In a recent and deeply troubling development, a PhD scholar at the South Asian University (SAU) in New Delhi has been issued a show-cause notice for including Noam Chomsky’s criticism of the Indian Prime Minister in their research proposal. This move has led to the resignation of the scholar's supervisor, Sri Lankan sociologist Sasanka Perera, and has ignited a fierce debate about academic freedom and the health of Indian democracy. The incident has exposed a disturbing trend: the increasing intolerance towards dissent and critical thought, even when it comes from one of the world’s most respected intellectuals.
The doctoral research proposal in question focused on the ethnography and politics of Kashmir and cited Chomsky’s critical views on the current Indian government. In response, SAU not only issued a notice to the student but also launched a disciplinary inquiry against Professor Perera. This reaction has raised serious concerns about the state of academic freedom in India.
Sasanka Perera, a distinguished cultural anthropologist with a long history of academic excellence, found himself at the centre of this controversy. Perera’s resignation from his position at SAU underscores the gravity of the situation and the lengths to which the institution, and by extension, the Indian state, will go to suppress critical discourse.
Noam Chomsky, a towering figure in linguistics and political thought, has long been a vocal critic of the Narendra Modi government. He has accused the administration of eroding India's secular democracy and imposing a "racist creed." His critiques, while harsh, are grounded in a rigorous analysis of India's political trajectory under the BJP.
Chomsky’s "Five-Filter Test" of media analysis, which describes how corporate and governmental interests shape news, has been a powerful tool for understanding the capitulation of the Indian media. His insights into the dynamics of power and propaganda resonate with many scholars who see parallels in India’s current media landscape. The reaction against the SAU scholar suggests a profound unease within the Indian establishment regarding Chomsky's critiques.
The SAU incident is not an isolated case. It reflects a broader trend of suppressing dissenting voices and curbing academic freedom in India. This trend has been marked by the labelling of critical students and intellectuals as anti-nationals and the use of legal and administrative measures to silence them.
The Modi government’s stance on Kashmir, its handling of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) have drawn widespread criticism, including from Chomsky. These policies have been seen as part of a broader agenda to redefine Indian identity in exclusionary terms. In this context, Chomsky’s critiques are particularly potent and, apparently, particularly unwelcome.
The fallout from the SAU incident has significant implications. It sends a chilling message to scholars and students: Criticize the government at your peril. This atmosphere of fear stifles intellectual growth and undermines the very foundations of academic inquiry.
Moreover, this episode tarnishes India's global reputation as a democracy that values free speech and academic freedom. It aligns India more closely with authoritarian regimes that brook no dissent and stifle critical thought. For a country that prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, this is a troubling development.
Chomsky's criticism is rooted in a commitment to democratic principles and human rights. His analysis of the Modi government is not an attack on India per se but a critique of policies that he believes undermine the democratic fabric of the country. For Indian academics and intellectuals, engaging with Chomsky’s work is part of a broader struggle to uphold these values in the face of rising authoritarianism.
The decision to penalize a scholar for citing Chomsky reflects a fear of ideas and critical thinking. It is an attempt to control the narrative and suppress alternative viewpoints. However, as history has shown, such attempts are ultimately futile. Ideas cannot be easily suppressed, and the intellectual legacy of figures like Chomsky will continue to inspire critical thought and resistance.
The SAU incident should serve as a wake-up call for all who value academic freedom and democratic principles. It is a stark reminder of the need to defend these values against encroaching authoritarianism. Scholars, students, and citizens must resist efforts to silence dissent and continue to engage critically with the political realities of the day.
Chomsky’s advice to Indian students to use the "space for resistance" before it is too late is more relevant than ever. The battle for the soul of Indian democracy is being fought not only in the streets but also in the classrooms and research institutions. It is a battle that requires courage, commitment, and a steadfast belief in the power of ideas to bring about change.
