“After almost two years… again I got blessed with the mercy (from whom, you guess). This is the third time in the last 6 years that I am leaving my job.”
My morning began with this message from Mukesh Kumar, a friend and journalist. Kumar was a teacher and dean in the media and communication department of Lovely University in Jalandhar for about two years. Yesterday, he resigned from his job. Or was made to resign. His employer, the university, felt that his presence on the campus was harmful to its interests and he should go.
This is the third job he has had to leave in these last 6 years, said Kumar. Before Lovely University, he had been removed from Shri Guru Gobind Singh Tricentenary University (SGT University), Gurgaon and Makhanlal Chaturvedi Journalism University, Bhopal. It is not very difficult to understand why he had to leave these institutions. Kumar dislikes the Bharatiya Janata Party and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
Kumar is a face well recognised by Hindi-speaking viewers. Everyone remembers his literary discussion ‘Subah Savere’ with Namvar Singh on Doordarshan. The talk shows and discussions he conducts on contemporary political and social issues on the platform of ‘Satya Hindi’ are very popular.
Kumar talks calmly. But he has firm secular and democratic values. It becomes natural then for a person like him to be critical of the BJP and the RSS. He does not pretend to be impartial, which is what many journalists claim to be when they tolerate the majoritarian ideology of the BJP or the RSS. They claim that they do not take sides between secularism and communalism. They have a duty to only report the battle between these two ideologies. It is as if they are reporting a wrestling match where they are mere observers. Kumar does not belong to this league of journalists. One can understand that a journalist should not be biased in favour of any political party in his journalism but he must be partisan towards the values of civility and refinement. Otherwise, why pursue journalism at all? And we know that the ideology of the BJP and RSS is opposed to civility or refinement.
The BJP considers journalists like Kumar as its enemies.
When Lovely University invited him, it knew his history. The institute was also familiar with his views. Being secular, you will definitely be an opponent or critic of BJP or RSS. Aware of all this, Lovely University chose to invite him as a faculty member. Why did it then ask him to go now? Or will it say that he left voluntarily?
Before coming to the university, Kumar had made it clear that he would not leave his journalism. He would not stop his talk shows. The management had no objection to his condition. Why did it now ask him to stop his shows to be able to continue in the university?
It is not difficult to understand the reason why it happened now. Elections are close and BJP wants to silence all its critics. Lovely University cannot afford enmity with BJP at this stage. Its patron is a Rajya Sabha MP from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). They know how heavy the cost of BJP’s anger can be for them. What do they lose if they sacrifice Kumar for their safety? After all, don’t we remember what Ashoka University did to Pratap Bhanu Mehta?
Today, there is only one condition for the survival of institutions: declaration of loyalty to the BJP government. If you do not do it then, at the very least, you should be silent. Kumar’s outspokenness could have been dangerous for the administrators of Lovely University. He faced a choice: stop his program and remain at the university, or continue speaking and lose the job. Kumar chose his voice.
This choice is bound to cause economic insecurity to him. But what should one do when asked to choose between freedom and security? Kumar has answered it. He remains what he was. Unlike him, hasn’t Lovely University lost its right to be called a university? It can be said that the presence or absence of one person does not make much difference to any institution. But the reason for which he had to leave tells us whether the university is able to fulfil its dharma or not. That dharma is to provide and create open space for free thoughts. If the university prevents you from expressing your views publicly, then it is defeating its purpose.
It is important to reiterate that one of the tasks of academics is to constantly communicate with society so that it can understand itself better and also think about and what is happening to it. Teachers provide society with facts and also make available conceptual tools, with the help of which it can analyse events and situations. This is the social responsibility of the teacher. Those who say that teachers should only be concerned with their classroom and limit themselves to the task of completing the syllabus, do not know anything about the role of teachers.
What happened to Kumar is happening quietly in other universities, especially the private universities, and we are often not aware of it. Private universities hire teachers in subjects such as journalism or mass communication on short-term contracts. It is their choice whether to continue the contract or not. But we have been hearing about the contracts of temporary teachers, who are considered inconvenient for the BJP, not being renewed or terminated. It is difficult for all such teachers to go public with this information for obvious reasons. It might affect their chances of employment at a new place. No institution would like to hire a person disagreeable to the regime. So most of them keep quiet.
It is easy for the government to crack down on private universities. Their patrons are usually industrialists and businessmen. The government can attack their business on any pretext from questioning their land use to disconnecting water or electricity supply and withdrawing permission for new buildings, etc.
Can any institution afford so much trouble for the sake of the freedom of public expression of one teacher? So even though patrons with good intentions tell teachers that they have complete freedom in their classes, they should keep their mouths shut outside. At least it will save the university. This is why you will hardly see articles on ‘sensitive topics’ private university teachers in newspapers and other media platforms. It is not that they have changed their views or are scared. They have gone silent in the interest of their organisation.
While this is not happening at Delhi University right now, the government is trying to change the service conditions of teachers and put restrictions on their public writing or activity. Many central institutions have done this. This step gets support in the society because there is a general understanding that those who get salaries from the government’s money do not have the right to criticise the government. But this understanding itself is flawed.
Public resources should be used in public interest. There is always a tension between public interest and power. Often, those in power force the public to consider their own interest as public interest. It is the job of those working in the field of knowledge production to keep the public aware of this tension and conflict. Their public speaking or writing is necessary, not for themselves, but for the interest of the public. How else will the facts given by the government and the reasons given for its decisions be tested or judged? This is where academics have a role to play.
It is not surprising that the relations between those in power and intellectuals are not generally cordial. But a totalitarian ideology considers them as its enemies. That is what we’re seeing in India right now. The government does not want to allow any other voice in the country except their own. Certainly not the calm, civilised and reasoned voice of a person like Kumar who chose freedom of his voice over his job. What did Lovely University choose? And do his students realise what has been taken away from them?
Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University.
