EDITORIAL/OPIATE/TATHAGATA SATPATHY
Criticize Modi or his government at your own risk. This is the message sent out by the Centre which arbitrarily de-recognized the Ambedkar Periyar Student Circle (APSC), an independent student body at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT-M), Madras. This student body has been known to debate on social, political and economic issues with major focus on Dalits and the downtrodden.
This de-recognition has sparked protests and led to heated debates in political circles as it was done on the basis of an anonymous complaint sent to the Union Ministry for Human Resource Development (HRD), which, in turn, forwarded the matter to the IIT’s director. The institution took prompt action, and in the process it violated a basic principle of natural justice by not giving APSC either a fair hearing or even a chance to represent itself. IIT-M dean Sivakumar M Srinivasan takes the stand that he conducted an inquiry and found the allegations were true. However, no inquiry can be said to be fair until and unless the accused is given a hearing.
Freedom of expression cannot be absolute and must be tempered with the concerns of national interest, peace and maintenance of law and order. However, these tenets cannot be used to justify the muzzling of voices that question the policies or working of the government or even advocate alternative ideologies as long as they are not divisive, disruptive, spreading hatred or threatening national interest.
The charge that the student body had attempted to spread hatred against the Prime Minister is untenable. What APSC is reported to have done is question the policies of the government regarding the ban on cow slaughter, its stand on corporate houses and the use of Hindi.
The pamphlet enclosed with the complaint reads: “The Modi government, while carrying forward its Hindutva agenda, is simultaneously (helping) the multinational corporate to loot Mother India…. It is communally polarising the common people by a ban on cow slaughter, ghar wapsi and promoting Vedas.” The pamphlet itself counters the claim of the complainant. There is no sign of an attempt to spread hatred. Instead, there is a criticism of Modi government’s policies.
Criticism of the government’s policies, or even some decisions taken by Narendra Modi or his ministers, cannot amount to spreading hatred. The ban or even restriction of such criticism is not suited to a democracy. The unilateral decision to derecognize the group smacks of authoritarianism that is unacceptable in an educational institution. Especially in an institution of higher learning where policies and their implementation, as well as ideas and concepts, are expected to be discussed and debated in normal course.
It is also surprising that the student body has been de-recognized on the basis of an anonymous complaint. An anonymous letter cannot be said to represent the views of the majority of any society or institution.
It seems strange that the HRD ministry decided to even forward the anonymous complaint to the IIT director requesting that “comments of the institute may please be sent to this ministry at an early date”. This should mean that all complaints, however frivolous and anonymous, would be acted upon in this manner, and not just those about somebody questioning the policies of the Modi government. It is unlikely that such stern action would have been taken if complaints were filed against student bodies headed by pro-RSS or ABVP people.
The matter has snowballed into a political controversy. While CPI national secretary D Raja has strongly condemned IIT’s action, Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi has said that he “will fight any attempt to crush dissent and debate”. This has drawn quick response from HRD minister Smriti Irani who said she was “ready to debate everything regarding governance, including education.”
Instead of getting caught up in a war of words, the HRD minister should have made it clear whether student bodies are meant to be there only in name, or debates on socio-political issues would be acceptable. Such debates are the true hallmarks of democracy. Taking action against those who question policies means an exhibition of intolerance — and that will be against the very spirit of democracy.
