A Dialogue Between Friends and Thinkers
- Freedom of Speech: Means or an End?
- Repulsive Ideas and Constitutional Limits
- Is Our Higher Education Serving the Nation?
The Crisis in Indian Academia: Priorities Gone Wrong
- Where Are Our Nobel Laureates? A Question of Quality and Purpose
- The Real Purpose of Education: Empowering the Masses
- A Radical Proposal: Shut Down the Universities?
Towards a Revolutionary Educational and Social Order
Former Supreme Court Judge Markandey Katju critically responds to Prof Faizan Mustafa's article on free speech in universities, questioning the role of academic freedom and higher education in uplifting India’s poor. A powerful reflection on democracy, morality, and national transformation.
My response to Prof Faizan Mustafa
By Justice Markandey Katju
Prof Faizan Mustafa is a good friend of mine. He is one of the most eminent academicians of India today, and is presently Vice Chancellor of National Law University, Patna.
He has written an article which has been published in The Hindu ( given below ) :
In this article he has strongly come out in favour of freedom of speech, particularly in Universities. He quotes John Milton, and writes '' Within the portals of universities, all kinds of ideas, which includes repulsive ideas, must be allowed to be expressed. Freedom of expression helps us in attaining the truth ''.
He quotes Justice Holmes of the US Supreme Court who said '' The best test of truth is to get itself accepted in the competition of the market '', and goes on to say '' No institution has any right to restrict anybody's freedom of speech on any ground other than the ones mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution ''.
He concludes by his rhetorical flourish '' Let us celebrate a diversity of opinions as in a vibrant democracy. Every opinion counts, and a university truly signifies a universe of knowledge ''
With great respect to Prof Mustafa, the basic flaw in his thinking is this : freedom and democracy are not ends in themselves. They can only be a means to an end, and that end has to be raising the standard of living of the people and giving them better lives. This end can only be achieved by a mighty protracted people's struggle ( jan sangharsh ) led by patriotic modern minded leaders, which culminates in a historical people's revolution ( jan kranti ) which creates a political and social order under which India rapidly industrializes, and is transformed into a mighty industrial giant, like China.
So freedom of speech which advances the above end should be permitted and encouraged, but why should speech which obstructs that end be permitted? Prof Mustafa says that even repulsive ideas should be permitted. But why ? Ideas which prevent or obstruct the abovementioned transformation of India into a modern industrial giant, which alone can abolish poverty, unemployment, malnutrition and the other socio-economic evils, are certainly repulsive. Why should they be permitted?
Prof Mustafa says that the only restrictions on freedom of speech can be those mentioned in Article 19(2) which states :
'' Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence ''.
So according to him, no speech can be prohibited which obstructs the transformation of India into a modern industrial giant, although such transformation is the only way for India to abolish its massive poverty, record and rising unemployment, appalling level of child malnutrition ( every second child in india is malnourished, according to Global Hunger Index, and the situation has got worse in recent years ), skyrocketing prices of food and other essential commodities, almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for the masses, etc.
I submit such a speech comes within the scope of the words '' decency or morality '' in Article 19(2), interpreting them in the wider sense. For is it not indecent to keep people poor, hungry, unemployed, and without proper healthcare and good education? Why should the words decency and morality only be treated as referring to sexual decency and morality?
Apart from the above, it may be stated that the government spends a huge amount of money on universities.
About 15 years back, I was told that the budget of the University Grants Commission ( UGC ) was Rs.41,000 crore in the Five-Year plan.
The Union Budget 2025-26 allocated Rs 3336 crore to the UGC, a significant increase from the ₹2,500 crore allocated in 2024-25. This represents a 33.44% increase in funding for the UGC
How has this benefited the Indian masses? It seems that the huge funds being ploughed into higher education in India are for the benefit of foreign countries and to give Professors and other staff huge salaries and fine houses to live in, and many perks, rather than to benefit the Indian people.
Most of the money spent on education in India went to the institutes of higher education like the IITs and universities, and very little money was spent on primary and middle schools, particularly in rural areas, where the foundation of education was laid. There are very few facilities such as proper teachers, proper classrooms, proper seats, electricity, libraries, etc in these primary or middle schools, whereas the institutes of higher education are given huge funds to give high salaries, very good facilities, state-of-the-art campuses, air-conditioning, etc.
The test of an educational system is one, and only one: does it raise the standard of living of the masses? Does it give them better lives? The huge amount of money being spent on higher education in India is not raising the standard of living of the Indian masses, because about 75 per cent of Indians continue to live in dire poverty. Also, there is massive unemployment, malnutrition, skyrocketing prices, huge problems of health care, housing, etc.
Apart from that, how many Nobel laureates have our universities and other institutes of higher education produced ? Only one, C.V. Raman who lived and worked in India in 1930 ( the other 3 were really Indian born scientists but settled and working in America, viz Hargovind Khorana (Medicine, 1968), Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Physics, 1983), and Venkatraman Ramakrishnan (Chemistry, 2009)
In many American universities, one will find half a dozen Nobel laureates in their faculties.
S,o what are the achievements of our scientists and other intellectuals? It is only when they go to the United States or Canada or Europe that they achieve anything.
What is the quality of research work done by our academicians in institutes of higher learning? Unfortunately, it is abysmally low and does not benefit the Indian people. Their publications ( often plagiarism ), are mostly poor and done only to improve their CVs in order to get jobs.
The purpose of higher education is to help raise the standard of living of the masses. But in India, it seems that its purpose is to raise the standard of living of a handful of people who get jobs as professors, civil servants, corporate employees, politicians, etc.
The teachers in our universities get huge salaries and perks, which come from the taxes paid by the public. But what do they give in return to the public? Nothing.
So why not close down all our Universities? They are only a burden and an albatross tied on the necks of our people. We will be none the worse without them.
(Justice Markandey Katju is a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and former Chairman of the Press Council of India. The views expressed are his own)
