The Witty Stride

– Satyakam Ray

According to Benjamin Disraeli, a university should be a place of light, liberty, and learning. In proper regard, a liberal arts and science university should uphold liberal views and Academic Freedom. Recently, events at Ashoka University, a private university in Haryana, prompted questions regarding its commitment to liberal principles. These principles are the foundation of the university. Two of its eminent professors resigned in succession. First to go was Prof. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, a vocal critic of the Modi government and a political analyst. He showed solidarity by resigning alongside his close colleague, the former CEA Arvind Subramanian. He followed suit after questioning the founders’ integrity. This was about the campus’s academic Freedom.

If we equate the incident to a dismissive liberal viewpoint, we commit a grave injustice. This is a serious matter. In his resignation letter to the university’s VC, Mehta wrote that the trustees had made it abundantly clear. They perceived his views on the functioning of the current regime as a political liability. The external pressure came from the university’s donors, who were not entirely pleased with Prof. Mehta’s use of Freedom of expression. It’s a chilling incident in the Indian university system. It shows a curb on free speech by a university. This is not done by some trolls on Twitter. As expected, approximately 100 students and colleagues protested in solidarity with Mehta, urging him to remain. Ivy League schools, including MIT, Oxford, and Stanford, condemned the incident. But nothing happened after that.

Many activists, artists, and political prisoners are languishing in jail just because they spoke against the government.UAPA and other draconian laws were framed against them.

The incident brought the debate on liberalism and political correctness to a new level.

Looking deeper into liberalism, it can be seen as a beacon of hope amid growing fascism. Liberalism is based on the ideas of liberty, equality, and egalitarianism.

Liberalism champions individual rights. These include civil and human rights. It also advocates for democracy, secularism, and gender equality. Additionally, liberalism supports Freedom of speech, Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The French Revolution of 1789 employed the judicious application of liberal philosophy to counter authoritarianism.

Over time, it can be duly noted that Freedom of speech is paramount to liberalism. Speaking one’s mind freely is essential. Analyzing content without prejudice is crucial. Listening to others’ viewpoints without silencing their voices is vital to a liberal mindset. Speaking without fear, with a head held high, is the accurate benchmark of liberal democracy, as envisioned by Viswaguru Tagore. The celebrated author and poet John Milton, in his Areopagitica, described Freedom of speech. He defined it as “the liberty to know.” It is also “to utter,” and “to argue freely.” It is according to conscience. This freedom is valued above all liberties. According to Milton, everyone must have unlimited access to others’ ideas to exercise the right to Freedom of speech. These ideas should be exchanged in a free and open encounter. This approach will ultimately lead to the prevailing of good arguments.

The Indian Constitution enshrines the Right to Freedom of Expression under Article 19. The Freedom of speech and expression grants every citizen the right to express their views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions freely. They can do so by mouth, writing, printing, or other methods. Nonetheless, it should not affect the security of the state or friendly relations with foreign states. It should not impact public order, decency, or morality either. Additionally, it should not concern contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offense.

Constructive criticism of government policies doesn’t incite hatred towards any individual or nation. Analyzing these policies through newspaper columns, websites, and social media is beneficial. On the other hand, it offers a fresh perspective. It provides the current authority with the scope to correct any errors in policy changes. Dissenting voices in a democracy are crucial. They give the diversity the nation seeks. They uphold the interests of the voiceless minority. Balancing the shift in approvals and dissents means inclusiveness and equality before the law. That’s how democracy works; otherwise, it’s just an elected autocracy. The kings are gone now, but the elected representatives behave like autocrats! One replaces another tyranny; the only difference is that people choose them.

Mehta’s work as a political thinker provided valuable insights into the current regime. These insights enable it to address its failures. They also help keep the general public’s interest. In this regard, Mehta’s resignation shocked the liberal world. It was not tantamount to sedition of any sort. Because we live in a democracy, dissent is a fundamental part of our rights and freedoms. If the government starts a witch-hunt to silence critics, democracy will die. The current government is using this tactic. They are slapping frivolous charges on critics. These charges also target the lapdog media and government officials. Institutions are supporting this barbarism.

In this context, a significant trend that plays a vital role in the political problem warrants attention. Liberalism, which advocates political correctness, has been placed in a wrong-woke culture. Philosophy advocates censoring every argument according to the moral benchmark. The balancing act of not taking sides in a heated exchange between political ideologies often stifles free speech.

The drawbacks of this ideology are listed below.

• Advocates of this philosophy often work as the moral compass of the rest of the group. They decide what is right or wrong, and their opinions are imposed on others. In a way, it is a liberalized autocracy.
• Liberalism refers to the espousal of freedom of expression. Politically correct leftists muzzle dissenting voices using censorship, which is even worse than right-wing authoritarianism.
• If people are so thin-skinned, they can’t take criticism. They can’t handle constructive feedback. Then it’s not the fault of the person who offers it. Progressive thinking involves accepting one’s flaws and working to improve them. Political correctness doesn’t guarantee this line of thinking. Politically correct people take the role of onlookers and don’t report any injustice to be safe. The truth must be upheld at all costs, not at the expense of diplomacy.
• Politically correct people are spineless to some extent. In the close quarters of their comfortable homes, these people often use profanity. They express their frustration with the authorities and discuss their incompetence in detail. In public writings or speeches, they censor themselves. They do this to make sure that any draconian law does not book them by the fascist government.

The question arises: When should we draw the line between Freedom of expression and political correctness? If the truth is to be told, opinions should be politically incorrect. It’s unnecessary to use abusive language. There’s no need to overemphasize contentious topics solely to criticize them. Simply highlighting the fault lines and remedies will suffice. If constructive criticism offends anybody, the person should not be in public service or politics.