JNU or IIT, what our taxes actually pay for

A few months back, social media (as it often does nowadays) had become a battle ground a debate on subsidies for the IITs. Those opposed to subsidies believed that the money invested was not being recovered by Indians because the IITians chose high paying jobs abroad. The response to this included arguments about the money Indians abroad were sending back home and the companies and jobs that IITians were creating back home. This debate is rife again today, with the arrest of seven students at JNU. The burden on IIT and JNU students is however very different - while economic activity is an acceptable outcome of education, political activity is considered a detriment to progress.

Articles such as this one written by Mohandas Pai, tell us that as taxpayers, we should be paying for the education of JNU students, not their politics. These articles apparently present a "balanced view" because they seek to criticise the actions of both the government and the students at JNU. But they're not - they're clearly biased, backed by the idea of a certain kind of politics.

Also read - JNU crackdown: Is freedom of speech all India cares about?

And this politics is what we need to speak about more - although as in the IIT case, it has been more common to speak about education as a commodity, which can or cannot recover the investment made in it. Reducing education to a question of returns on investment (ROI) displays an ignorance of what the purpose of education is, and more importantly, an ignorance of the practise of politics.

The author believes it is a simple act to separate politics from the "real task" at hand, education, but side-steps the fact that every action is political, including writing a so-called balanced piece about current events.

Besides the point that politics is ingrained in every action, it is important to recognise that calling something "too political" implies taking a certain stance - both against the type of politics we have a problem with, and the way in which that politics is practiced. Students in all universities engage in politics all the time. Don't the protests against the Mandal Commission's recommendations count as politics? Isn't a student choosing to forego a "quota" seat an act of politics? Doesn't a debating society on a college campus engage in politics each day? Isn't the separation of boys and girls in a classroom by an institution the exercise of a certain brand of politics? We choose to recognise activities that we approve of, that we are comfortable with, that appear "clean" to us, as a good way to practise politics. And therefore we don't use that "dirty" word politics to describe them. And we clearly take a stand to call something out as damaging to the idea of education when we don't agree with what we hear.

Also read - JNU row: Why BJP MLA OP Sharma needs an education

So I wish we were actually talking about politics here, but we're not - we're talking about clamping down on views we don't agree with. We're talking about removing an essential part of the identity of a democratic citizen and turning our students into units of economic analysis - as efficient units of production whose only job is to recover the investment being made in them.

But this "investment" is not being made in education alone - the investment is being made in enhancing the potential for students to become engaged democratic citizens. And we can't simply choose to allocate our tax resources for particular kinds of activities - we're not simply signing a contract for services with the government.

We're paying taxes for a range of things - some of which might apply to us personally and others not - but they largely apply to building a democratic state. When we do this, we recognise that we are a part of the machinery that constitutes the nation - that is one of the things nationalism is about - about being invested in a project that enhances democratic functioning and services to all who're part of this nation.

Secondly, if we choose to impose restriction on what students can do in the university (that is, only get "educated"), where does one draw the line? Logically we should also impose restrictions on what they do after university because they were able to do that only thanks to our taxes!

Also read - JNU students, don't forget what you owe to the taxpayer

Why are we investing in education otherwise? It is ridiculous to think that curtailing politics within the confines of a university is going to succeed in any way - not only because as said previously, politics is in all actions, big or small, but also because with respect to taxes, it is akin to saying since I'm paying taxes for water provisioning, people should only bathe every alternate day. Such statements are devoid of logic and completely mired in a person's own sense of right and wrong. And we should recognise them as just that, not "balanced" points of view or universal truths.

Finally, on political participation itself - something that few can afford and yet something the middle class often gets upset about - that politics has been captured by the rich and corrupt. If that is the case, and if to be politically active, one has to have first overcome the barriers posed by ensuring basic needs; shouldn't we as citizens take pride in contributing to the growth of political participation? Our taxes don't simply contribute to meeting needs, they also free people up to be political actors. This broadens the scope of who will become our representatives. And actively seeks to dismantle a system in which only the rich, those whose lives revolve around ensuring high returns on investment, become our political masters.