Politics

'Ashoka Is Boring—Thank God': University Co-Founder Warns Against Institution Becoming Ideological Ghetto

Swarajya Staff

Sep 06, 2023, 02:36 PM | Updated 02:36 PM IST


Ashoka University
Ashoka University

In the wake of a recent controversy surrounding the resignation of a professor at Ashoka University, which sparked debates about the balance between academic freedom and ideological influences, Varsity co-founder Sanjeev Bikhchandani has weighed in on the issue via a thought-provoking tweet.

In his tweet, Bikhchandani shared a message, stating, "What to think versus how to think."

He drew a sharp distinction between two teaching approaches commonly found in academia.

"An ideologically committed professor will teach students what to think," Bikhchandani noted.

"He or she will indoctrinate students into a particular way of thinking, an ideology, and a cause," he added.

In contrast, he emphasised the importance of open-mindedness in education, regardless of a professor's personal political leanings.

"An open-minded professor, no matter what his or her personal political leanings, will teach students how to think," Bikhchandani said.

Bikhchandani's tweet continued with a broader perspective on the role of universities in nurturing critical thinking and intellectual growth.

"For any university to flourish as an open place of learning, in my opinion, the focus needs to be more on how to think rather than what to think," he said.

He highlighted the potential of smart and capable students, suggesting that once they master the techniques of inquiry, they can independently navigate and form their own opinions when exposed to various competing schools of thought.

In another tweet, Bikhchandani responded to an assessment of the University by a news portal, saying that while he admires Bhagat Singh but as a parent he wouldn't want his son to got the gallows at the age of 22.

"I think most Ashoka parents will be relieved with this assessment of the University. Ashoka is boring - thank God," he said.

"The article also laments that it is only a vocal few at Ashoka who are activists. That is substantially correct. Your parents don’t pay the fees they do for you to do aandolans. Most students realise that. Ashoka does not boast of left liberal values. Some individuals at Ashoka might be. And they might want to paint all of Ashoka in that fashion becuase that is what they believe," Bikhchandani said.

"Ashoka is merely a liberal arts and sciences university. It values openness and a spirit of inquiry. And it must guard against becoming an ideological ghetto and therefore not very open. Left liberal values and studying subjects that constitute liberal arts are very different. You can be right of centre and still study liberal art," he added.

The tweets come after a heated controversy at Ashoka University, following the resignation of a professor who made claims of "democratic backsliding" in India in a his research paper.

Professor Sabyasachi Das, who served as an Assistant Professor at Ashoka University, recently submitted his resignation to the University's Governing Body, which was accepted.

However, this led to protests from the economics department at Ashoka.

Das' resignation came in the backdrop of a controversy around a paper written by him, titled "Democratic Backsliding in the World’s Largest Democracy".

This is the abstract of the paper:

Democratic backsliding is a growing concern globally. This paper contributes to the discussion by documenting irregular patterns in 2019 general election in India and identifying whether they are due to electoral manipulation or precise control, i.e., incumbent party’s ability to precisely predict and affect win margins through campaigning. I compile several new datasets and present evidence that is consistent with electoral manipulation in closely contested constituencies and is less supportive of the precise control hypothesis. Manipulation appears to take the form of targeted electoral discrimination against India’s largest minority group – Muslims, partly facilitated by weak monitoring by election observers. The results present a worrying development for the future of democracy.

The claims made in the paper were strongly questioned by many on social media.

The most notable questions and observations came from author-scholar Nalin Mehta and owner of the Twitter handle, @saiarav.

The latter, through a detailed analysis, has claimed that the paper's conclusion of finding evidence of voter-deletion is backed by flimsy evidence.


Get Swarajya in your inbox.


Magazine


image
States