11 Civil Society, Academia and Social Movement

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Civil Society and academia: Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

5. Civil Society, Social Movement and Academia: Indian Scenario

5.1. Rohit Vemular Case in Hyderabad University

5.2. Kanhaia Kumar Case in Jawaharlal Nehru University

5.3. ‘Hok Kalarob’ Case in Jadavpur University

6. Summary

1. Objective

The objective of this module is to introduce you the very idea, concept and interrelationship of civil society, academia and social movement. You will also learn about the role of academia for framing civil society as well as participatory involvement of the academic institutions in the field of social movement.

2. Introduction

Civil Society is one of the most controversial phrases in contemporary knowledge discourses. Academia also is an important part of the civil society. Intellectuals and the participants of academia always think for this society; when any kind of problem or injustice occur in the arena of civil society, these people oppose such activity through their writings and speeches and try to mobilise public opinion for a just society. The role of intellectuals therefore becomes crucial in any social movements.

3. Learning Outcome

The focus of this lesson is the relationship among protest movements, academic issues and civil society. The specific objectives are to acquaint students with the idea of civil Society, academia and social movements and find out the way by which each actors influence the others. It would also try to make students conscious about different types of academia that had influenced members of different civil society as well as social movements in the past.

4. Civil Society and Academia: Conceptual and Theoretical Framework

In contemporary social science discourses, the concept of civil society is widely used. From about 1990, debates surrounding ‘democratization’ have often been influenced by a hegemonic idea of civil society. In its original conceptualization in political philosophy, civil society was not a thing to be studied but a theoretical construct used to understand observed phenomena. With its recent revival, civil society has become more the object of research and less an analytical category. This is more so in the field of social movement where members of civil society containing a large section of academia play a proactive role. The issues that crop up in this context are: (1) how to conceptualize civil society; (2) linking civil society with the academia, and (3) finding the relation among civil society, academia and social movement. While a full explanation of the different levels of the debate and various strands of arguments would consume the whole discussions, the amount of academic disagreement revealed in these works over the viability of civil society as a concept in all its guises can be summed up as follows: Civil society is indeed an elusive concept and a more fugitive reality. But the remarkable energies devoted to its definition and pursuit strike us as the most powerful force on the scene. The quest for a civil society that can reinvent the state in its own admittedly idealized image is a drama of redemption whose potential nobility commands our admiration.

The concept of civil society draws heavily on the liberal intellectual tradition to stress on ‘civility’ as its core. Yet, the concept has become a notoriously slippery concept, used to justify radically different ideological agendas, supported by deeply ambiguous evidence, and suffused with many questionable assumptions (Edwards 2004: vi). Civil Society is a space that exists over against the state and partially independent from it. It includes those dimensions of social life which cannot be confounded with or swallowed up in the state.

The concept of civil society is now accepted in modern social science as an intermediary between the private sector and the state. Thus, civil society is distinguished from the state and economic society, which includes profit-making enterprises. Nor is it the same as family-life society. Civil society, as Larry Diamond (1995: 9) defines it, is: ‘the realm of organized social life that is voluntary, self-generating, self-supporting, autonomous from the state, and bound by the legal order or set of shared rules… it involves citizens acting collectively in a public sphere to express their interests, passions and ideas, exchange ideas, exchange information, achieve mutual goals, make demands on the state, and hold state officials accountable. It is an intermediary entity, standing between the private sphere and the state’. Civil society involves voluntary associations and participation of individuals acting in their capacity under the framework of private contractual relationships. These include academic institutions, NGOs, trade unions, advocacy groups, market associations, human rights groups, religious associations, farmers’ cooperative and movements and women thrift societies. Civil society can also be defined as an entity which is not a part of the state, it is a vast ensemble of constantly changing groups and individuals whose only common ground is their being outside the state and who have assimilated some consciousness of their being outside the state. While the civil society attempts to resist the encroachment of the state on what is private, its various organizations also seek to influence the state in the exercise of public policy and the allocation of valued resources. With this in mind, civil society may encompass a wide range of organizations concerned with public matters. They include civic, issue-oriented, religious, and educational interest groups and associations. Some are known as non-governmental organizations, or NGOs; some are informal and loosely structured. This is further explained by Carothers (2000: 19-20): ‘Properly understood, civil society is a broader concept, encompassing all the organizations and associations that exist outside of the state (including political parties) and the market. It includes the gamut of organizations that political scientists traditionally label interest groups–not just advocacy NGOs but also labour unions, professional associations (such as those of doctors and lawyers), chambers of commerce, ethnic associations, and others. It also incorporates the many other associations that exist for purposes other than advancing specific social or political agendas, such as religious organizations, student groups, cultural organizations (from choral societies to bird-watching clubs), sports clubs, and informal community groups’. Civil society is defined here as a sphere of social interaction between the household and the state which is manifest in norms of community cooperation, structures of voluntary association, and networks of public communication. One must acknowledge that civil society — like the state and political society – is a theoretical concept rather than an empirical one. It is a synthetic conceptual construct that is “not necessarily embodied in a single, identifiable structure” (Bayart 1986: 112). To make it serviceable for purposes of development assistance, we must identify the observable parts of the composite concept. Drawing on the definition presented above, we distinguish the institutions of civil society as:

(a)  The norms of civic community: The most important values for the construction of civil society are trust, reciprocity, tolerance, and inclusion. Trust is a precondition for individuals to associate voluntarily; reciprocity is a resource for reducing the transaction costs of collective action; political tolerance assists the emergence of diverse and plural forms of association. These values are promoted by citizens who actively seek to participate in public affairs. The presence of civic norms can be measured by sample surveys and public opinion polls and observed in voting, ‘joining,’ and varieties of collective behaviour. These norms of civic community are taught not only in the family but also by civic organizations such as schools, churches, and community groups.

(b)  The structures of associational life: In order for civic life to become institutionalized, it must be expressed in organizational form. The most common organizational structure in civil society is the voluntary association, an alliance of citizens who come together by reason of identity or interest to pursue a shared objective. There are various types of voluntary associations ranging from the localized, informal, and apolitical on the one hand to national, legally-registered, policy advocacy organizations on the other. While policy advocacy groups may have the largest and most direct impact on national political life, they do not consume the relevant organizations in civil society. Whether or not they are clearly oriented to civic or political functions, all types of voluntary association help to populate and pluralize civil society.

(c)  The networks of public communication: In order to be politically active, citizens require means to link with one another and to debate the type of government they wish for themselves. Civic sermon can take place in various scenes, the most important of which are the public communications media, both print and electronic, State or private monopolies. Also in the field of academia, civic norms are communicated and the process of norms creation has been held.

The past few decades has witnessed a robust development of civil societies across the globe, not only at the local and national levels, but also at transnational level. This process, nevertheless, is far from homogenous, as civil society’s expansion is inescapably intertwined with local factors as the socioeconomic status quo, history, tradition and ideology. For this very reason, the growth of civil societies across the globe is not only uneven, but also multifaceted and diverse. Academia plays a vital role for making civil society consciousness and also for creating civil society process. Hall very correctly argued that ‘The concept of civil society that gained public attention in the 1980s even as an attempt to establish civility in society was seen as the opposite of despotism. Civil society in time came to be seen as a ‘space’ in which groups can exist and interact with each other, so that they could ensure better and more tolerable conditions of existence. However, civil society is more complicated than we are led to think at first glance, since it is both a ‘social value and a set of social institutions’ (Hall 1995: 1). By now we are familiar with Hegelian, Marxian and Gramscian theories of civil society. All these theories, however, share one thing in common. They refer to the sphere of social life that falls outside the state, though they do not see it as necessarily free from state interference. Civil society, therefore, is normally seen as the site at which most interactions between the state and society (Mohan 2002). For our discussion, it is required to understand the background of civil society by which it can play a vital role in civic life as well as community life. Academia, one of the most important instruments for making civil society vibrant, helps it in two ways. First, it strengthens the forces of civil society by enlisting the enlightened sections of human society. Second, academic institutions through their intellectual, political and social activities sharpen our understanding about issues highlighted by civil society. As for example we may recall Plato’s ‘Academy’ by which social progress and intellectual movement had happened in ancient Greece.

The conceptual framework presented above contextualises the non-entity ‘civil society’ into civil society as idea and civil society as process. Civil society as idea focuses on the use of ‘civil society’ in the literature, as well as how individuals, organizations, the government and international actors in different countries conceive of civil society and perceive of themselves in relation to it. Civil society as process embodies a historical approach, placing the current dynamics of political activism and social organizations within the context of a longer view of changing state-society relations. 

The idea of civil society embodies a set of assumptions about the unity of civil society, the civility of civil society, the ‘separateness’ of civil society and the state, and the intrinsic relationship between civil society and democracy. These assumptions and the normative principles underlying them obfuscate reality. Presuppositions about ‘civil society’ can be deconstructed by examining what is actually happening, denoted in this proposition as civil society as process. Civil society as process takes on country specific characteristics resulting from the following determinants: (1) historically generated issues which affect particular groups in society or society as a whole; (2) structures and forms that organized social forces adopt to address these issues; (3) personal networks revealing who is involved in particular issues and why; (4) external influences and international linkages; and (5) material incentives underlying production politics and the distribution of state resources. Civil society as process is shaped by changes in these determinants and the historical memory within social groups regarding past mobilization and its effects. However, the idea of civil society has strongly influenced the perceptions and actions of multiple sets of actors. Through these influences, the idea affects reality. These effects are most pronounced now, as the junction between civil society as process and civil society as idea occurs largely in last two decades. Commenting on the nature of civil society in India, André Béteille (2012) argues that civil society as an institution has a lasting character which is the hallmark of institutions whereas most voluntary organisations do not pass this test. He also reminds us that despite the “current popularity of the term in different parts of the world, civil society is a historical category and not a universal category of human existence”. To speak of civil society is to speak with reference to the legal framework and to the emergence of it in a historical era with reference to the material conditions extant. The question that emerges in India is that is the civil society a universal institution in a country that is marked by caste and ethnic relations primarily? In the context of academic institutions in India, this kind of controversy occurred. Very few Indians in public life are institution builders, be it ministers in government or academics in universities. Most of those persons who could be builders of lasting institutions are overwhelmed by populism, bias of caste, creed and inferior. 

The term Academia refers to the group of persons who engage in intellectual and academic activities like research, teaching, popular lecture or talk, writing and community services. This group is mostly found in the universities, colleges, institutes and other research institutions. Academia history often follows a path-dependent pattern, and many university systems are idiosyncratic and are influenced by local conditions.

Andre Béteille (2012) uses the empirical example of the state of Indian universities to explicates the matter of balance between rights and trust and points out how an over emphasis on rights has created a situation of mistrust, misunderstanding and suspicion to the detriment of the academic institutions. One cannot but be in agreement with Béteille about the abysmal conditions that most of our institutes of higher education are in but to lay the blame at the door of rights per se would be perhaps a little unjust. Education was for a very long time the bastion of a few and their hold over the institutes of higher learning was nearly absolute. It is through the language of rights that a great number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have entered the portals of higher education. Democratisation of education is a long and arduous process and the last has not been heard on the matter (Mukhopadhyay 2012). But in very recent times, some incidences in academic campus prove that our academic institutions are also influenced largely by politics. 

In this context, we may also refer to the views of Gramsci (1971) on organic intellectuals. For Gramsci, intellectuals are a broader group of social agents than the term would seem to include in its definition. Gramsci’s category of “intellectuals” includes not only scholars and artists or, in his own terms, the “organizers of culture,” but also functionaries who exercise “technical” or “directive” capacities in society. Among these executives we find administrators and bureaucrats, industrial managers, politicians, and the already mentioned “organizers of culture.” Moreover, Gramsci classifies these intellectuals in two dimensions: the horizontal and the vertical dimensions. On the vertical dimension we find the “specialists,” those who organize industry in particular for the capitalists (including the industrial managers and foremen). On that dimension we find also the “directors”–the organizers of society in general. On the horizontal dimension, Gramsci classifies intellectuals either as traditional intellectuals or as organic intellectuals. Traditional intellectuals are those intellectuals linked to tradition and to past intellectuals; those who are not so directly linked to the economic structure of their particular society and, in fact, conceive of themselves as having no basis in any social class and adhering to no particular class discourse or political discourse. Organic intellectuals, on the other hand, are more directly related to the economic structure of their society simply because of the fact that “every social group that originates in the fulfillment of an essential task of economic production” creates its own organic intellectual (Cammet 1997: 202). Thus, the organic intellectual “gives his class homogeneity and awareness of its own function, in the economic field and on the social and political levels” (Cammet 1997: 202). In addition, their interests are “more nearly identical with those of the dominant classes [they identify with] . . . than the traditional intellectuals” (Cammet 1997: 202). But what was the basis of Gramsci’s classification of intellectuals on “vertical” and “horizontal” dimensions? 

The basis of this classification is Gramsci’s distinction between two different but interconnected areas in the social superstructure: “political society” and “civil society.” We could assume that the “specialists” (vertical dimension) would be situated most likely within “civil society,” and more precisely at the links between civil society and the economic infrastructure or level of production. The agents who constitute this group operate mainly at the level of industry. On the other hand, also on the vertical dimension, the “directors” would seem to be situated most likely within “civil society” but outside the realm of industrial specialization. This, of course, is rather tentative and at the most an exercise in impression since the categories of civil society and political society, and the category of infrastructure, are concepts from an “organic totality” that operates dialectically and includes all levels in that operation (Ramos 1982). Nevertheless, Gramsci is stronger as to the positionality of the intellectual types of the horizontal dimension in the super-structural level of society. Hence, organic intellectuals, part of the dominant class, provide personnel for the coercive organs of political society. Traditional intellectuals, important in civil society, are more likely to reason with the masses and try to obtain ‘spontaneous’ consent to a social order (Cammet 1997: 204). Yet, in the struggle of a class aspiring for hegemony the organic intellectuals created by that class operate on the level of pursuit for direct consensus and as such hold no position in the coercive political structures to operate on a coercive basis. Hence, it would seem that in the struggle for social hegemony these organic intellectuals must reason with the masses and engage in a decisive ‘war of position’ to consolidate the hegemonic status of the class the interests of which they share (Ramos 1982).

According to Gramsci the intellectuals are the “deputies” of the dominant group–the functionaries, exercising the subaltern but important functions of political government and social hegemony. In particular, the organic intellectuals are most important since they are the ones who actually elaborate and spread organic ideology. The political importance of these intellectuals rests also in the fact that, normally, the organic intellectuals of a historically and realistically progressive class will be able to establish their “domination” over the intellectuals of other classes, and hence will be able to create a “system of solidarity” maintained so long as the progressive class remains “progressive” (Ramos 1982).

Finally, organic intellectuals are very instrumental in a class struggle for hegemony. “One of the most important characteristics of any group that is developing towards dominance is its struggle to assimilate and conquer ‘ideologically’ the traditional intellectuals, but their assimilation and conquest is made quicker and more efficacious, the more the group in question succeeds in simultaneously elaborating its own organic intellectuals” (Gramsci 1971). Again, remember that the traditional intellectuals can be supportive agents in the quest for “spontaneous” consent to the social order. Thus, it would also seem that the struggle for assimilating the traditional intellectuals is yet another important requisite for overall struggle to attain hegemony of a class. Specifically, this struggle for assimilation of the traditional intellectuals would be part of the ’war of position’ (Ramos 1982).

A major historical problem posed by Gramsci and of great practical relevance to the proletariat in advanced capitalist countries is the fact that “although every social group develops its own organic intellectuals, the industrial proletariat has relied mostly on ‘assimilated’ traditional intellectuals for leadership” (Cammet 1997: 203). Of course, Gramsci prescribed a solution to this problem, a solution that, in fact, became one of the principal aims of the “Ordine Nuovo” in Italy. Gramsci wrote in the Prison Notebooks that the solution was to provide workers, directly in the shops, technical and industrial education as well as education in the humanities so that “from technical work [the select worker] arrives at technical science and historical humanistic views, without which he would remain ’a specialist’ and would not become a ’director’ ” (that is, a specialist and a politician). Clearly, only then could the working class develop a higher consciousness of itself and other social classes. In the context of Indian academia, organic intellectuals have done well for the vested interests and their class as well as community interests.

The interaction between academia and civil society is very unique in nature. If we concentrate on the very idea of academia or academic organisations we may locate various institutes which are funded by state and some time by private patrons. There are also registered societies like All India Sociological Society (ISS) and NGOs like Institute of Social Sciences (New Delhi) which pick up issues faced by their members or stakeholders. The ISS, for instance, has raised the issue of intellectual freedom of their members in the context of an environment of intolerance leading to physical attack on eminent Sociologists like Nandini Sundar, M. N. Panini, Vivek Kumar, Rajesh Mishra and many others. The ISS organisers seminars and conferences on issues related to public life, for instance, in the 42nd Conference of the ISS held at Tezpur University in between 27-30th December 2016, the issue of ‘Higher Education and its present crisis’ was discussed by eminent sociologists. Similarly, the Institute of Social Sciences has been championing the cause of decentralisation through Panchayats and is bit critical of the policies of central government and its failure to empower rural people in real sense. These academic institutions/societies, by engaging themselves in activities for sectoral benefits, create awareness for other members civil society and people at large. Interestingly through such ‘social outreach’ activities intellectuals also keep burnishing your reputation. Quite obviously, intellectuals are a divided lot everywhere and there as many numbers of anti-government intellectuals as there are pro-government. Hence, the process of academic discourses endeavouring to influence public opinion often becomes a pure political exercise. Academics constantly form alliances; help one another glide into more rarefied circles; back-stab their rivals, etc. But in this process, they create literature based on evidences and impressions that are helpful to take a stand and strengthen our knowledge base about an issue. For instance, the issue poverty reduction in India has been a matter of intense scrutiny and sociologists have been able to demonstrate how the economists have failed to measure poverty qualitatively. Again, the idea and nuances of NREGA was suggested by intellectuals reviewing the failures of earlier rural development programmes. But when the BJP government tried to reduce budgetary support under the scheme in 2014, many intellectuals wrote open protest letters to the government and argued for its continuation. Similarly, sociologists like Nandini Sundar won the legal battle through writ petition to declare Salwa Judum (private army to oppose the Maoist) in Chhattisgarh illegal by the Supreme Court in 2011. Hence, notwithstanding certain critical aspect of the role of academicians, these ultimately strengthen the civil society.

It appears that academia is both a knowledge hub and a pressure group which conceptually can be accommodated within the structural framework of the civil society. Academic institutions as the part of the civil society and civil society as makers of the academic institutions shape the contours of social movements deeply. In our next sections we focus on this.

5.  Civil Society, Social Movement and Academia: Indian Scenario

The most distinctive characteristic of the civil Society initiatives in India is that the discourses and actions belonging to this realm are not directed towards the installation of democracy or a normatively appropriate form of government; they are in fact directed towards making the democratic system live up to its ideals. India has a formal democracy with constitutional laws, codified rights and freedom, periodic elections, multiparty system and representative parliamentary form of government. It is also a democracy that aims to promote socio-economic transformation of a society marked by hierarchies of various kinds, through right to equality, equal opportunities, and principles of positive discrimination. But after fifty years of democratic welfare system, inequalities still persist. Not only this, new forms of inequities and divisions are on the rise since economic liberalisation. Neither socially nor economically, the benefits of development did not reach the majority of the population. This is mainly due to their disadvantaged position in the social and economic setting. The inefficiency and irresponsiveness of the state vis-à-vis the citizens has ensued a crisis for legitimacy of the state institutions. This gulf between what is enshrined in the constitution and provided through legislation and policy provisions, and their actualisation forms the backdrop against which civil society and governance interface needs to be addressed in India (Tandon and Mohanty 2001:19). A profile of the civil society initiatives vis-a-vis the state in India is discussed here. Thematically, issues like equality, rights, freedom, citizenship, social cohesion etc., have remained the dominant themes characterising the public sphere and collective action in India. But the context in which they are addressed keeps changing. Before India attained independence the colonial state was the backdrop against which these ideas and ideals derived their meaning. After independence a modern democratic state framed after the liberal ideals and committed to development became the backdrop against which the contextualisation took place in the public sphere. Civil society initiatives in contemporary India are concerned with the gap between what is constitutionally provided and its frequent violation, the way the poor and subaltern relate to the state and to the society, and collective action in the public sphere against the dominant interests and an unresponsive state (Tandon and Mohanty 2001:19-20).

According to some scholars, civil Society in India consists of very fluid social groupings which are founded on primary identities of caste, ethnicity, kinship lineages and religions, although most political theories would write these groupings of an unworthy candidates for voluntary social associations whom they regard as prime component of civil society. Chandhoke (1995: 28-29 and 241-45) trusts that the particularistic loyalties have been eroding the sphere of individual freedom which must remain unquestionable in any society to qualify to be called a civil society. She is critical of the way the fundamentalist exclusivist ideology of the Hindutva (that is, redefining ‘nation’ as the Hindu-state) has been gathered by the Hindu majoritarian Bharatiya Janata Party and how such an ideology would remove any scope for contestations and dialogues. 

Hence, religious fundamentalism, according to her, poses the greatest challenge to civil society. A different conceptualisation of civil society is offered by activists and radicals for whom new social movements—mobilisations of protest against the Indian state constitute the glimmer of hope of civil society (Omvedt 1993: 257-319). Locating civil society in a non-state, or even an anti-state, domain of protest against, and challenge to, the establishment escapes the basic question as to how such protest movements create a public sphere for dialogue and consensus which are the hallmarks of civil society. Some political analysts think that the real task facing leaders of diverse social and cultural associations is to establish a community of shared interests and democratic institutions for decision-making through consensus (Kothari 1991). Chandhoke (1995: 251) argues that a common democratic discourse of language and practices requires a stable civil society, although the converse is equally true. Earlier in this module it was argued that institutionalised democratic practices are a precondition for the civil society also. Attempts at internal subversion of democratic institutions, as happened during the national emergency (1975-77) in India, constitute as much a threat to civil society as anti-democratic, totalitarian ideology and politics of Hindu fundamentalism do. The growing concern in the third world for civil society, has been attributed by Kaviraj (2002) to three factors: First, post-colonial ideas on governance brought the role of the state and its institutions to the centre-stage, because they were viewed as indispensable for reconstruction at a faster rate. Secondly, an unconscious assumption about functionalism led ruling classes to believe that changes in different aspects of social life are symmetrical and were organically linked to one another. Thirdly, yet another assumption was that Western capitalist societies or those in the communist world showed to post-colonial societies the path to modernity and development. Kaviraj has highlighted the gross fallibility of these assumptions about democracy and civil society in a post-colonial society. India itself as a post-colonial state is located in third world and faces a lot of challenges for nation building process. One of the most important aspects of its civil society and state formation process is the role of academia and its ideological involvement. Academia is some time influenced by some political ideology and concerning over social movements. If we look over the evolution of Indian academic scenario, we may find out a lot of incidents for this kind of arguments. 

Though the Indian higher education structure can be traced back to Nalanda and Takshashila Institutions, still “The foundation for modern education was laid by the Britishers. They set up network of schools to impart western education in English medium. The first college to impart western education was founded in 1818 at Serampore near Calcutta. Over the next forty years, many such colleges were established in different parts of the country at Agra, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Patna, Calcutta, and Nagapattinam. Its historical landmarks are McCauley’s Policy of 1835 to promote European learning through English, Sir Charls Woods’ Dispatch of 1854 which for the first time recognized the need for mass education with private and missionary help and gave up the policy of selective education known as the ‘filtration theory’ and finally the first Indian Education Commission of 1882 which recommended the initiative of private agencies in the expansion of education”. After independence, India slowly developed its higher education system. India’s higher education system is the world’s third largest in terms of students, next to China and the United States. Unlike China, however, India has the advantage of English being the primary language of higher education and research. India educates approximately 11 per cent of its youth in higher education as compared to 20 per cent in China (Singh 2007). The main governing body at the tertiary level is the University Grants Commission (India), which enforces its standards, advises the government, and helps coordinate between the centre and the state. Universities and its constituent colleges are the main institutes of higher education in India. The academics institutions of India do not only provide degrees but also make good and enlightened citizens and in this process enhances the volume of civil society membership and awareness. There are however unattached intellectuals like Arundhuri Roy, Chetan Bhagat, or Amitava Ghosh who have become icons of creative endeavours at international level. The opinions of these intellectuals on issues like democracy or protest movement do get prominence in public discourse. There are also instances movements emerging in the arena of academic institutions. These movements do raise certain issues of marginalisation, victimization or rights and mobilise large sections of masses. Interestingly, competitive media houses today provide solid platform to these intellectuals to express their grievances and target either the government or the other stakeholders. Obviously, the party in power always have to monitor activities of ‘organic intellectuals’ and develop counter arguments to sustain its rule and influence. It is due to such media projections and publicity that civil society activism today in many cases is controlled by intellectuals. Political parties of any brand just cannot ignore this. Increasing importance of intellectuals in Indian polity has forced our political parties to penetrate into academic institutions and create their own brand of supporters. The teachers and students of Jawaharlal Nehru University, for instance, have protested against the high-handedness and partisan approach of their Vice Chancellor. As a corollary, the whole profess of civil society activism through the involvement of intellectuals is often seen with suspicion. We would discuss here three cases of university students and teachers raising certain issues of wider implications to reflect upon the role of academia in civil society activism.

5.1 Rohith Vemula Case in Hyderabad University 

Rohith Chakravarti Vemula was an Indian PhD student at the University of Hyderabad who committed suicide on 17 January 2016. His death occurred after a controversy which extended over several months starting in July 2015. In July 2015, the University reportedly stopped paying him a fellowship of ₹25,000 per month after he wasfound ‘raising issues under the banner of Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) as part of institute’s disciplinary inquiry. On 3rd August 2015 Rohith Vemula and four other ASA-activists demonstrated against the death penalty for Yakub Memon, a convicted terrorist involved in the 1993 Bombay bombing and condemned the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Prishad’s (ABVP) attack on the screening of the documentary Muzaffarnagar Baaqi Hai (a documentary on the riots at Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh) in Delhi University. In response ABVP’s local leader Nandanam Susheel Kumar called them “goons,” where-after Kumar was confronted in his hostel room. The next day Kumar was taken to hospital and operated for an acute appendicitis. He stated that he was ‘roughed up by around 40 ASA members who barged into my room.’ The ABVP wrote a letter to Union Minister Dattatreya, alleging that the ASA members were indulging in ‘casteist’ and ‘anti-national’ activities. The letter was forwarded to Union Human Resource Minister Smriti Irani, and then to the university’s Vice-Chancellor professor P. Appa Rao, where after Rohith Vemula and four other ASA-members were suspended and barred from their hostel. After the confirmation of the suspension in January 2016, Rohith Vemula committed suicide. His suicide sparked protests and outrage from across India and gained widespread media attention as an alleged case of discrimination against Dalit and low status caste in India, in which elite educational institutions have been purportedly seen as hotbeds of caste-based discrimination against students belonging to lower caste.

After that, political parties involved started taking advantages of the incidence. It was alleged that Rohith was actually not a Dalit and he had arranged a SC certificate to take admission at Hyderabad University. The Dalit leaders were accused for forcing Rohith to commit suicide. On the other side, anti BJP politicians accused the Hindu nationalists for ignoring the rights of the SCs. It was argued that the death of Vemula is a continuation of the long history of discrimination against Dalits which continues today, including at institutions of higher learning. Ashok Vajpeyi, a poet, returned his D. Lit degree awarded to him by the University of Hyderabad in protest against the circumstances which led to the death of Vemula. Dalit activists all over the world started demanding justice for Rohith. Demand of justice for Rohith was also raised at UN on 31st session of Human Rights Council. Subsequent incidences of Dalit oppression at places like Una case or Dadri, became a rallying point for larger unity for the rights of the marginalised.

5.2. Kanhaia Kumar Case in Jawaharlal Nehru University

On 12 February 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar was arrested by the Delhi police. A case was registered against him on 13 Feb, under Indian Penal Code Sections 124-A (sedition) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy). He was charged over an event organised by some students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus against the hanging of Parliament attack convict Afzal Guru, following complaints by Bharatiya Janata Party Member of Parliament Maheish Girri and the ABVP. Kanhaiya Kumar denied the charges and said that he was neither shouting any slogan nor saying anything against integrity of the country. He said in an interview that “I dissociate myself from the slogans which were shouted in the event. I have full faith in the Constitution of the country and I always say that Kashmir is an integral part of India” (Iyenger 2016). During his interrogation Kanhaiya insisted that he did not say anything that was seditious. Kanhaiya Kumar’s arrest soon snowballed into a major political controversy and has drawn sharp reactions from opposition parties, teachers, students and academics. Students at Jawaharlal Nehru University went on strike over Kanhaiya Kumar’s arrest, effectively paralysing the University. Kanhaiya Kumar’s parents have stated that their son was being victimized for his opposition to Hindutva politics. When Kumar was brought to the Patiala House court on 15 February 2016, JNU students and professors, as well as journalists, were attacked by a group of lawyers. BJP MLA O.P. Sharma was also involved in the assault, although he later denied the charge. On 17 February, Kumar was once again assaulted by some lawyers inside the Patiala House court. On 22 February 2016, India Today broadcast a video in which three lawyers of the Patiala House court claimed that they had beaten Kanhaiya Kumar while the latter was in police custody. A six-member Supreme Court-appointed panel later confirmed that the policemen present at the Court were responsible for the security lapses, and further stating that police allowed 2 persons to enter the court room, and continued to let the assault take place, in direct violation of the SC direction on Kanhaiya’s safety.

On 2 March 2016, Kumar was granted conditional interim bail for 6 months by the Delhi High Court. Justice Pratibha Rani noted that there were no recordings of Kumar participating in anti-national slogans. A separate magisterial investigation appointed by the Delhi Government also did not find any evidence of Kanhaiya Kumar participating in anti-national slogans. Interestingly, the CBI forensic lab initially found the raw video footage of the controversial event genuine. But later on, forensic experts found that these videos were doctored and hence the sedition charge could be probed in the court.

On 3 March 2016, Kanhaiya Kumar gave a speech to a packed auditorium in the JNU campus, during which he said he was seeking, not freedom from India, but freedom within India. He appealed to his fellow students to free the nation from the clutches of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, which, he stated, was trying to divide the nation. Referring to the ABVP (right wing student organization attached to BJP), whose members were instrumental in bringing about his arrest, he called them his ‘opposition’, not his enemy. He urged his supporters to keep raising the slogans of azadi (freedom). The speech won accolades from the leaders of non-BJP parties as well as independent commentators. Shashi Tharoor commented that it turned Kumar into a ‘nationwide political star,’ and congratulated BJP for creating his phenomenon. Some people also expressed concern that his speech did not address ‘the graveness of alleged anti-national slogans’ shouted at JNU and what he did to stop them. Following his release from jail, Kumar has faced bounties and death threats. Kuldeep Varshnay, a leader of the youth wing of BJP was expelled from the organisation for offering Rs 5 lakh as a reward to anyone who cut off Kumar’s tongue. Posters were put up in New Delhi offering Rs 11 lakh as a reward to anyone who shoots Kumar. Adarsh Sharma who allegedly put up these posters was arrested on 7 March 2016. A high-level inquiry committee of Jawaharlal Nehru University found out that provocative slogans at the controversial 9 February event inside the campus were raised by a group of outsiders, wearing masks. Obviously a simple case blown out of proportion to create euphoria about a kind of ‘nationalism’ that would go in favour of the BJP and its sister organizations. Kanhaiya Kumar’s case explores the exact scenario of the civil society engagement in academic institutions in India and the way intellectuals (including media houses) affiliated to different political parties behave in partisan way.

5.3. ‘Hok Kalarob’ Case in Jadavpur University

The Hok Kolorob Movement or the 2014 Jadavpur University student protest, is an ongoing series of protests by the students of Jadavpur University in Kolkata, India that began on September 3, 2014. The term ‘Hok Kolorob’ (literally, ‘let there be cacophony’, was originally the title of a song by Bangladeshi singer Arnob and began to be used as a hashtag on Facebook). On 16 September 2014, peaceful demonstrations by students took place in front of the administrative building of the University, demanding an investigation into the molestation of a female student in campus. Following several unsuccessful attempts at dialogue with the authorities, the students’ gheraoed some personnel of the University authority, including the Vice-Chancellor (VC), Abhijit Chakrabarti. The Vice-Chancellor called the police. The subsequent police brutality unleashed upon the students in the early hours of September 17 triggered a wave of protests by students and teachers. Criticisms of the police brutality included that police used baton charge on a peaceful demonstration, that female students were manhandled and molested by male police officers, and that several men not in uniform attacked the students. The police maintain that there were plain clothes men among their ranks while the students insist that these were Trinamool Congress (the ruling party of the state of West Bengal) cadres. The official position of the Calcutta Police is that ‘minimum lawful force’ was applied to escort the Vice-Chancellor and other members of the committee out of the University. Demonstrations showing solidarity with the students started in Kolkata and across India, including in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad and Bangaluru. Protest marches in Kolkata had progressively increasing turnout, culminating in a rally on September 20, at the end of which a delegation of students met the Governor of West Bengal, Keshari Nath Tripathi. Estimates of participants in the rally fluctuate between 30,000 and over 1,00,000 people. The protests have been marked with a strong cultural flavour: students have been singing, dancing and arranging diverse cultural manifestations throughout the days while the protests ensue. The protests have a large oeuvre of posters, graffiti, poems, songs, slogans, street plays and performances dotting the University campus and the streets of Kolkata. It is one of the first movements in India to significantly employ social media and internet activism for coordination and dissemination. This has led the Trinamool Congress (TMC) to link this protest to the Naxalite student movements of the 1970s. It is true that the students were receiving lot of support from external forces. But this is equally true about the TMC who engaged the local youth to control the rise of so-called radicals at Jadavpur (and Presidency) University. In the context of impending Assembly election in the state in May 2016, TMC government took such anti-incumbency movement seriously. The Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee then asked the VC to resign and the new VC took no time to withdraw certain old orders passed by the old VC and took a pro-student stand to diffuse the situation.

These three cases clearly show that there is very strong interrelationship between civil society, academia and social movement. The role of political party and media houses equally becomes important in any such controversy. For the party in power, activism of university students and teachers pose certain serious threats to its legitimacy and hence the government tries to control such movement overtly and clandestinely. It should however be noted that not all sections of academia take part in protest movement. More importantly, these movements, being sporadic, do not continue for long and have no impact in the overall structure of the society. Hence, despite their significance, the role of academia to lead civil society movement or sustain them is limited and contextual. One important reason for this is the poor strength of civil society activism in a country like India. The space between the state and the family in India is in most cases is controlled by political parties, religious organizations and nativistic organisations. Under such a situation, organic intellectuals who are needed to develop alternative hegemonic discourses, are either marginalised or been incorporated within the given structure of power.

6. Summary

It appears that the role of academia in civil society activism is prominent. There are various instance of academia opposing repressive measures taken by state as well as governments. In other words, the role of academia in leading social movements in the civil society cannot be easily dismissed. But at the same time, it is to be recognised that our intellectuals are fragmented, divided on political lines. The ruling party very often try in infiltrate into the group to create divisions. Moreover, the free space required for a perfect civil society activism is absent in India. Social group in our civil society are not free from the influence of political party, religion, caste or kinship. Yet, due to increasing coverage of media projections in India today, the role of intellectuals in providing directions to social movement has increased many fold. Interestingly, social movements involving academia and civil society are mostly short lived and can do little to change the social or economic structure.