: The essence of a free society is its ability to encourage dissent against all authority — political, academic, religious or cultural. On May 11, the television pictures from the University of Baroda showed us the face of tyranny. That Sangh Parivar goons who stormed and vandalised the exhibition of art work put up by a student at the Faculty of Fine Arts of the MS University at Baroda, could then speak with such confidence to television cameras is shocking. It tells us not just that they do not fear the wrath of the law, and that they believe censorship is acceptable in the service of a cause, but also that they are certain that their actions would meet with social approval. So did the Taliban.
There are five aspects of the episode that need our immediate attention. It should not be seen as an isolated incident, posing no challenge to our robust culture of freedom, but should instead be regarded as yet another example, together with the threats against M.F. Husain and Shilpa Shetty, of a growing fanaticism. The vandals seem emboldened by our collective inertia. As all vandals always are.
The first aspect, therefore, that should merit our attention is to recognise that the vandalism took place not just in the university but in the classroom or art studio. This is disturbing because a university is a sacred place where, according to convention, even the police do not enter unless permitted by the vice chancellor. In a university it is the classroom, or the art studio in this case, which is the sanctum sanctorum. Here even another teacher does not enter when a class is in progress, because it is the place where a teacher and her student together explore the universe of knowledge. This relationship of teacher and student is inviolable. Interference in the classroom, by another who has no legal basis to be there, is a violation of the freedom of the teacher and the student. If this is violated with impunity then that society is truly damned. Imagine interfering with Dronacharya.
The second aspect of concern is the arrest of the student. His only crime was to create works of art that were objectionable to the vandals. Where in the Constitution is creating a work of art, which is to be judged by teachers in the fine arts faculty of a university, a crime? Where in the...
Peter Ronald deSouza
