Are Academics Oblivious to Injustice? A Closer Look at Ashoka University’s Role in Society

Sanjiv Bikhchandani’s Defense of Academic Neutrality: A Discourse on Liberal Arts or Moral Responsibility?

In a recent discourse ignited by the arrest of Ali Khan Mahmudabad, the founder of the prestigious Ashoka University, Sanjiv Bikhchandani asserted that the institution’s core purpose centers around academic scholarship rather than activism. His comments, made in response to ongoing criticism regarding Ashoka’s perceived lack of moral courage in supporting Mahmudabad — whose arrest was perceived as a targeted action against a Muslim individual — raise essential questions about the role of academics and institutions in addressing societal issues.

The Nature of Liberal Arts Education

Bikhchandani highlights the ideal of liberal arts education as one that promotes a holistic approach to learning, emphasizing critical thinking, communication, and problem-solving. According to him, activism is a “choice” rather than a prerequisite in liberal arts environments. He implies that faculty should focus solely on teaching, research, and publication, hinting that venturing into activism might distract from foundational academic responsibilities.

However, this perspective misses crucial historical contexts. The evolution of liberalism is deeply intertwined with struggles for freedom and rights, often arising from explicit resistance to power. Bikhchandani’s inclination towards an apolitical academic environment not only overlooks historical precedents but also risks alienating students and faculty who may wish to align their academic pursuits with broader societal challenges.

The Responsibility of Academics as Public Intellectuals

What Bikhchandani appears to overlook is that academics, by virtue of their expertise and societal standing, inevitably become public intellectuals. They bear the dual responsibility of contributing to knowledge while also being conscious of societal injustices. The notion that intellectual pursuits can exist independently of communal struggles is outdated.

Historically, figures such as Emile Zola demonstrated the powerful impact of public intellectuals intervening in socio-political matters. Zola’s famous open letter "J’accuse" criticized the judicial system’s failure in the Dreyfus Affair. By standing against injustice, he elevated activism from mere societal involvement to a moral obligation. Academic authorities who restrict their roles to the confines of research and publications may, inadvertently, neglect the societal expectations of their positions.

Balancing Academic Rigor with Civic Engagement

Several arguments can be made regarding the necessity for academics to engage actively with social issues:

1. Informed Participation: Scholars possess insights that can help shape public discourse on crucial matters. Ignoring these societal obligations might imply a disconnection from the reality faced by many citizens.

2. Enhancing Civic Responsibility: Universities produce future leaders. By encouraging discussion on civic matters in classes, they not only foster informed graduates but also contribute to a more engaged citizenry.

3. Promoting Social Justice: Engagement in social causes aligns with the ethical responsibilities of scholars. They must utilize their platforms to advocate for equity and justice.

4. Creating an Inclusive Dialogue: A university can serve as a bridge between knowledge and public engagement. By doing so, it can harness a more diverse range of voices and opinions.

What Role Should Academics Play?

Neera Chandhoke, a professor of political science, vehemently argues that there is a compelling need for intellectuals to connect their scholarship with activism. The ivory tower model of academia has long been criticized, particularly as society grapples with issues such as poverty, systemic inequality, and discrimination.

Chandhoke further emphasizes that the duty of an academic does not end with teaching; it encompasses acting as a spokesperson for marginalized communities, challenging orthodoxy, and confronting injustices. As she reflects on the historical context of activism intersecting with academia, it is evident that the judgment of when and how to intervene is not merely a choice; it is a fundamental aspect of the educational philosophy birthed in the liberal arts.

Conclusion: Academic Institutions as Catalysts for Change

The discussion ignited by Bikhchandani’s comments serves as a poignant reminder of the delicate balance between academia and activism. While quality scholarship is paramount, the role of scholars and institutions should not be confined to classroom walls. Academic institutions, particularly those dedicated to liberal arts and sciences, have a unique obligation to equip their students not just with knowledge, but also with an understanding of their social responsibilities.

In a time where ideological divides seem to widen, the university should act as a critical space for dialogues that challenge the status quo. Ultimately, the call for action by academics transcends mere voluntary participation—it is a moral imperative. The legacy of intellectual engagement with societal issues ought to be, echoing through the halls of educational institutions and into the fabric of daily life, embodying the spirit of enlightenment and social justice.

As Bikhchandani and others in positions of influence reflect on their roles, one must recognize that disengagement from activism today could signal the abandonment of the very principles of liberalism that aspiring intellectuals strive to uphold. The true spirit of a liberal arts education lies in the courage to confront injustices and the academic’s commitment to being an active participant in the quest for justice.