Last week, more than 500 scientists and academics wrote to the Indian institute of Science (IISc) criticising its administration for prohibiting a discussion on the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. In response, the director of a different research institute, the Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research (IISER) at Mohali, Punjab, issued a show cause notice to two faculty members at his institute who had signed the letter to the IISc.
As a signatory of the letter, this writer would like to explain why it is important for scientific research institutions to encourage social and political discussions, rather than seeking to shut them down like the IISc and IISER administrations have done.
Scientific research institutes are part of the broader society; and so their members have the same constitutional right as others to participate in social discussions. Researchers at such institutions are offered the leisure and the training to pursue critical inquiry into a variety of subjects. This privilege, which relies on the public support that these institutions receive, means that they have an added responsibility to educate and express themselves on matters of public interests. For scientific researchers to fail to stand up for justice, especially at a time of great social turmoil, would be an abdication of this responsibility.
Science has multiple links
A narrow perspective might suggest that scientists should restrict themselves to science and stay away from social questions. However, it is artificial to erect intellectual silos around what is considered “science” and proscribe discussions outside those limits. For instance, an investigation of the science of climate change can naturally flow into complex geopolitical issues about colonialism and historical responsibility. This, in turn, leads to broader questions about inequality and justice. These issues are not peripheral to the subject but help to determine which scientific questions deserve focus. As another example, research on energy policy cannot be separated from environmental concerns or questions about the usage and equitable distribution of energy. Most recently, research on artificial intelligence has thrown up a host of ethical dilemmas.
Some scientific fields, such as quantum physics, are further separated from current affairs. But the generous public support for research in these areas — the recently announced “national quantum mission” involves an investment of ₹6,000 crore — arises from the expectation that this research, either directly or through spinoffs, will lead to public benefit. However, scientific and technological advances do not automatically lead to social progress; they can also facilitate oppression or entrench inequality. So, it is important for scientists to involve themselves in decisions of how science is deployed, and not cede this ground entirely to capitalists or the government. Therefore, a broader political and historical perspective on scientific research is helpful even in pure science.
An engagement with social issues
India has a rich and unique tradition of scientists who have engaged with social issues. Apart from prominent individuals such as the physicist, Meghnad Saha, the mathematician, D.D. Kosambi, and the chemist, Amulya Reddy, this tradition includes the peoples’ science movements. The Kerala Sasthra Sahithya Parishad, whose slogan is “science for social revolution”, has contributed enormously to spreading scientific values in the State. The All India Peoples Science Network has consistently advocated that science be used for social benefit rather than private profit.
To be clear it is possible for individual scientists to focus on narrow scientific topics and ignore larger questions. My argument is that scientific issues are often related to broader political issues, and that society has benefited from the participation of scientists in these discussions.
The pressures
Given these facts, why are some scientific administrators uncomfortable when political discussions are hosted in their scientific institutions? The reason is not hard to find. Administrators worry that they might be seen as promoting views that are hostile to the government of the day and might incur its wrath. Often, they do not even wait for instructions from the government but proactively censor discussions deemed to be controversial.
This attitude predates the current government. However, it is no secret that the pressure to conform and the level of self-censorship has increased significantly under the current dispensation.
In some cases, such as IISER (Mohali), administrators invoke the Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules that prohibit “criticism of … the … government”. However, these rules are designed for government bureaucrats and are ill suited for academic scientists. Indeed, the Allahabad High Court held in 2015 that the CCS rules “have no application to a Central University”.
Moreover, the Tripura High Court ruled in 2020 that even when the rules apply, they do not deprive citizens of their “right of free speech” which is “a fundamental right.”
Unless this censorship is resisted robustly, academic freedom in scientific institutions is likely to come under further attack. A key value in science is to challenge the arbitrary use of authority. It is time for members of the Indian scientific community to put this value into practice in their own institutions.
Suvrat Raju is Professor of physics at the International Centre for Theoretical Sciences (ICTS) of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. The views expressed are personal
