AT JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY (JNU), Delhi, a premier educational institution in India, three seminars were scheduled by the University’s Centre for West Asian Studies on the ongoing conflicts in West Asia.
These seminars were to be addressed separately by the Ambassadors to India of Iran, Palestine, and Lebanon, on October 24, November 7, and November 14, 2024, respectively.
Iranian Ambassador Dr Iraj Elahi, Lebanese Ambassador Dr Rabie Narsh, And Palestinian Ambassador Adnan Abu Al Haija.
However, only a few hours before the first address on October 24 (by the Iranian Ambassador), the University issued a statement cancelling all three seminars “for unavoidable reasons.” University sources cited concerns that such seminars could provoke protests and cause disturbances, as the issues were of a polarizing nature.
With respect, I submit that the reasons given for cancelling the seminars were specious, sophistic, mendacious, and unacceptable.
In fact, a university is precisely the place where such a momentous issue as the current West Asia crisis should be addressed and debated.
Cancelling the proposed seminars was clearly done under pressure from above and constitutes a flagrant violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
Why is freedom of speech important? This will be discussed here.
India’s main problems are its massive poverty, unemployment, alarming levels of child malnourishment, skyrocketing prices, and an almost total lack of proper healthcare and quality education for the masses. Only massive industrialization can eradicate these profound evils.
For industrialization, the development of science is absolutely necessary, and for that, freedom is also absolutely necessary: freedom to think, freedom to write, freedom to discuss with others, freedom to explain, freedom to criticize, and freedom to dissent.
The growth of science requires certain supportive values, particularly liberty, as the thought process cannot develop without freedom. The values upheld by a scientific community — pluralism, tolerance, individual freedom, and free flow of information — are very similar to the values of a democratic society (see Science and the Making of the Modern World by John Marks).
A democratic society permits freedom of speech and expression, freedom to practice one’s own religion based on tolerance, and freedom to dissent and criticize. These are precisely the values upheld in the scientific community.
In other words, in scientific matters, authoritarianism and dogmatism are completely out of place. Scientists must be allowed to govern themselves and require extensive freedom, which is essential for innovation and creativity.
Thus, democracy and liberty go hand in hand with the growth of science, as both are based on tolerance, individual freedom, and the free flow of ideas. In a democracy, as in a scientific community, there is freedom to speak, freedom to discuss, freedom to criticize, and freedom to dissent.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis, the celebrated Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, observed in Whitney vs. California (274 U.S. 357, 1927):
“Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties; and that in its government the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of liberty.
They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.
They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope, and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies; and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.
Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, they eschewed silence coerced by law – the argument of force in its worst form. Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.”
Similarly, Justice William Douglas of the U.S. Supreme Court in Terminiello vs. Chicago (337 U.S. 1, 1949) observed:
“A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.
That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution for a more restrictive view. For the alternative would lead to the standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.”
In India, in ancient times, the method of Shastrarthas had been developed. These were debates in which thinkers of the time had full freedom to speak and criticize their opponents in the presence of a large assembly. There are many references to such Shastrarthas in our epics and other literature (e.g., the well-known debate between Adi Shankaracharya and Mandan Mishra). It was this freedom to discuss and criticize in ancient India that resulted in a tremendous growth of knowledge, not only in philosophy, grammar, and law but also in scientific knowledge, such as mathematics, astronomy, and medicine.
With the help of science, we built mighty civilizations thousands of years ago, while people in Europe, except in Greece and Rome, were still living in forests.
However, we eventually embraced unscientific paths characterized by coercion in thought, superstitions, and empty rituals, leading to disaster. The way forward, therefore, is to return to the scientific path shown by our ancestors — the path of Aryabhatta and Brahmagupta, Sushruta and Charaka, Panini and Patanjali, Ramanujan and Raman.
In this connection, we may mention modern European history.
England was the first country in the world to industrialize and modernize. This economic process was accompanied by a political struggle for liberty and democracy in the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly between the King and Parliament. As is well known, Parliament won, laying the foundation for freedom and civil liberties in England, which created the atmosphere required for science to thrive.
Similarly, in France, before the French Revolution of 1789, Enlightenment thinkers like Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and Holbach challenged feudalism and religious dogmatism, paving the way for the Revolution, which ultimately destroyed feudalism and spurred scientific progress.
On the other hand, in Italy, Spain, and some other countries, the Inquisition stifled free thought and hindered scientific growth. All scientific ideas that contradicted the Bible were considered criminal (e.g., Copernicus’ theory that the Earth moved around the Sun). As a result, these countries lagged far behind England and France and remained in the feudal dark ages for centuries.
The struggle to establish a scientific outlook was not easy. Scientific and rational ideas were initially condemned as opposing religious dogma. Voltaire and Rousseau had to flee for their lives. The Church persecuted great scientists with blind cruelty, burning some at the stake (e.g., Bruno), torturing others (e.g., Galileo), and banning or destroying their works. As recently as 1925, teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution was forbidden in the state of Tennessee, U.S.A., and a teacher, John Scopes, was tried in the famous “Monkey Trial” for teaching the theory.
For centuries, the Church in Europe played a reactionary role, fighting pitilessly against scientific concepts and democratic movements.
In India, if we are to progress and rise as a world power, we must spread rationalism and scientific thinking to every corner of the country and eradicate superstitions (e.g., astrology and palmistry) as well as feudal ideas such as casteism and communalism.
Science is the knowledge by which we can understand nature (and human society) and use this knowledge for our benefit. Scientists rely on reason, observation, and experiment. This cannot be done at the dictates of anyone (although the government can certainly create an environment where science can flourish). Science and democratic values go hand in hand.
In science, there is no final word, unlike in religion. Science questions everything and does not take anything for granted. This approach is clearly not permitted in an undemocratic society, such as a feudal society (governed by religion) or a fascist society (under a dictator). For instance, Hitler, with his Nazi racial philosophy, caused an enormous setback to science in Germany by persecuting Jewish scientists and banning their works (e.g., Einstein).
Indeed, after adopting the Constitution in 1950, India enjoyed an atmosphere of liberal freedom due to the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as the right to free speech (Article 19), liberty (Article 21), equality (Articles 14-17), and religious freedom (Article 25).
This helped in the growth of science and technology in our country, as it fostered an atmosphere where scientists and others had freedom to discuss, dissent, and exchange views. However, in recent times, particularly since the BJP came to power in 2014, attempts have been made to stifle free speech. The cancellation of the three planned seminars in JNU appears to be one of these attempts.
The advanced sector of society, which has the knowledge needed to take the country forward, must be allowed the freedom to discuss, debate, and critique each other. As John Stuart Mill said in his celebrated essay On Liberty (1859), all progress — in shifting outdated ways of thinking and in changing behaviour patterns, customs, and traditions — depends on free discussion, dissent, and new thinking, which often comes from minorities in society and is opposed by the conservative majority. Mill argued that extensive freedom must be given to dissenters, and society must be willing to listen to unconventional ideas for overall progress.
It is often a minority in society that is intellectually advanced, creative, and willing to oppose the majority, but it is this minority that leads us forward. Liberal democracy, where the majority rules but minority rights are firmly protected, is thus essential for progress.
As Justice Holmes, the renowned Judge of the U.S. Supreme Court, observed in Abrams vs. United States (1919):
“The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”
From the above analysis, it becomes clear that JNU’s decision to cancel the three seminars, likely due to pressure from above, was a grave error. It is a misguided, ill-advised step that stifles healthy debate on a crucial issue. The conflicts in West Asia are of such significance that they impact the entire world and could even lead to World War III. Therefore, these matters should be openly discussed in every educational institution in India, including JNU. 
Markandey Katju
Justice Markandey Katju is former Judge, Supreme Court of India and former Chairman, Press Council of India.
Disclaimer : PunjabTodayNews.com and other platforms of the Punjab Today group strive to include views and opinions from across the entire spectrum, but by no means do we agree with everything we publish. Our efforts and editorial choices consistently underscore our authors’ right to the freedom of speech. However, it should be clear to all readers that individual authors are responsible for the information, ideas or opinions in their articles, and very often, these do not reflect the views of PunjabTodayNews.com or other platforms of the group. Punjab Today does not assume any responsibility or liability for the views of authors whose work appears here.
Punjab Today believes in serious, engaging, narrative journalism at a time when mainstream media houses seem to have given up on long-form writing and news television has blurred or altogether erased the lines between news and slapstick entertainment. We at Punjab Today believe that readers such as yourself appreciate cerebral journalism, and would like you to hold us against the best international industry standards. Brickbats are welcome even more than bouquets, though an occasional pat on the back is always encouraging. Good journalism can be a lifeline in these uncertain times worldwide. You can support us in myriad ways. To begin with, by spreading word about us and forwarding this reportage. Stay engaged.
— Team PT