By Vrinda Saxena
What began as an idea two years agoof creating leaders for tomorrowis now slowly inching towards reality.
On March 23rd this year, the establishment of Krea University was announced in Mumbai. The University, targeting interwoven learning and 21st-century preparedness, opens registrations for four-year courses for Bachelors degree in Arts and Science in November this year for batches starting in July-August 2019.
What exactly are we looking at?
It is an endeavour by the former RBI Governor Raghuram Rajan, entrepreneur Kapil Viswanathan, and economist and educator Sundar Ramaswamy, modelled on a vision for taking liberal arts and science education to newer heights. They remain committed to their idea of this institution having an ideologically agnostic core, with leanings towards real-life immersive experiences and debates. Emphasising on flexibility in terms of a wide range of choices and interdisciplinary combinations, Rajan reiterated the concept of a world besides academics, and their vision to provide such tools to students to develop their potential. The university will be set up in Sri City, Andhra Pradesh, about 75kms from Chennai.
Prod them with questions regarding the inspiration behind this institution, which is supposedly the private Ashoka University in Haryana, Rajan responds by applauding achievements of Ashoka. He adds, The idea is not to follow any particular mould, but to create one we have a very varied academic council with people like T.M. Krishna and Srinath Raghavan who will bring their own perspectives. He continues, The idea is to try and break the mould while recognising that there has to be a mould for students to be accepted in by business and by institutes of higher education. But within that, use the freedom we have to create something different. We need far more institutions of the kind that Ashoka has already turned out to be.
Viswanathan will be taking charge as the vice-chairperson of Kreas supervisory board, and Rajan will be an advisor to the Universitys governing council. Elaborating on the vision, said Rajan, We are trying to create a new generation of thinking Indians who will contribute to the development of the globe. Further, he talked about developing universities as safe spaces where ideas are debated, and you dont shut down the other side by labelling them anti-national.
Why do we need such an institution?
His comment has brought into focus, yet again, a pertinent question looking in the face at the countrys education system- the importance of open debating, questioning and free speech. Better still, it has brought into focus the triggers which make this a question, from being an issue requiring discussion and deliberation. The infamous JNU incident of anti-national sloganeering of 2016, the Ramjas anecdote of clashes over alleged sedition activities etc., – the triggers are many.
The purview of this question is now no longer restricted to the debate on the vitality of free speech in campuses but also encompasses the issue that different students have different notions on how much speech is actually free speech without malicious intent, and expressions of free speech.
Curtailment or elimination of freedom of expression, of course, faces the threat of defeating the entire purpose behind education, which is to provide exposure to diverse streams of thought, to foster ideas conducive to growth. In Rajans words, We have to, as a society, create safe spaces where debates and discussions take place, where people using freedom, not licence, can express their views which can take the society forward.
Will this idea be accepted by all?
However, critics of this view accuse universities of being too elitist, lacking ideological diversity, and prioritising progressive and liberal views. That in itself can be termed pseudo-liberalism when despite the claims of being open to multiple viewpoints that of the conservatives are carefully side-lined. This allegation of under-representation of streams of thought makes the debate more raging.
Regardless, this is not the end. Proponents counter the critics while arguing their own case too, that representation is one issue which can be very efficiently tackled with if free speech and dissent are not subject to attacks. They say that the same people, who reportedly are offended with the spectrum of expressions and work to curb this freedom, are ones who do not let under-represented and seemingly less popular schools of thought come out openly in the public space.
There is support for this proposition and contest of ideas and a free flow of debates also on the grounds of establishing newer and more contemporarily relevant notions. A critical examination of ideas and perspectives, it is said, will help drive out redundant impressions and will work towards the betterment of the society. Rajans speech at the announcement of the launch of the University reflected similar sentiments when he said “I think the process is good and over time these ideas become mainstream. For instance, women’s rights are something that was debated in the 19th century which over time we have come to accept”.
The objective of free speech on campus can face hostility due to a pressing concern. A large section believes that quite a few currents of intellectual discussions and debates have consistently masked the real power relations that make the speech of the marginalised and the oppressed far from free. One area where the advocates and critics of the issue find their apprehension overlapping is the actual liberalism of liberal arts. While the critics have raised a fitting objection towards those in power dominating the arena of the spoken word, the former, too, are wary of the fact that the desire to insulate the campus community from offensive views has posed the threat of animating the spirit of liberal arts.
Nonetheless, what is at stake amidst this affair is the future of the pioneers of tomorrowor broadly, the future of the society at large. Using state funding as a tool for silencing opinions is as wrong as propagating oppressive and violent views in the name of free speech. The need, hence, is to build an environment conducive to intellectual exchanges, to develop campuses as grounds where education can thrive, and ideas can be polished, and to make opposition so legitimate that both sides of the coin can work together to create the final version; with none dominating the other.