History repeats itself twice. Both times as tragedy. All those who have had the good fortune to study in Presidency College must have been dismayed, like me, to read the news that the alumni association of the College (now a university) had not been granted permission to hold a discussion on freedom of speech in Derozio Hall on the premises of Presidency University. For those with a keen awareness of the early battles in Calcutta to establish the right to express oneself freely and without fear and prejudice would also have been reminded of another incident that took place in Hindu College.
This happened in 1843 when Hindu College was 26 years old. About a decade later in April 1855, Hindu College would shut itself down to be reborn as Presidency College in June 1855. By the late 1820s and 1830s, Hindu College was a place for exciting discussion and debate, to a large extent sparked off by the followers of Henry Louis Vivian Derozio, arguably one of the greatest teachers the institution ever had, who was dismissed from Hindu College and had died before he was 23 in 1831. Derozio had taught his students - Young Bengal as they came to be called - to think for themselves and to be ceaseless in their quest for knowledge. Some of his students, enlightened with the knowledge of Western reason, had begun to question Hindu orthodoxy and follow a lifestyle that defied conventions.
Orthodox opinion had taken its revenge by having Derozio sacked without even being given the chance to defend himself. But this and his untimely death did not prevent the members of Young Bengal from continuing with the intellectual journey that they had begun with their teacher. To this end they had formed the Society for the Acquisition of General Knowledge (SAGK), a forum to debate and discuss new ideas.
The incident I am referring to occurred during a meeting of the SAGK that was being held in Hindu College. The society had taken permission from the college authorities to hold the meeting. In fact, the then principal of the College, D.L. Richardson, was present at the meeting. The agenda for the day was to discuss a paper presented to the gathering by Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee, one of Derozio's ardent followers. The subject of the paper was, "The Present State of the East India Company's Criminal Judicature and Police". No one could quite predict the dramatic turn the meeting would take.
Dakshinaranjan Mukherjee's presentation of the paper was rudely interrupted by an intervention made by none other than D.L. Richardson, who said, "To stand up in a hall which the Government had erected and in the heart of a city which was the focus of enlightenment, and there to denounce, as oppressors and robbers, the men who governed the country, did in his opinion, amount to treason... He could not permit it [the College], therefore, to be converted into a den of treason, and must close the doors against all such meetings."
There was a memorable response to this interruption and it came from Tarachand Chakrabarti, who was chairing the meeting. Chakrabarti's response deserves to be quoted. He said, "I consider your conduct as an insult to the society... if you do not retract what you have said and make due apology, we shall represent the matter to the Committee of Hindoo College... We have obtained the use of this public hall, by leave applied for and received from the Committee, and not through your personal favour. You are only a visitor on this occasion, and possess no right to interrupt a member of this society in the utterance of his opinions."
Needless to add, Richardson carried the day as authority so often does. The meeting was discontinued and the SAGK decided that it would never hold any of its meetings in Hindu College. All its subsequent meetings were held in the Faujdari Balakhana, a building located not too far away from the College.
The incident has obvious contemporary parallels. Today, like in 1843, a group of former students of the College want to hold a meeting on the premises. In 1843, the permission was granted and then taken away. Today, the permission has been denied straightaway. Authority has become more careful but remains as sycophantic to the political rulers as it was in the mid-19th century. The vice-chancellor of Presidency University, an alumnus of Presidency College, has not even bothered to give any valid reasons for the denial of permission. But her reasons (read fears) are not difficult to imagine.
The vice-chancellor is perhaps worried that in the course of a discussion on the freedom of speech, some speakers will articulate their disquiet regarding the manner in which freedom of expression is being violated by the governments of Narendra Modi and Mamata Banerjee. The worst victims of such violations are the students, members of the academic community and the intelligentsia. Her fears are not unjustified. What is equally true is that her attitude is no different from that of Richardson. Both believe that the premises of the college/university should not be used to articulate criticism of the government of the day. This is also the belief of Narendra Modi and his party and of Mamata Banerjee and her party.
There is a difference though. Richardson operated under conditions of despotism where alien rulers, the Company or the raj, consistently denied freedom to their subjects. He therefore felt it was his duty to regulate and restrict freedom of expression within the college. The vice-chancellor of Presidency University, like all other vice-chancellors in independent India, functions in a democracy where freedom of speech is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Her exercise of authority, manifest in the denial of permission, may be in consonance with her remit and her jurisdiction, but is morally and intellectually indefensible.
The vice-chancellor's action is bound to make many people wonder about the kind of intellectual and academic atmosphere that is being nurtured in Presidency University. Is it the place where all ideas, including unorthodox and subversive ones, are welcome to be debated and discussed? A place where a hundred flowers can bloom? Or is it becoming an intellectual desert where only kowtowing to power is encouraged and fostered?
When Derozio was dismissed, he wrote a letter to the then principal of Hindu College, H.H.Wilson. In that letter he explained how he had taught students to question and to learn the various arguments for and against a position. In his own words, "How is any opinion to be strengthened but by completely comprehending the objections that are offered to it, and exposing their futility? And what have I done more than this? Entrusted as I was with the education of youth, peculiarly circumstanced, was it for me to have made them pert and ignorant dogmatists, by permitting them to know what could be said upon only one side of grave questions?'' He went on to quote Lord Bacon who had declared, "If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubt." For such a process to happen it is necessary to discuss, to debate, to argue - to have the freedom to express oneself.
Derozio set standards that are relevant even today. Presidency University has a legacy of freedom and argumentation to aspire to. If it fails to do that it would have failed itself and the entire republic of letters in India whose space is shrinking under attack from politicians and figures of authority who do not believe in the freedom of thought and expression. The past beckons to us to speak out against suppression of freedoms.
