Muktabhimani mukto hibadho baddhabhimanyapi |
Kivdanteeh satyeyamya matih sa gatirbhavet ||
(Freedom is the function of feeling free; the bondage of feeling bound.)
It’s rightly proclaimed that you are the product of what you think. Ashtavakra Gita, one of the founding texts of Indian philosophy, underscores the importance of freedom in these lines. Freedom manifests itself only when the subject believes in her ability to be free. Unfortunately, many recent events have negated this foundational idea of human endeavour. Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad was arrested for a social media post expressing his thoughts on the duplicitous attitudes surrounding the Operation Sindoor debate. The oral observations of the Supreme Court, while granting him bail, suggested that he indulged in “politics” through this post, which contained some words that “have double meaning”. It appears a little incongruent that an author is accused of indulging in politics when governments, past and present, have repeatedly proclaimed that not just indulging in politics but even critiquing and questioning the government is a sign of India’s healthy democracy.
How has politics suddenly become anathema? Politics, or the relationship between the governing and the governed, is the central point of Indian philosophy — classical to modern. In the realm of metaphysics, it is the negotiation between the nature of truth and those seeking it, of which the Ashtavakra Gita is an example. Politics exists in spiritual and mystical spaces as a dialogue between beliefs and believers. The Bhagavad Gita exemplifies this. In the physical space of the ordinariness of life, there is realpolitik, the interlocution of pragmatism and populism.
Politics permeates every aspect of the living and the dead. Politics is the oxygen of academic life, irrespective of the discipline. It is a fallacy, a dangerous one at that, that only the social sciences indulge in politics. From Aryabhatta’s exposition of the relativity of motion, which deals with perspective and illusion, to Albert Einstein’s dilemma about the destructive potential of science, even the purest apolitical sciences are firmly ensconced in the political framework. The process of seeking and disseminating knowledge is dependent on the intersections of similar and contradictory ideas. An academic operates within and creates a space where multivalent thoughts find expression. The Socratic dialogues of Greece and the Shastraarth tradition of classical Indian pedagogy inform us about the necessity of a thought space where ideas are shared, discussed, and accepted or rejected. Therefore, if an academic will not indulge in politics, a stirring of the spirit of enquiry, who else will? But this is not about Mahmudabad or any one individual. The shutting of spaces that hold a carnival of ideas precedes a crisis of knowledge and progress. The snuffing of the flame of questioning can only herald dark times ahead. In societies where freedom of thought and expression comes with caveats, intellectual growth stunts.
Those who take pride in our philosophical roots based on samgacchadhvam, samvadadhvam (coming together for a harmonious exchange of views) ought to feel uncomfortable with the rise in coercive action to silence those we disagree with. The legal aspects of the limits to freedom of speech aside, shouldn’t there be a paradigm shift in assessing what speech is harmful enough to be gagged? If politics is dangerous per se, whither democracy? The government expects the youth to be part of India’s growth story but is wary of exposing them to definitions of politics that differ from its own. What greatness has evolved in echo chambers? We can only raise prejudiced minds there. Insecure, easily hurt minds that will be unwilling to “give ground even on unimportant disagreements”, in the words of Christopher Hitchens. In the ongoing clash of politics, the epidemic of “hurt feelings/sentiments” has spread unchecked, often getting a shot in the arm through criminal cases and violent actions against the speaker. Hurt feelings and damaging words should meet each other in civil court, where they can litigate their heart out. This is still in keeping with the tradition of exchanging ideas. Criminalising speech that has, as yet, posed no imminent danger to public order or instigated violence is akin to punishing a thought crime in George Orwell’s 1984.
{{/usCountry}}Those who take pride in our philosophical roots based on samgacchadhvam, samvadadhvam (coming together for a harmonious exchange of views) ought to feel uncomfortable with the rise in coercive action to silence those we disagree with. The legal aspects of the limits to freedom of speech aside, shouldn’t there be a paradigm shift in assessing what speech is harmful enough to be gagged? If politics is dangerous per se, whither democracy? The government expects the youth to be part of India’s growth story but is wary of exposing them to definitions of politics that differ from its own. What greatness has evolved in echo chambers? We can only raise prejudiced minds there. Insecure, easily hurt minds that will be unwilling to “give ground even on unimportant disagreements”, in the words of Christopher Hitchens. In the ongoing clash of politics, the epidemic of “hurt feelings/sentiments” has spread unchecked, often getting a shot in the arm through criminal cases and violent actions against the speaker. Hurt feelings and damaging words should meet each other in civil court, where they can litigate their heart out. This is still in keeping with the tradition of exchanging ideas. Criminalising speech that has, as yet, posed no imminent danger to public order or instigated violence is akin to punishing a thought crime in George Orwell’s 1984.
{{/usCountry}}Nishtha Gautam is an author and academician. The views expressed are personal.