The educational policies of the Indian Union and of some of the state governments have been responsible recently for raising the issue of academic freedom. The Universities (Regulation of Standards) Bill, circulated by the Ministry of Education to the universities for eliciting their opinion, came in for a strong criticism from these bodies on the ground that it threatened their autonomy and was likely to jeоpardise academic freedom.
In UP, a controversy seems to be growing around the issue of interference by the state government in the working of the universities. In Bombay, a Bill to consolidate the law relating to the University of Bombay has been published and has come in for criticism on the ground of its failure to concede the autonomy of the university. These and similar other developments are likely to focus increasingly the attention of the people on the nature of the freedom of the institutions of higher education. The purpose of this note is to analyse briefly this problem and to bring out possible directions in which it can be tackled, given our concern for promoting the democratic way of life.
To formulate a clear definition of academic freedom and to indicate its precise limitations is a difficult task, not perhaps altogether free from controversy. What can better be attempted is a general description of it, which may serve a useful purpose in tackling problems pertaining to it on a practical level. It is generally recognised that such freedom is essential for institutions working at all the different levels of the educational pyramid.
Although the respective spheres of ‘guidance’ and ‘spontaneity’ and the relation between the two at the early levels of education may be a matter of difference of opinion, prevention of indoctrination is a point of general agreement. At the same time, the responsibility of the public authority, national, regional or local, has generally been viewed as more direct at these levels, and a certain amount of control in their behalf as unavoidable. Instruction tends to become education, ‘method’ begins yielding place to ‘content,’ which again later comes to serve the purpose of promoting the quest of truth as we proceed higher up in the educational structure and the need for freedom becomes all the more pronounced and essential.
Such freedom has therefore come to be looked upon as one of the most basic and vital principles of a free society.
Academic freedom can be said to imply the freedom and autonomy of the institutions of higher education in their functioning, the freedom of their academic and administrative bodies from any external influence or authority in laying down courses and curricula, prescribing texts, recommending readings and references, determining minimum standards for entrance as well as the necessary attainments to qualify for the degrees, diplomas and other honours, and regulating the nature and functioning of constituent or affiliated institutions.
It also implies the freedom of research, of collecting and arranging data and presenting the same along with findings deduced therefrom, on any problem considered as worthy of investigation. It also involves the freedom of the teacher to teach the prescribed courses of studies in his own manner, on the basis of free access to all material with a bearing, direct or remote, on his work and in doing so, the freedom to comment on issues, events, personalities or controversies in a manner he considers necessary for enhancing the understanding and appreciation of the subject.
It is also essential that a teacher as a citizen must be free to participate in the social, political and cultural life of the community provided that such participation does not affect adversely the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of his function as a teacher. And in respect of the latter, the verdict of his academic and administrative supervisors, and not the prima facie views of an external authority, ought to be the decisive factor.
Also read: An inefficient entrepreneur deserves to be branded as anti-social: Arvind Narottam Lalbhai
Given the level of our development along democratic lines, it is natural that the problem of academic freedom should arise in our country in a form different from that elsewhere. We have a formal democratic constitution but hardly any deep-rooted democratic sentiments or traditions. Our institutions of higher education do not have their autonomy threatened; by and large, they have still to win it. On the other hand, the continual characterisation of the existent system as built up essentially for producing suitable personnel to man the administrative machinery of an alien rule has promoted a crass utilitarian attitude towards education, further rendered vulgar through growing skepticism about its usefulness.
The system has thus come to be dominated by curriculum, the teachers preoccupied with texts and the students, with their degree-mindedness, concerned solely with the examinations. Though improving when viewed against the background of the past, our educational standards compare unfavourably with many other countries of the world. Thus a peculiarity of our educational situation is the simultaneous appearance of the problem of widening the freedom of our universities and other institutions of higher education and ensuring an improvement in their functional efficiency and standards. And with the passage of time, growing numbers and the resultant overcrowding in institutions, or issues like that of the medium of instruction may be expected to aggravate these problems.
Two distinct points of view seem to be gradually crystallising regarding the basic issue. One is the view that improvements in functional efficiency and standards of education are not possible in the absence of an external control, exercised directly by or under the supervision of the political authority; and the other is the view of those who argue that widening of the freedom of educational institutions is an essential pre-condition for improving their functioning and the educational standards. The former finds an expression in the policies of the governments, the latter in the report of the University Education Commission and the views of the Inter-University Board, individual universities and educationists. A choice between the two approaches is inescapable.
It is not necessary, however, that the protagonists of the two aforementioned views must come in clash with each other. Given the realisation, on one side, that state control of education making it subservient to ends considered by politicians as desirable is the very negation of a democratic outlook, and the recognition, on the other, that the autonomy of educational institutions cannot be absolute, any possibility of such a clash can be easily ruled out. And a common ground between the conflicting approaches can be discovered on which solutions consistent with the promotion of the freedom and autonomy of educational institutions can be tried on the practical level with a view to improving the standards of education.
External control can only pave the way to regimentation. It can lead to standardisation and not to an improvement of standards. It will substitute a dull lifeless uniformity for the enriching variety available at present. Instead of trying to impose such control, the state should, while devising suitable methods of co-ordination and safeguards against any irretrievable deterioration, recognise and respect the autonomy of institutions of higher education.
An intensive functioning of the Inter-University Board can be depended upon for solving the problem of coordination; the power of the State to lay down the constitution of the universities is, on the other hand, one significant safeguard against deterioration in their functioning; and a University Grants Commission along the lines recommended by the University Education Commission can be another. There is hardly any reason why the autonomy of the universities should not be recognised in such a setting by those concerned with the promotion of the democratic life and institutions. To refuse to do so is not merely to harm the present but also to undermine all healthy possibilities for the future.
It would not be desirable to be scared away by the argument that the universities have hitherto shown numerous defects and deficiencies in their functioning, and if left to themselves, may deteriorate further. It is true that abuse of freedom is potentially involved in freedom itself. But there is no better guarantee against the possibility of such abuse than a sense of responsibility and discrimination which freedom alone can produce. It is therefore desirable to create an atmosphere in which the inner correctives of our university life will be able to emerge and influence the situation. That alone will create the basis of a sound and stable improvement. Our universities need not be looked upon as our despair; they are, on the other hand, one of the few hopes we have for the future of a free society in India.
This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. This essay is excerpted from the booklet Freedom First with the title “On Academic Freedom”, which was published in March 1953. The original version can be accessed here.