Indian universities need dissent to stay alive
In the aftermath of the tragic suicide of Rohith Vemula, a young Dalit student of the Hyderabad Central University (HCU), students across the country's colleges and universities have rightly condemned the incident along with exposing the incumbent Central government's abject negligence towards Dalit atrocities in general.
It is heartening to see a community's grievances attaining centre stage which were hitherto no more than a marginal, subdued voice along the peripheries of our political landscape. The larger argument that has been construed from this episode at the level of student politics is that of the shrinking space for dissent in education institutions, the very citadels of excellence, which are supposed to espouse liberal values and curb the menacing growth of reactionary forces.
It is in this context that one is forced to think about the virtues of dissent in multiple facets and more importantly, along with it, its limited appeal when it gets evoked only after a media attention-grabbing, sensationalist incident that rocks the conscience of the student community. By being perfectly mindful of this justified rage and anger, the time is possibly right to problematise the already complex notions of dissent and the elusive "space" for which most of us are yearning for.
At a symposium that was recently organised at the Jamia Millia Islamia on the perils of death penalty and the concomitant issue of the shrinking space for dissent surrounding it, Professor Apoorvanand, among others, pitched for a stand that is now a catchphrase among all active student bodies - that a concerted effort to put forward an alternative viewpoint against that of the incumbent government is being ruthlessly smouldered into pieces.
The problem for a student like me with this sort of an argument is simple - activists like Apporvanand and his colleagues have always been at loggerheads with governments over the years for failing to check the fringe elements from becoming the mainstream by providing fodder to authoritarian tendencies in a constitutional democracy, irrespective of the political leanings of the concerned political dispensation at the Centre.
The growing sense of the eroding of the space for dissent is palpable for sure. However, to hear this argument from a seasoned activist is symptomatic of a struggle that is being waged at the intellectual and professional level for many years.
The problem arises when the same line is appropriated at the student level by budding revolutionaries who, more often than not, seem to give a benign neglect to this buzzword under normal circumstances. The question is: where does this revolutionary zeal and an enlightened demand for dissent disappear when we are in our classrooms for instance, listening to something which we don't believe in, but nonetheless continue to patiently digest?
Dissent entails questioning received wisdom, asking pressing questions to the immediate social milieu in which we find ourselves in and being constantly wary as a student to what gets dished out to us in the name of "knowledge".
What is increasingly happening today is that we endeavour, or at least project to fight against the cruel and inhumane meta narratives of our society without showing the same rigour and passion for it in our everyday lives. Looking to confront the big demons around us have marred our politically astute gaze towards dealing more coherently with our more minor but equally demonic predicaments. A disproportionate reliance on the former may also lead to an unintended fetishisation of the form of protest, that because of its scale and magnitude, reduces the final cause to one of celebration and ecstasy even after a gradual positive surge towards the destined goal of peace and justice.
Becoming jubilant with the very act of protesting and with every minute details of a planned process in order to realise an already manufactured triumph at the end of it is irksome to say the least. This naive excitement of ours need to be refurbished and directed towards striving for achieving that goal, as it is always the realisation of the final cause and not the near infatuation of the form of protest that matters.
Dissent, in this context, is certainly possible in many avenues as far as we, the students, are concerned. Toeing the line of the public intellectuals can prove to be reductive for us as there is every possibility of consigning this sphere of liberal questioning to only those issues of the public spaces which have always been a contested terrain.
Ideally, we as students, should look to enlighten ourselves more by constantly debating, in our study circles, about a whole host of matters pertaining to national interest. It is only by certain relentless, consistent activities like debates, group discussions in liberal interactive fora, film clubs and so on that an informed group of students can emerge, which can then challenge the bigger evils in a more holistic and systematic manner.
The space for dissent surely hasn't shrunk enough to dampen our argumentative spirit. It is we, the students, who need to be more vocal and assertive in whatever we believe in without thinking of its consequences. Personal inhibitions and our deeply entrenched social prejudices are the bigger evils. Like everything else, dissent should start from oneself by critically probing into our much-cherished values, beliefs and moral judgments.