<p>Historically, the universities in India have reproduced hegemonic social values and perpetuated social hierarchies. Yet, on its margins, university and college campuses provide spaces where the young minds can get exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives &minus; including oppositional and counter-hegemonic perspectives &minus; on various social, cultural and political issues. This makes universities a contradictory space.</p>

<p>Much more than classroom learning, the broadening of the horizons of critical thinking happens outside the classroom through activities like seminars, theatre, film and documentary screening, and participation in political activities. Most of the times, the political content of these activities is not to the liking of the votaries of the Hindutva. Alongside, in recent times, the university campuses have also seen the political assertion of historical oppressed identities that provide a powerful challenge to the established social hierarchies. This happened partly due to the changing demographic composition of the university students in the last couple of decades due to the constitutionally mandated socially inclusive policies.</p>

<p>For example, in many university campuses a movement like Pinjra Tod has been gaining popularity in last couple of years. Pinjra Tod began as a movement against oppressive hostel rules curtailing women students&rsquo; freedom of movement, but now has become a movement taking up many issues concerning women students. There are also events and activities around the issues of gay and queer rights and expressions. Both these movements have become sources of paranoia and anxiety for the culture of masculinity that Hindu nationalism has always promoted.</p>

<p>Then there is the emphatic assertion of dalit-bahujan politics on college and university campus that challenges and inverts Hinduism&rsquo;s religious myths, as we saw in the controversy around the celebration of Mahishasur on the JNU campus. In addition, There are also left ideological groups active in various campuses, which, in their own ways, continuously challenge the narratives of culture, politics and economy promoted by Hindutva politics and present strong counter-narratives of their own. They often organise programmes related to human rights record of the Indian state; in the process raising isuues related to Kashmir, Bastar, AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), the displacements of people by various development projects.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>All these activities cause serious paranoia and fear among Hindutva groups. Unwilling or unable to respond to all these political challenges, the ABVP has often resorted to violent means in recent past. One strategy that is frequently used by the ABVP for justifying its violence or threats of violence against groups and activities it doesn&rsquo;t approve of is of naming them &lsquo;anti-national&rsquo; or &lsquo;anti-Hindu.&rsquo; The artificial binary of nationalism-&lsquo;anti-national&rsquo; works well for them as a strategy as it puts the opponents on the defensive. In this way, in most such cases, the right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two, wherein the latter faces its ultimate limit at the frontier of nationalism. In this construction of a binary between the two, it is largely forgotten that nation is a continuously changing entity and the limits and scope of the freedom of citizens can never be fixed at any given point in time. Thus it is either outright stupid or a willful pretense of ignorance to say that words like azadi/freedom used in students&rsquo; slogans can only mean advocacy of secessionism.</p>

<p>Nations and nationalism cannot forever limit the possibilities inherent in human freedom and human becoming. The actually existing relation between nationalism and the rights of citizens at any given point defines what kind of nationalism should be acceptable. It is only in the extremely oppressive and claustrophobic version of Hindutva nationalism that citizens&rsquo; freedoms are sought be continuously limited and constricted. But it would be wrong to frame the debate over rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution in the narrow liberal framework of a defence of abstract formal rights of individuals or groups. The freedom of speech should be taken as the very precondition on which depend the possibility of politics as an instrument of social and cultural transformation as well as an enabling condition for the contest over the definition, form and content of nationhood. Thus, another important part of the same strategy of the right-wing groups is to continuously keep invoking the spectre of external and internal enemies threatening the nation, thereby reducing politics to the question of unity of the nation against enemies.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In this way, right-wing politics, in India and everywhere else, tends to divert attention away from the issues of social divisions, dominance, hegemony and oppressions within the nation. The democratic politics, on the other hand, brings these into view and makes possible the articulation of counter-hegemonic struggles. Thus, for right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance. The democratic political contest continuously keeps the internal social composition of the nation open to question and transformation through counter-hegemonic struggles.</p>

<p>The debate or clash, then, is really between various possibilities of collective national existence. Why can&rsquo;t, for instance, we ask for a more federal India wherein the states have much more power than in the existing constitutional arrangement? Is that also anti-national? Because of its extremely oppressive and dark record of nationalism in the last century, particularly in the inter-War years, but also in the 1990s, nation as a desirable form of political community is being questioned in the contemporary political-theoretical discourse all around the world. The argument that its best defenders put forward in its defense is that it is the only viable form of political community that can secure and guarantee a framework of universal rights. However, nationalisms that continuously threaten to limit the scope of rights and freedoms are recipes for totalitarianism.</p>

<p>The question of freedom of speech and expression in India should be considered in its multiple aspects. One is its formal-legal aspect as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The other aspect is political. To what extent this right can be exercised in different situations depends on the balance of political forces on the ground. Historically, in the continuously evolving political culture of democracy in India, the value of individual rights and freedoms is yet to take deep enough roots for it to have a prominent place in this culture. In any case not all freedoms are protected equally. For instance the freedom to criticise and raise voice against caste and gender based oppressions does not find protection on the ground in most situations.</p>

<p>The most disturbing part of the political culture of democracy in India is that, not only the executive organs of the state like police and administration, but also the political parties &ndash; an essential component of any modern democracy &ndash; have not shown the willingness to take a stand for the defence of individual rights. And there is no exception to this, including the record of the left parties in West Bengal and Kerala.</p>

<p>Yet, there are reasons why it can be argued that, with respect of protection of rights of individual freedom and of autonomy of academic institutions, the BJP, as a political party, now the party in power, is different from other political parties in India because of its connection to the RSS. The RSS as a cultural organisation desires total interpretive control over culture and education. The RSS seeks to establish, as part of its agenda of Hindu rashtra, an exclusive interpretative control over the meaning of nationalism, a definition of the nation&rsquo;s culture, and also over the nation&rsquo;s past and history. This is what makes the RSS-BJP-ABVP as a combined political force far more interventionist in the academic and political spaces of universities and colleges than most other political parties, if not all.</p>


Nationalism that continuously threatens to limit the scope of rights and freedom-- is recipe for totalitarianism

Historically, the universities in India have reproduced hegemonic social values and perpetuated social hierarchies. Yet, on its margins, university and college campuses provide spaces where the young minds can get exposed to a multiplicity of perspectives − including oppositional and counter-hegemonic perspectives − on various social, cultural and political issues. This makes universities a contradictory space. Much more than classroom learning, the broadening of the horizons of critical thinking happens outside the classroom through activities like seminars, theatre, film and documentary screening, and participation in political activities. Most of the times, the political content of these activities is not to the liking of the votaries of the Hindutva. Alongside, in recent times, the university campuses have also seen the political assertion of historical oppressed identities that provide a powerful challenge to the established social hierarchies. This happened partly due to the changing demographic composition of the university students in the last couple of decades due to the constitutionally mandated socially inclusive policies. For example, in many university campuses a movement like Pinjra Tod has been gaining popularity in last couple of years. Pinjra Tod began as a movement against oppressive hostel rules curtailing women students’ freedom of movement, but now has become a movement taking up many issues concerning women students. There are also events and activities around the issues of gay and queer rights and expressions. Both these movements have become sources of paranoia and anxiety for the culture of masculinity that Hindu nationalism has always promoted. Then there is the emphatic assertion of dalit-bahujan politics on college and university campus that challenges and inverts Hinduism’s religious myths, as we saw in the controversy around the celebration of Mahishasur on the JNU campus. In addition, There are also left ideological groups active in various campuses, which, in their own ways, continuously challenge the narratives of culture, politics and economy promoted by Hindutva politics and present strong counter-narratives of their own. They often organise programmes related to human rights record of the Indian state; in the process raising isuues related to Kashmir, Bastar, AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act), the displacements of people by various development projects. The right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two × All these activities cause serious paranoia and fear among Hindutva groups. Unwilling or unable to respond to all these political challenges, the ABVP has often resorted to violent means in recent past. One strategy that is frequently used by the ABVP for justifying its violence or threats of violence against groups and activities it doesn’t approve of is of naming them ‘anti-national’ or ‘anti-Hindu.’ The artificial binary of nationalism-‘anti-national’ works well for them as a strategy as it puts the opponents on the defensive. In this way, in most such cases, the right wing groups try to control the debate in the public sphere by presenting it as nationalism versus freedom of speech, as if there is a necessary contradiction between the two, wherein the latter faces its ultimate limit at the frontier of nationalism. In this construction of a binary between the two, it is largely forgotten that nation is a continuously changing entity and the limits and scope of the freedom of citizens can never be fixed at any given point in time. Thus it is either outright stupid or a willful pretense of ignorance to say that words like azadi/freedom used in students’ slogans can only mean advocacy of secessionism. Nations and nationalism cannot forever limit the possibilities inherent in human freedom and human becoming. The actually existing relation between nationalism and the rights of citizens at any given point defines what kind of nationalism should be acceptable. It is only in the extremely oppressive and claustrophobic version of Hindutva nationalism that citizens’ freedoms are sought be continuously limited and constricted. But it would be wrong to frame the debate over rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution in the narrow liberal framework of a defence of abstract formal rights of individuals or groups. The freedom of speech should be taken as the very precondition on which depend the possibility of politics as an instrument of social and cultural transformation as well as an enabling condition for the contest over the definition, form and content of nationhood. Thus, another important part of the same strategy of the right-wing groups is to continuously keep invoking the spectre of external and internal enemies threatening the nation, thereby reducing politics to the question of unity of the nation against enemies. For right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance × In this way, right-wing politics, in India and everywhere else, tends to divert attention away from the issues of social divisions, dominance, hegemony and oppressions within the nation. The democratic politics, on the other hand, brings these into view and makes possible the articulation of counter-hegemonic struggles. Thus, for right-wing groups, the obsessive invocation of the unity against external enemy is nothing but a strategy of perpetuating existing social hierarchies and dominance. The democratic political contest continuously keeps the internal social composition of the nation open to question and transformation through counter-hegemonic struggles. The debate or clash, then, is really between various possibilities of collective national existence. Why can’t, for instance, we ask for a more federal India wherein the states have much more power than in the existing constitutional arrangement? Is that also anti-national? Because of its extremely oppressive and dark record of nationalism in the last century, particularly in the inter-War years, but also in the 1990s, nation as a desirable form of political community is being questioned in the contemporary political-theoretical discourse all around the world. The argument that its best defenders put forward in its defense is that it is the only viable form of political community that can secure and guarantee a framework of universal rights. However, nationalisms that continuously threaten to limit the scope of rights and freedoms are recipes for totalitarianism. The question of freedom of speech and expression in India should be considered in its multiple aspects. One is its formal-legal aspect as a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. The other aspect is political. To what extent this right can be exercised in different situations depends on the balance of political forces on the ground. Historically, in the continuously evolving political culture of democracy in India, the value of individual rights and freedoms is yet to take deep enough roots for it to have a prominent place in this culture. In any case not all freedoms are protected equally. For instance the freedom to criticise and raise voice against caste and gender based oppressions does not find protection on the ground in most situations. The most disturbing part of the political culture of democracy in India is that, not only the executive organs of the state like police and administration, but also the political parties – an essential component of any modern democracy – have not shown the willingness to take a stand for the defence of individual rights. And there is no exception to this, including the record of the left parties in West Bengal and Kerala. Yet, there are reasons why it can be argued that, with respect of protection of rights of individual freedom and of autonomy of academic institutions, the BJP, as a political party, now the party in power, is different from other political parties in India because of its connection to the RSS. The RSS as a cultural organisation desires total interpretive control over culture and education. The RSS seeks to establish, as part of its agenda of Hindu rashtra, an exclusive interpretative control over the meaning of nationalism, a definition of the nation’s culture, and also over the nation’s past and history. This is what makes the RSS-BJP-ABVP as a combined political force far more interventionist in the academic and political spaces of universities and colleges than most other political parties, if not all.

Hindutva nationalism, democracy and fear of university speech

<p>I teach at Ramjas College, University of Delhi, the epicentre of an extremely visible clash of ideologies. This clash of ideas has been seen on television, as has been the physical fights that took place around the University last week. It is difficult to speak about the possibility of a centrist, liberal, democratic and rational voice, at a time when the shrill notes of the Left and the Right ideologues--television anchors included-- are overwhelming any attempt to articulate alternative positions. But precisely because it is difficult, it must be attempted. This moment of crisis can become a moment of rupture, leading to the emergence of fresh key words to help us imagine an India of the future.</p>

<p>I have to begin with a technical caveat, and the assumption behind this caveat cannot be viewed as frivolous, since its basis draws from nothing less than the preamble to the Constitution of India. And here is the caveat: &lsquo;Every political party in India is socialist.&rsquo; How? All political parties in India must swear by the Constitution. And what does the preamble, the &lsquo;key&rsquo; to the Constitution, say? That we are--a &lsquo;Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic&rsquo;.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Ergo, all parties are socialists.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>But the important caveat to the caveat is this: the words secular and socialist were added during the national Emergency, in what is known as the (in)famous 42nd Amendment(s) to the Constitution in 1976. Lots of things changed in the Constitution. Fundamental Duties were introduced. You had to preserve not just the unity, but also the integrity of India. So here it is, straight down the line.</p>

<p>The emergency legitimised two polarised discourses, embracing Left and Right. One side got &lsquo;secular&rsquo; and &lsquo;socialist&rsquo;, the other &lsquo;integrity with unity&rsquo;, and &lsquo;fundamental duties&rsquo;. The logical extention&nbsp;of this argument does not prove the obvious: that Mrs Gandhi was the Centre that held these two positions together. She could assume either side&rsquo;s position to fit specific political goals. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice.</p>

<p>There was no Centre. There still is not!</p>

<p>The absence of a centre in India presents a challenge. Whenever the Congress or the BJP is referred to as being centrist, it never is in a nice way. When the Congress fails to be Left enough, the Left accused it of being centrist. The same happens when the extreme Right finds the BJP testing liberal positions, especially with regard to the economy.</p>

<p>The genesis of the problem lies in our universities. We have for too long been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies.</p>

<p>When socialism was raging through our campuses, even Bollywood was socialist. Raj Kapoor&rsquo;s classics, and Guru Dutt&rsquo;s Pyasa immediately spring to mind. When Nehru gifted JNU to the Left, it was a compact &ndash; we&rsquo;ll run the state, you run the universities. This is not to argue that Left has not produced stalwart scholars. But no good thing lasts forever.</p>

<p>Eventually the enforcement of a singularly predominant way of thinking begins to stultify questioning. Contrary positions are shut out, history misrepresented, and unproblematised self-perpetuating discourses are relentlessly propagated. The tragedy is that the Right has taken their exclusion to heart. And decided it must shut the Left out of our universities once it has assumed power. And now, it has. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state &ndash; courts, sedition charges, and so on.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state" target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>In all of this the centrist, liberal and perhaps critical questions--often about one side, and at times about the other, and sometimes even about itself--get subsumed by either the Left or the Right. By liberal, I am attempting to identify those who do not wished to labelled either Left or Right, but often take positions that can touch and be inflected by one side of the political spectrum or the other.&nbsp;</p>

<p>I recall a wonderful book by Parth J Shah and Naveen Mandava called Law, Liberty and Livelihood - Making A Living On The Street. This was the work of a libertarian think tank. The basis question posed was this: &ldquo;After the 1991 liberalisation, the poor do not seem to have gained as much as the rich. How can you carry out liberalisation only for the rich and expect the poor to benefit? The truth is there has been hardly any liberalisation for the working poor.&rdquo;</p>

<p>The question posed above&nbsp;is significant. It clearly supports economic liberalisation, but wants more of it for the poor. Now this is the sort of position you will rarely find in universities, let alone in Indian public discourse. You will find either supporters of liberalisation, or its detractors. Few will ask the critical questions that can prise open the important spaces that lie in between.</p>

<p>Old ideologies often fail to define new positions. Bright young people with active and political imaginations are rethinking the way they wish to engage with the world. They pick and choose a bit of this and a bit of that. There is no defined slot you can push them into. The old way fears the emergence of a dystopian post-ideological world where politics is blunted and praxis is replaced by T shirt slogans.&nbsp;</p>

<p>But people who ask interesting new questions often find interesting new answers. Such questioning and such answers might not appear to be inflected with the type of ideological purity demanded by the Left and the Right, but they cannot be wished away. The older ideological positions continue to remain dominant, but their edges are frayed and crumbling.</p>

<p>The centre is crying out to be occupied. Wonder who&rsquo;ll get there first.&nbsp;</p>


Our universities are suffering because they have been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies for far too long

I teach at Ramjas College, University of Delhi, the epicentre of an extremely visible clash of ideologies. This clash of ideas has been seen on television, as has been the physical fights that took place around the University last week. It is difficult to speak about the possibility of a centrist, liberal, democratic and rational voice, at a time when the shrill notes of the Left and the Right ideologues--television anchors included-- are overwhelming any attempt to articulate alternative positions. But precisely because it is difficult, it must be attempted. This moment of crisis can become a moment of rupture, leading to the emergence of fresh key words to help us imagine an India of the future. I have to begin with a technical caveat, and the assumption behind this caveat cannot be viewed as frivolous, since its basis draws from nothing less than the preamble to the Constitution of India. And here is the caveat: ‘Every political party in India is socialist.’ How? All political parties in India must swear by the Constitution. And what does the preamble, the ‘key’ to the Constitution, say? That we are--a ‘Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic’. Ergo, all parties are socialists. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice × But the important caveat to the caveat is this: the words secular and socialist were added during the national Emergency, in what is known as the (in)famous 42nd Amendment(s) to the Constitution in 1976. Lots of things changed in the Constitution. Fundamental Duties were introduced. You had to preserve not just the unity, but also the integrity of India. So here it is, straight down the line. The emergency legitimised two polarised discourses, embracing Left and Right. One side got ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’, the other ‘integrity with unity’, and ‘fundamental duties’. The logical extention of this argument does not prove the obvious: that Mrs Gandhi was the Centre that held these two positions together. She could assume either side’s position to fit specific political goals. The centre was just a vacant space, perpetually suggested as a spatial anchor for Left and Right, but perpetually absent in practice. There was no Centre. There still is not! The absence of a centre in India presents a challenge. Whenever the Congress or the BJP is referred to as being centrist, it never is in a nice way. When the Congress fails to be Left enough, the Left accused it of being centrist. The same happens when the extreme Right finds the BJP testing liberal positions, especially with regard to the economy. The genesis of the problem lies in our universities. We have for too long been entrapped by doctrinaire ideologies. When socialism was raging through our campuses, even Bollywood was socialist. Raj Kapoor’s classics, and Guru Dutt’s Pyasa immediately spring to mind. When Nehru gifted JNU to the Left, it was a compact – we’ll run the state, you run the universities. This is not to argue that Left has not produced stalwart scholars. But no good thing lasts forever. Eventually the enforcement of a singularly predominant way of thinking begins to stultify questioning. Contrary positions are shut out, history misrepresented, and unproblematised self-perpetuating discourses are relentlessly propagated. The tragedy is that the Right has taken their exclusion to heart. And decided it must shut the Left out of our universities once it has assumed power. And now, it has. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state – courts, sedition charges, and so on. Unfortunately for the Right, it lacks the intellectual might to take on the Left. Ergo, the use of muscle, or what might be called the instruments of the hard state × In all of this the centrist, liberal and perhaps critical questions--often about one side, and at times about the other, and sometimes even about itself--get subsumed by either the Left or the Right. By liberal, I am attempting to identify those who do not wished to labelled either Left or Right, but often take positions that can touch and be inflected by one side of the political spectrum or the other. I recall a wonderful book by Parth J Shah and Naveen Mandava called Law, Liberty and Livelihood - Making A Living On The Street. This was the work of a libertarian think tank. The basis question posed was this: “After the 1991 liberalisation, the poor do not seem to have gained as much as the rich. How can you carry out liberalisation only for the rich and expect the poor to benefit? The truth is there has been hardly any liberalisation for the working poor.” The question posed above is significant. It clearly supports economic liberalisation, but wants more of it for the poor. Now this is the sort of position you will rarely find in universities, let alone in Indian public discourse. You will find either supporters of liberalisation, or its detractors. Few will ask the critical questions that can prise open the important spaces that lie in between. Old ideologies often fail to define new positions. Bright young people with active and political imaginations are rethinking the way they wish to engage with the world. They pick and choose a bit of this and a bit of that. There is no defined slot you can push them into. The old way fears the emergence of a dystopian post-ideological world where politics is blunted and praxis is replaced by T shirt slogans. But people who ask interesting new questions often find interesting new answers. Such questioning and such answers might not appear to be inflected with the type of ideological purity demanded by the Left and the Right, but they cannot be wished away. The older ideological positions continue to remain dominant, but their edges are frayed and crumbling. The centre is crying out to be occupied. Wonder who’ll get there first.

Ramjas College: Indefinite struggle of the Left, Right and the 'Centre'

student-protests

Student Protests, News on Student Protests, stories on Student Protests, articles on Student Protests, Student Protests stories at Wion, Student Protests news, Student Protests latest news

student protests

Hindutva nationalism, democracy and fear of university speech

Ramjas College: Indefinite struggle of the Left, Right and the 'Centre'