But the broader premises that underlie this visa denial and other restrictions are even more disturbing. One of the justifications the NDA gave for a restriction on certain kinds of research visas was to prevent the study of so-called sensitive subjects, like religion, communalism, and potentially controversial aspects of Indian culture. If you look closely at the research topics that were denied permission, they follow largely that pattern. For instance, it seems that if you want to study Indian Muslims, you are more likely to court trouble. The Indian state, whether run by the UPA or NDA, likes to set itself up as the custodian of what is intellectually in India’s interests.

It also infantilises Indian citizens, because it assumes that the production of knowledge in areas of identity and culture will be disruptive in ways that we cannot handle. Knowledge can be disruptive. But Gandhi’s exhortation to Indians to read Katherine Mayo’s Mother India, despite its being akin to a drain inspector’s report, was a far more robust display of cultural confidence than the restrictions promoted by our bureaucratic mandarins of culture. But for the state to consistently use the ‘sensitive subject’ argument is an assault not just on freedom of scholars, but our freedoms as citizens as well.

The ugly truth is that the NDA and the UPA are often more like each other in their abridgements of freedom. Forces in Gujarat may ban the screening of Parzania, but the ‘sensitive subject’ argument has often been used by the Congress to ban all manner of things. And if you wonder why there is not more outrage when freedom of expression is abridged in India, think of this: we have bought into the ‘sensitive subject’ argument much too easily. The Fulbright episode is not about visas for a bunch of American youngsters, it is about our insecurities and specious obsessions.

... contd.