issued an arrest warrant against me. The rest is perhaps known to you. I had to spend sixty long days in hiding and at last had to leave the country. For six years I have been living in exile. 

You can easily imagine a writer uprooted from his or her own soil and thrown into an alien environment and completely dependant on that environment — how he or she feels. Fortunately, for me, I found a lot of friends in distant lands and they have given me all sorts of support. Still I feel lonely and long to come back to my own country. 

As this is not possible under the present circumstances, I try to come to India. Especially to Calcutta, where I find compatriots and a consensual atmosphere. Unfortunately, coming to India was also not easy. It was six years before I could come to India. I was granted a visa only recently. Because of this generous offer, I could visit Calcutta twice in quick succession. And as a bonus I could stop over for a while in this great city of Mumbai. 

India is a great country. It has a long history of civilisation and culture. I adore India. I know there are aberrations in history but India is a land of tolerance. People of different faiths have found sanctuary in India whenever they were in trouble — like Parsees, Jews and Christians. All this has contributed to making India a colourful mosaic where one finds different religious, ethnic and colourful shades. India is not only the world’s largest democracy. It is in a unique position because of its democratic way of life and the liberalism that it practices.

Living in a distant land, when I hear of violations to this ethos, I feel great pain, particularly because on the sub-continent India is, to me, a beacon of light. So, when in 1992, some extremists thought it proper to demolish a 400 year-old mosque I was shocked. 
At that time, in Bangladesh, as a reaction to the Babri Mosque affair, many ugly things happened. I could not endure this shock. I wrote a whole book, Lajja. Since then it has been published in twelve different languages in Europe as a testimony of a writer from the majority community defending the minorities. 

To me majority and minority by religious definition are meaningless. I consider the citizen of any particular country as a citizen. They are human beings first and human beings last. So, whenever I find some groups who impose their religious or cultural ideas on another, I can’t but protest. 

We are seeing this phenomenon everywhere. Where a particular group wants it’s own religious or cultural ideas to dominate others. To put forward their ideas, they choose the path of violence. I think this is not the proper way to propagate one’s ideas, this is not the way to establish one’s ideas over others. 

People who are not rational in their attitudes, people who do not believe in the language of logic and who want to subjugate others forcefully are to be resisted. They must be resisted. This, again, not by force but by arguments.
Recently, when I was in Calcutta I read about Deepa Mehta’s trouble with her proposed film Water in Varanasi. For me another shock awaited. Some others were objecting to the showing of Hey Ram. Fortunately better sense prevailed and the protests to Hey Ram were withdrawn. But for Deepa the troubles remain. 

Some friends in Calcutta asked me to comment. I supported Deepa’s stand not because I wanted to be involved in a local issue and simply join demonstrations. I supported Deepa Mehta simply because I am against all kinds of fundamentalism. I believe in freedom of expression and the individual’s right to express his or her thoughts in writing, film, theatre, singing, acting or in whatever medium he or she prefers. 

It is not my particular concern what the fundamentalists are, what their motive is. Wherever and whenever an artist’s freedom is threatened, I come out in protest. Isn’t it very natural, being the sufferer myself at the hands of fundamentalists who threw me out of my homeland, that I can’t but stand besides others who are oppressed like me?

I don’t know whether I have offended some people. I believe all writings are not to please. Some are to make people even angry. I don’t want to dwell on this subject anymore. My whole life is an open book. I suffered a lot at the hands of fundamentalists. But I know in India people who believe in true democracy and who are liberal in their attitude will triumph in the end. A handful of crazy people will one day find reason and hear, patiently, not only their own voices, but other voices too.

I can assure you, come what may, I will never be silenced. I will fight all the evil forces all the time. The love, support and solidarity you have shown me here has made me all the more committed and all the more determined in my cause. 

The post ‘India is, to me, a beacon of light on the sub-continent’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.