Stop para-dropping academics

The much-hyped controversy on the resignation of Pratap Bhanu Mehta from Ashoka University has got wide space in the media. People have got a chance to discuss the role of academic freedom in universities in India. This is a very well known fact that all want liberal funding from the government but all want full freedom. Now, the government is inviting private investments in the universities and our academics are obsessed with the foreign model of Oxford, Cambridge and Harward, the interest of teachers and students are not at all a prime concern in the institutions of higher education. 

Now, the prime concern of learners is to collect certificates and degrees. They are not at all interested in studies and knowledge. Teachers are more interested in research, projects, seminars, conferences, foreign visits etc and to make their C.V. loaded with paper achievements and collecting points. All these activities and financial resources cannot create world-ranking and high-impact educational institutions. Failure of Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Saudi Arabia and Canada is the latest example of this kind. 

Singapore invited institutions of higher education in the west to develop their campuses in Singapore and they got very liberal financial assistance from the Singapore government. Yale University established an undergraduate college of liberal arts in Singapore in collaboration with the National University of Singapore (NUS). 

However, this experiment failed in Singapore and it never developed as a real equivalent to Yale University. Ultimately, Yale-NUS did not allow students to create branches of political parties and other groups. It also banned strikes, dissent, criticism and any political activity to discipline the students and teachers.  

The much-hyped concept of freedom of expression or speech is created by these western institutions. Para-dropped academics who were the production of these western universities but could not get any position there rushed to India with these lifted from the west. However, the too much liberal context in which the Indian universities works, these borrowed concepts disturb the academic environment and keep away serious scholars and teachers. 

So financial support is not the prime concern. Experiences of Singapore, Malaysia, Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia have proved this beyond any doubt. Economics historian from Harvard, Alexander Gerschenkron very correctly observed that "intellectual climate" in India is strikingly different from those of early rulers from whom they borrow different concept like "freedom of speech."  

As a result, the need and working of educational institutions cannot ape  (such as academic freedom, dissent)  the concept of their ousted colonisers. 

In India, governments want educational institutions and institutions of the nation to take part in social and national development, even government officials serving in universities. Hence, the refusal of director IIM Ahmedabad, Errol D'Souza was not appreciated by the Ministry of Education (MoE) to review a PhD thesis already approved by the IIM. 

In India, academic freedom, the most important and fundamental feature in western universities, has no value and discipline and expertise restrict academics and scholars. This clash of concept and borrowed ideology was seen in Ashoka University. Prof.Mehta followed the borrowed concept blindly in a nation where participation of academics in dissent, politics and criticism of governments is not welcome. 

It is not a guarantee of the freedom of expression, dissent, debate promotes excellence and world-class institutions. Academicians and scholars have to be loyal to local needs and local systems. After all, it is their responsibility to loyal to their world. There should be a balance in university affairs and the freedom of speech, debate and dissent to create and flourish world-class institutions. 

The governments and the leaders can provide a positive consultative role relevant to the excellence of the institutions. Creating and promoting internal academics in a time-bound manners cum seniority, as professors, deans and vice-chancellors. These faculty members would provide a more efficient and healthy university fraternity and leadership. 

A good relationship with students, faculty, authorities and alumni is very critical and important. There must be clarity and division of powers and roles. Academic freedom, duty and discipline go hand-in-hand. The political masters should not dictate governance. The small group of nit-pickers should not be allowed to control all the voices. They should not be allowed to encumber the academic and administrative working of the universities. 

Now there are no limits to freedom and debates. All respect diverse points and duty. It is also the responsibility of everyone that ambience prevails on the campuses. A tiny number of students and teachers, guided by their political masters cannot hold the universities to ransom. Media is always there to give oxygen to such elements. This small group of students and teachers are against the very idea of freedom of expression and dissent. 

Now tolerants are most intoleranats and liberals are most narrow-minded. They are against the very idea they advocate. The objective of this write-up to understand reality through the lane of divergent opinion. Selective media reporting has created a comedy of strife that suits the ideological composition of a handful of self-styled scholars of eminence. They are so much intolerant to others that they create all the obstacles in the appointments and promotions of others. So, to meet all these problems systems should be simple. All the eligible candidates for the promotions should be promoted automatically as professors, deans and vice-chancellor in a time-bound manner to the democratisation of the university space. 

This will give a larger segment of the university community a space to work smoothly.  

. Respect freedom of expression and idea

 

Nearly a month back, a journalist of the New York Times, Bari Weiss resigned due to the bullying and harassment by a group of Left-liberal journalist who almost controls Twitter. This is a growing trend in the media who do not toe their views – be it journalism or any platform is given new names.

 

Now, this bullying tactics of the Left has reached India. Now, they are accusing Facebook of biased to the Right views. They are not ready to accept that Right has also the right to freedom of expression and ideas. Not only this, but Congress Member of Parliament Shri Shashi Tharoor also plans to summon Facebook officials before the parliamentary panel.

 

This has stirred a new row. This is not a new thing. This is a global pattern. Further describing this Weiss said,” It has become that truth and a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job it is to inform everyone else.” She further added about her own experience as a journalist,” Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and draw their own conclusions.”

 

Back home Congress, CPM and other opposition parties’ blame that there is a BJP-FB nexus. Whatever the facts and truth may be but all the parties try to create media and voices positive and favourable to them.

 

Not very long back Cambridge Analytica hired and made fat packages to Indian journalists and intellectuals to write against the BJP and Shri Narendra Modi during Gujarat riots but they remained silent on Malad killings.

 

The movie The Social Network (2010) that is based on the life of the founder of Facebook Empire Mark Zuckerberg, clearly depicts the authentic mind of Zuckerberg. The movie makes it clear the capitalist inclination of Zuckbererg, chiefly how to enlarge Facebook and to make big money. In the movie the performance of Jesse Eisenberg is noteworthy.

 

Hollywood movies are very honest in their depictions. In biopics, they present positive as well as negative parts os a character, unlike Bollywood biopics those are always a glorification of a person. Even dreaded criminals are glorified in Bollywood.

 

Since its foundation, Facebook has always in the news and as one of the most popular inceptions. It provides free of cost connection with the world with a tagline was “it’s free and always will be”. In the beginning, Facebook was considered a status symbol. If one did not have a Facebook account, then one was treated as ‘backward’. There was a time when people boastfully declared about their Facebook account, especially to impress girls.

 

On the one hand, people were connected with their family and friends and on the other hand, they have full freedom of expression and speech and ideas. Everybody is his chief editor and contributor. There is no censor and scissoring of thoughts.

 

There are big politics, nepotism and pressure groups in the media and publishing. Recently, Bloomsbury withdrew its consent of publishing a book on Delhi riot due to hidden pressure from the left-wingers. Similarly, some episodes of a popular channel ‘Sudarshan’ were stayed by the court due to the petitions by the fringe elements.

 

Facebook has no such problem. There is total respect to one’s freedom of expression and ideas. Only, objectionable contents are removed, if there is any complaint. This is the greatest contribution of Zuckerberg. It is an absolutely free platform.

 

Thus, in the 2008 American Presidential election, 70 per cent of voters who have Facebook accounts, voted for Obama. This survey was made by news portal USNews (Nov.9. 2008, at 12.20 p.m.).  Barack Obama used Facebook very intelligently and showed the whole world the influence and power of Facebook and social media.  Russian spy Vasili Mitrokhin has noted in detail in “Mitrokhin Archive” about the use of money trail to influence the voters, journalists, intellectuals and the leaders in  India. Retired Intelligence Bureau officer M.K.Dhar has also mentioned even the names of such leaders who were managed by foreign forces to influence the Indian policies and voters.

 

However, Facebook provides freedom of expression and thoughts to everybody.  It is a very good platform to express their views.  However, it is very difficult to publish even a comment in any newspaper. All have their private censor board in the name of moderation. Advertisers, political parties and voters all get an easy platform on Facebook.

 

Facebook users supported Brexit and ‘notebandi’ enthusiastically. The aim of Zuckerberg was to help people stay connected and freedom of expression. Now, some groups have been trying to defame Facebook of fake news and hate contents. Nevertheless, these are the elements that indulge maximum hate contents and fake news.

 

Traditional media is badly stained by nepotism. It is in the grip of left-wingers, Islamists and missionaries. Facebook is not in any way responsible for fake news and hate contents because it is its policy to be freedom of expression and ideas. Similarly, Twitter is blamed that it is in the grip of left-wingers and Islamists.

 

It is the politics of Left, Right, Islamists and centrists. It is their game to influence the hearts and minds of social media players. But during the last few years, the Left and the Islamists are increasingly trying to be vociferous “anything goes” and bullying ploy, to deny space on platforms to any divergent view. The world saw this during the anti-CAA/NRC disruptions when many left-wingers and Islamists used targeted campaign and baseless Islamophobia on social media and many Indians were put at grave risk of violence in the volatile Middle-East. Facebook does not need any change. It is the perception of the people who needs changes.