The rapid erosion of the integrity of our institutions, the promotion of intolerance and even hate-mongering, the suppression of dissidents, the withholding of accurate information and the widespread spread of fake news count as serious problems today. And our public intellectuals are taking pains to point these out in an increasingly hostile environment. In a recent address, Justice DY Chandrachud, a sitting Supreme Court judge, highlighted the special duty of public intellectuals to “question the state” and uphold democracy. To be sure, he has done his duty by raising search questions and speaking the truth to power. But, have other institutions, including the judiciary, performed their duties towards these public intellectuals? Do they offer a support system, which is very important for facing the mighty and swimming against the tide?
One may well ask what constitutes these support systems. Of course, these include firstly the assurance that you will be safe, no matter what you question or oppose, and secondly, a willingness to connect with and accept the truth, no matter how difficult or uncomfortable it may be. Failure to do these things has left an entire region open to abuse, harassment and harassment. It is bound to create fear and has, in fact, done so in significant amounts.
In recent times, many of our public institutions of higher education, including the Central University of Hyderabad, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia, among others, have been sites of major student protests suppressed by unnecessarily powerful and intolerant university administrations. Even large private universities, which are clearly seeking to create an international brand for themselves like Ivy League institutions, have been stymied by the growing intolerance. It was hoped that the latter could serve as a ready space where a free spirit of intellectual inquiry could be defended and perpetuated on the strength of private capital. However, such hopes are proving to be baseless.
The fate of grassroots intellectuals working away from the greed of major metropolitan centers has been even more dire. Ironically, this idea of grassroots participation is a core issue of glossy advertisements conceptualized as a part of corporate social responsibility. But the involvement of public intellectuals with grassroots concerns affecting vulnerable groups in various local contexts has failed to generate the same encouraging response from the state that is usually reserved for corporate-led initiatives. On its part, the state administration does its best to suppress these brewing conflicts and their leaders and participants. Crucially, the recent response from broad sections of our judiciary to such ongoing repressive measures has been disappointing, to say the least.
It is true that there has never been an easy settlement between disgruntled academics and activists. He has always found it trying to grab space for his voice. But, in recent years, his path has only gotten harder and harder, as he has to face armies of social media trolls, prime-time slander on television and, even worse, criminal imprisonment, which has led to prolonged Lawyers have to contend with armies. Trials that take years to even begin.
Justice Chandrachud’s warning to be “more cautious”, “transparent” and open to accepting the opinions of others perhaps comes too late. In the current environment, mere warning notes will not suffice – with these notes strong signals from our institutions, including the judiciary, and immediate corrective measures.
A section of public intellectuals will continue to ring alarm bells to alert us about the ongoing erosion of various institutions. But, in the final analysis, it will be up to the same institutions—the bureaucracy, the judiciary, the popular media—to save its rapidly dwindling credibility. They have to work diligently to fix their house. They will need to reclaim their shrinking space in the imaginary and the real.
They must first clearly assess the extent of damage before starting repair work and renovating the building. That introspection, that acknowledgment has to come from within. This must necessarily be accompanied by concrete measures aimed at radical regeneration.
The ability to find balance between opponents is a rewarding faculty, but this art of balancing just for oneself has to be relinquished. We need to call the spade a spade; We have to accept the truth, even if it contradicts our most cherished beliefs. For example, we have to identify hate speech for what it is, no matter who said it, (c) remove institutional slippage and spread of misinformation. While doing all this we have to work hard to demand accountability at every level.
Justice Chandrachud noted the challenges of living in a “post-truth world”, in which “there is a contest between our truth versus your truth… Democracy and truth go hand in hand. Democracy needs truth to survive.” Is.” To this end, he advised that it is important to “separate truth from falsehood” and flagged the responsibility of citizens to “question the state to determine the truth.” Many of our institutions have been emulated and implemented. These are some valuable lessons to be learned.
The author is an independent researcher
.