Skip to main content

Human Rights Watch today urged the Indian government to ensure that political tensions in the country do not spill over and restrict academic freedom. In an open letter to Indian president K.R. Narayanan, the Human Rights Watch Academic Freedom Committee called on the government to launch an investigation into reports of politically motivated censorship at the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute, a government-funded Asian studies center in Calcutta.

Researchers at the Azad Institute and other Indian academics report a number of troubling developments since appointees of the Bharatiya Janata Party took control of the institute in November 1998 and named Dr. B.P. Saha, a retired policeman, as new director of the institute. Since his appointment, Dr. Saha has halted the publication of academic articles and a book-length study of border issues in the region, and he has restricted researchers from attending outside seminars without his permission. Publicly he has emphasized that he is merely ensuring that institute staff are "accountable," but in meetings with institute staff he reportedly has cited his displeasure that work at the institute has not been adequately promoting the greatness of Hindu India.

"At best, the circumstances are suspicious and demand an investigation," said Joseph Saunders, who tracks academic freedom for Human Rights Watch. "It is important to take the allegations seriously because pressure on academics to toe the line is often a warning sign of more insidious forms of censorship to come."

The letter was signed on behalf of the committee by Jonathan F. Fanton, president of the New School University in New York and a co-chair of the committee. The committee membership includes internationally prominent academic leaders and scholars, including presidents of Harvard University, Columbia University and over a dozen other universities in the United States, and figures such as Lord Ralf Dahrendorf, formerly of St. Antony's College at Oxford and currently a governor at the London School of Economics, Krzysztof Michalski of the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, Ariel Dorfman of Duke University, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard University, and Fang Lizhi of the University of Arizona.

A copy of the letter follows.

****

April 9, 1999

Mr. K.R. Narayanan
President
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi 110001
India

Dear President Narayanan:

I am writing this open letter on behalf of the Human Rights Watch Academic Freedom Committee to express the committee's concern over reports of censorship at the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute for Asian Studies in Calcutta. We urge that you immediately initiate a fair and impartial investigation into the case and do everything in your power to restore academic freedom at the institute.

The Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Institute was established by the Indian government in 1993 and continues to be funded by the central government. About eleven researchers are affiliated with the institute, six or seven of whom work full time there. In addition to conducting research into issues concerning India's relations with its Asian neighbors, researchers and other institute staff have been involved in organizing academic conferences and an orientation for M.Phil and Ph.D students in West Bengal. The Azad Institute is managed by an executive council, the members of which are appointed by the central government. In March 1998 existing council members' terms expired, and, in August and September 1998, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government for the first time appointed its own slate of council members. We are concerned with the way the newly constituted council has exercised its power over the past six months.

According to reports we have received from institute staff and other Indian academics, the council in November 1998 named retired policeman Dr. B.P. Saha as new director of the institute. The council did not formulate requirements for the post or announce a search for a new director prior to naming Dr. Saha, and it ignored a search committee that had been set up under the prior council. The appointment of Dr. Saha also directly contradicted a resolution of the previously constituted search committee that the nominee should be a professor. The selection process entirely by-passed Dr. Ranabir Samaddar, who at the time was serving as professor-in-charge of the institute.

Since becoming director, Dr. Saha reportedly has applied strong-arm tactics to prevent the institute from continuing with work-in-progress and has pressured researchers to toe a partisan nationalist line. He suspended the publication of institute papers and of a volume edited by Dr. Samaddar on the theme of geopolitics, borders, and the state. The latter publication was based on the proceedings of a seminar in Delhi organized by the Azad Institute which featured the participation of the Indian foreign secretary and other dignitaries. At meetings with institute staff, Saha reportedly criticized institute researchers for not promoting the greatness of Hindu India.

Dr. Saha also issued orders that researchers not attend seminars, discussions, or lecture programs at any outside institution without his prior permission, and told the institute's academic and research scholars that all papers and articles must have his prepublication approval. Researchers allege that the policy has been applied selectively to prevent those who disagree with Saha's nationalist views from attending outside seminars.

The restrictions on researchers and the suspension of publications create the appearance that political criteria have replaced academic criteria as the basis for decisions at the institute. The appearance alone is damaging to the international reputation of the institute and warrants action by your office.

In justifying the restrictions, Dr. Saha has stated that he is simply exercising his prerogatives in ensuring the accountability of scholars at the Azad Institute. Academic accountability is a worthy objective but efforts to achieve it must carefully be insulated from political considerations. The concept is easily abused: the world's most repressive governments commonly invoke accountability to justify imposing stifling political controls on academic inquiry.

Freedom of expression is defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, acceded to by India in 1979, as including freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds." This freedom is essential to academic excellence. A university fulfills its mission when academics are not forced to support an official line, an economic agenda, or a political ideology, but rather are free to use their talents to advance human knowledge and understanding.

As academics and human rights advocates, it is not our intention to support or dispute the opinions, ideas, or research findings of the academics whose cases we discuss. It is, however, a central feature of our mandate to defend their right to express their views and to study, research, teach, and publish without interference. Academic institutions do not exist in a political vacuum and it is not uncommon in times of political upheaval and change, such as that India is now experiencing, for there to be increased pressure for orthodoxy in academic matters. International human rights law makes it the duty of governments to forcefully resist such pressures.

Accordingly, we urge that you immediately launch an independent investigation of the actions of the executive council and policies of the new director of the Azad Institute.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. We look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jonathan Fanton
President, New School University
Co-Chair, Human Rights Watch Academic Freedom Committee

Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world.

Region / Country
Topic