Full text: Ashoka University co-founder Sanjeev Bikhchandani's view on Professor Mahmudabad’s arrest

Hi XXXXX,

Thank you for your email. As I had promised you a couple of weeks ago that I would be replying to your email, here it is.

I am down with Covid and this gives me time to write to you.

So here are my thoughts. I will be disclosing them to other relevant people after scrubbing out your identity so as to not violate your privacy. You are free to share this email with whoever you wish to or even go public with it without hiding my identity.

Activism and a Liberal Arts University are not joined at the hip. Ashoka is a Liberal Arts and Sciences University. Whether to be activists or not is a conscious choice people make. In the past I have questioned the activism at Ashoka—each time, I have been pounced upon by the activists and their supporters, both within and outside Ashoka: students, faculty, activists, etc., saying that ‘if you are running a liberal arts university, then activism goes with the territory’, that ‘I am an arrogant owner’, that ‘dirty filthy capitalists don’t understand how a university runs’ (they somehow forget that the same capitalists are paying their salaries). It seems that a whole bunch of people would have their raison d’etre under question if activism was questioned. It is as if they have found a safe haven at Ashoka and have captured the institution and anyone who questions them must be attacked. I have always found this position of theirs to be spurious. I went to a liberal arts and sciences college and there was little or no activism and we got along just fine. In fact, some of us excelled.
So I asked Google a question – “Are all liberal arts universities activist in nature?”

The Google AI response at the top of the results said this. I agree with it.

No, it’s not accurate to say that all liberal arts universities are inherently activist. While some liberal arts institutions may have a history of activism or a strong emphasis on civic engagement, this is not a defining characteristic of all liberal arts schools. Liberal arts education focuses on a holistic approach to learning, emphasizing critical thinking, communication, and a broad understanding of various subjects.

Here’s a more detailed explanation:

Liberal arts education:

This type of education aims to develop well-rounded individuals with a strong ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems. It emphasizes a broad understanding of different fields, rather than specialized vocational training.

Civic engagement and activism:

Many liberal arts universities do encourage students to engage in civic activities, participate in community initiatives, and develop a sense of social responsibility. However, this isn’t a universal requirement or characteristic of all liberal arts institutions.

Diversity of approaches:

Some liberal arts schools may have a strong tradition of activism and social justice, while others may focus more on academic rigor and intellectual curiosity. There’s a wide range of approaches and priorities within the liberal arts landscape.

Not all liberal arts institutions are activist:

Some liberal arts colleges may prioritize more traditional academic pursuits and research, with less emphasis on activism or direct social engagement.

Defining characteristic:

The defining characteristic of liberal arts education is the holistic approach to learning and the development of critical thinking skills, not necessarily a commitment to activism.

The fundamental point I am making is that activism at Ashoka is a choice and it does not go with the territory. You can be a great liberal arts university and not be activist. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.

It is important to understand what is and what is not academic scholarship. Teaching a course at Ashoka is academic scholarship. Research published in a peer-reviewed academic journal is academic scholarship. Presenting a research paper at an academic conference where other academics are in attendance is academic scholarship. Research work in the field that goes on to inform a paper you publish is academic scholarship. An academic book based on your research is academic scholarship. An oped published by an academic in a mainstream newspaper is journalism and not academic scholarship. A political opinion expressed on Facebook or Twitter (X) or Instagram is not academic scholarship. Consequently, any public outcry about a political opinion an academic may express on social media is not an attack on academic freedom, even if the person expressing that opinion has a day job as an academic. If a regulator or the government or law enforcement goes after you for a social media post, it is not an infringement of academic freedom. It might be an infringement of freedom of speech; however, there are provisions within the Constitution and the law where you can find protection. You are a grown-up adult. You are responsible for your actions and any consequences thereof. Ashoka is not obliged to support you for political opinions you express in your personal capacity. You did not seek Ashoka’s consent before posting on social media, you cannot now present Ashoka with a fait accompli and expect support. Cruel as it may sound, you make your choices—and you live with the outcome.

As an institution, Ashoka cannot take an activist position. Ashoka is a university under the Haryana Private Universities Act. It is governed by the law of the land — both Haryana laws and central government laws. It is answerable to regulators and to government authorities. It is not a political party or movement — it is an educational institution. It cannot take an activist position, and if any of its office-bearers wish to take an activist position personally, they may resign their offices before doing so. As individual faculty members, they are free to take whatever position they wish. In this respect, there is a policy issue I would like the Governing Body to take up: Is a full-time academic position at Ashoka truly full-time? Can a full-time academic also pursue a political career? In the private sector, we generally stay away from what are termed as “Politically Exposed Persons.” Should Ashoka have such a policy?

There are ways that an institution deals with a regulator and there are ways it should not deal with a regulator. I work at Info Edge. We are a listed company that employs over six thousand people. We have invested in over 130 startups. Two of our well-known investee companies are Zomato and PolicyBazaar. Both these companies are listed. We, therefore, get to interface with a number of regulators — SEBI, RBI, IRDA, FSSAI, RERA (we also own and run the real estate portal 99acres) and others. We interface with NSE and BSE. Regulators are statutory bodies. They have powers. They have a mandate. They have authority. They take their roles seriously. And they expect those they are regulating to take them seriously and rightly so. As a well-governed company, Info Edge respects all regulators it interfaces with and takes their advice and concerns seriously. If we have a point of view, which is at divergence with that of any regulator on any matter that concerns us, we make a representation to the concerned regulator. Such representations are made in polite terms, through formal channels and in appropriate and respectful language and usually confidentially and behind closed doors. We do not attack the regulator on social media. But people who have never built or headed institutions may not understand this — neither do I expect them to. Ashoka will deal with the government and the regulators in a respectful, mature and responsible manner and often not in public.

There are four thousand people in the Ashoka community. If you add alumni, the community goes up by a few thousand more. Ashoka cannot be either responsible or accountable or identified with every social media post of every person. And if someone comes under attack for a social media post, Ashoka is not obliged to either take responsibility for or defend that post or that person. Poster beware.
Let us say that the students and faculty of Ashoka insist that Ashoka as an institution support every utterance and every action of each of its activist faculty and students. And let us say at Ashoka, the Governing Body and the administration of Ashoka decide to do that. What do you think the outcome will be? First, the founders will walk away. That will mean funding will walk out of the door. And let us say Ashoka is then managed by activist alumni, faculty, the student government, the faculty association, the editorial board of Edict (current and past), etc. And let us say that you are the chair of the board. You will need to immediately balance the books. I don’t know who will donate money — if you can get donors, great; if not, you will need to do all or some of the following: raise the fees, cancel the scholarships, freeze head count and salaries (perhaps even reduce salaries), cancel capex and expansion plans, increase the class size, increase the teaching load on the faculty, de-prioritise research, allow in day scholars, shut some departments, not offer any elective courses that have fewer than (say) a hundred registrations, cut down the size of the administration, reduce placement support, reduce the admissions team, and simplify the admissions process (have a simple process and depend only on the CUET, for instance). All around cost cuts, revenue maximisation and getting the faculty to teach more in order to survive financially. It will be a very different Ashoka from what we had envisioned and which you experienced but it will survive. Why don’t you and other alumni offer to step in and take over? Pramath, Ashish, and I have seriously discussed the option of walking away. Ashoka is too much of a headache. Is it worth the effort? And you may not believe this, but money, even in this day and age, does not grow on trees but it still makes the world go around. Every rupee has to be sweated for. Try raising money for Ashoka. As Pramath put it to me the other day, “Aatey daal ka bhaav pata chal jayega.”

Where does this leave freedom of speech or the lack of it, which is what a number of people seem to be exercised by? In my view, freedom of speech is a constitutional right. Use of good judgement and responsible conduct is an expectation and a hope (sometimes forlorn) but not an obligation. Appropriate timing of what to say, where, when and to whom and how is a sign of intelligence (beyond academic scholarship). If you end up offending a whole bunch of people, even though you were not technically incorrect in what you said, then an expression of regret and an apology is a sign of good grace and decency. Hijacking an institutional platform to make it subordinate to your political agenda is an act of institutional capture and selfishness. Expecting the institution to then support you is an act of entitlement and arrogance. I could go on.

I shall leave you with these random thoughts.

Regards,
Sanjeev