When Ignorance Reaches the Highest Office, the Entire Nation Pays the Price
When Ignorance Reaches the Highest Office, the Entire Nation Pays the Price
An Opinion
I recently listened to former Finance Minister Yashwant Sinha,
who served in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, give a deeply critical
assessment of India's economy under the BJP government. I then listened to R.
N. Singh, a former minister in the Modi government and a former bureaucrat who
understands how ministries, defence policy, and the bureaucracy function. His
comments about the India-China border were even more disturbing. According to
him, India has withdrawn its forces from five locations along the border during
the Modi government. This brings us directly to what Rahul Gandhi has
repeatedly alleged—that India has surrendered its position to China. The
government attacks Gandhi for making these accusations, but the simplest way to
prove him wrong is to bring the facts to Parliament. Tell the country where
Indian forces stood before the confrontation, where they stand today, what
patrolling rights existed then, and what rights exist now. If the government's
position is defensible, defend it.
For me, this exposes the weakness behind Narendra Modi's
carefully constructed image as a strong Prime Minister. Speeches from the Red
Fort do not measure strength; it is measured by the willingness to answer
difficult questions when the country's security and economy are at stake. India
made enormous investments during Dr. Manmohan Singh's government in
telecommunications, infrastructure, technology, science, industry, and other
sectors whose benefits naturally continued into later years. The Modi
government is quick to claim credit for the growth that followed, but much less
willing to accept responsibility when things go wrong. Whether we are
discussing economic performance or the China border, after twelve years in
power, this government must be judged on its own record. It cannot take credit
for everything that succeeds while blaming earlier governments for everything
that fails.
The same problem, in my opinion, has now entered India's
universities. Rahul Gandhi has accused the BJP of placing people aligned with
the RSS in leadership positions across universities and allowing RSS ideology
to influence education. I recently listened to the Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad
University use a public speech to discuss abusive language allegedly directed
at Modi and his mother. I was surprised. I expected the head of an important
university to speak about academic achievement, research, students, science,
technology, and the future of the institution not to sound like a defender of
the Prime Minister. One speech does not prove Gandhi's entire allegation about
university appointments, but behavior of this kind certainly strengthens the
questions he is raising. When I subsequently examined her academic record, it
also left me questioning whether academic excellence alone explains
appointments to some of India's most important university positions.
The larger issue is not merely who becomes a Vice-Chancellor.
It is what kind of education India wants its universities to provide. The
behavior I see from the BJP increasingly suggests a philosophy in which
obedience, respect for authority, and preservation of hierarchy are treated as
virtues. We see a similar attitude toward political speech: words are condemned
as "unparliamentary" or unacceptable when directed against those in
power, while equally harsh language used by BJP ministers, MPs, and even senior
leaders is treated differently. Legal and institutional mechanisms are
repeatedly invoked in controversies involving criticism and political speech.
When standards depend upon who is speaking and whom they are criticizing, the
issue is no longer simply civility; it raises a legitimate question about
whether dissent itself is being discouraged.
That philosophy is dangerous for education because science
does not advance through obedience. Technology does not develop because
students are taught never to question authority. Mathematics, medicine,
engineering, and every other serious intellectual discipline advance because
somebody asks why the accepted answer might be wrong. A university should teach
students to demand evidence, challenge assumptions, question professors,
question political leaders, and even question what generations before them
accepted as truth. Respect for another person is valuable, but unquestioning
respect for power is something entirely different. When governments expect
respect because they possess authority and treat criticism as disobedience,
they move away from democratic thinking and toward the thinking historically
associated with authoritarian rule.
The economy, the China border, and India's universities may
appear to be three separate subjects, but they lead to the same question: Can
those in power be questioned? If India's economy is performing as strongly as
the government claims, show the complete evidence. If India has not lost
territory, access, or strategic advantage to China, place the facts before
Parliament. If Rahul Gandhi is wrong about ideological influence over
university leadership, demonstrate that appointments are based on transparent
academic merit. The answer to criticism cannot always be to attack the critic.
A democracy needs citizens educated enough to question their
government, not citizens trained to obey it. The purpose of a university is not
to teach students how to respect power. It is to give them the knowledge and
courage to question power.
Comments
Post a Comment