The Indian State has shared a contentious relationship with universities. The conflict is manifest chiefly in the contention over the idea of university autonomy in general and academic freedom in particular. The tussle has intensified in recent years, especially regarding the freedom of faculties in teaching and learning activities and their political participation inside campuses. Some of the recent examples of the tussle include the resignation of Ashoka University’s faculty in light of Sabyasachi Das writing a paper that highlighted alleged manipulation in the election polls. There are also complaints by the faculty of Ambedkar University against the university administration’s contentious role in creating hurdles in research activities for the faculties through red-tapeism. Faculties in most Indian universities are finding themselves at the receiving end in their negotiations for freedom of teaching and research. Ironically, the mechanism that is often put in place to regulate this freedom is disciplinary regulations.
Ensuring the proper implementation of academic freedom of faculties can be difficult, especially when higher education remains dependent on State funding. It is through funding that the State assumes the legitimacy of regulating the university system. This process often leads to the introduction of managerial approaches to university governance. Consequently, universities function in accordance with the regulations outlined by regulatory bodies. The State also puts undue pressure on universities to conduct ‘safe’ research since controversial research subjects are considered undesirable. As a result, we often witness attempts to silence higher educational institutions and their faculties.
The point which is often missed while limiting academic freedom is that the foundation of modern universities rests on such principles as the autonomy of teaching and learning, the unity of teaching and research, and a focus on the philosophical basis of any discipline that is taught. The modern university was different from any other medieval institution that worked closely with the Church or other authorities. The idea of a modern university originated in Germany. This model argued that the State’s role must be limited to funding the university and that the university would be accountable to itself and to society. The model was adopted by most European countries. Indian universities, established by the British, also adopted this administrative and academic framework of modern universities with certain alterations. But the meaning of academic freedom remained unchanged. It entailed the right (without constriction by prescribed doctrine) to freedom of teaching and discussion, freedom in carrying out research and disseminating and publishing the results thereof, freedom to express freely opinion about the institution or the system in which universities work, freedom from institutional censorship, and freedom to participate in professional or representative academic bodies. Postcolonialism imagined that the principle of academic freedom of students and teachers would be further enhanced in lieu of national development and research-oriented activities. But the fact is that the rise of robust forms of the nation-state has witnessed a fall in the freedom of universities and their faculties.
Various committees and commissions have produced their reports on education and higher education in India. Apart from the Yashpal Committee report of 1993 and the National Knowledge Commission of 2005, education policies did not elaborate upon what the idea of university autonomy and academic freedom should be and how is it to be realised by universities. There has been limited elaboration in any policy upon the need for faculties’ academic freedom even though they are crucial actors in nurturing the university’s culture as a space for academic inquiry.
There has been an ongoing, undue emphasis on the accountability of faculties without enhancing research facilities and academic freedom of universities. If the universities are to become sites of ‘culture and excellence’, they must provide adequate academic freedom to the faculties. Political interference in appointments, scarcity in job opportunities, ad hocism and the uncertainty of tenureship along with centralisation, bureaucratisation, and politicisation have historically produced weak university autonomy and freedom in the Indian context, leading to an era of unfreedom. This ‘unfreedom’ of the university faculty was initially limited to public universities since they function directly under the aegis of the Central government. But in recent years, private universities, which do not necessarily rely on the State for funding, have also been nurturing the culture of ‘dos and don’ts’. The problem, then, is not about being critical of the State’s policies; the issue lies in voicing concerns against the dominance of any power structure. Since the 1990s, the neoliberal discourse has also strengthened the alignment of interest between private enterprises and the State. This affinity has led to the governance of faculties and universities through the principles of New Public management. These principles impose outcome-based modalities of functioning with strict codes of conduct and are inherently in favour of producing accountability without guaranteeing autonomy to any organisation.
The answer to the ailments of Indian universities does not lie in fixing their accountability to the government. The problems are to be resolved by fair recruitment of faculties and credible vice-chancellors, granting freedom of faculty to undertake academic activities, providing funding for the infrastructural development of universities, introducing policies for inclusive culture, and upscaling research and teaching activities. Universities must be allowed to function with sufficient requirements to transform themselves into self-governing institutions. A significant reason for the ailments of Indian universities lies in their inexperience of freedom and responsibility that could transform them into institutions of culture and excellence. The few Indian universities that have nurtured an academic culture could do so with minimum State interference and maximum freedom to the faculty.
The true independence of faculties has been supplanted by a system wherein the pursuit of power within academic institutions mirrors the strategies employed by political parties in democratic societies. Occasionally, under the guise of fortifying autonomy, the actions taken impede the freedom of universities and their faculties.
Universities are markedly different institutions from other modern establishments. Their task is to produce and disseminate scientific and critical knowledge. In order to make universities spaces for excellence, the idea of academic freedom must be defended.
Chetna Trivedi is a PhD candidate, Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
