Hear, hear

Mahmoud ahmadinejad, Iran8217;s controversial and frequently belligerent president, being invited by a premier American university didn8217;t go down well with America8217;s politicians. We carry an edited extract of the president8217;s address at the Columbia University, and he presses all the right buttons for those looking to be aghast or apprehensively perplexed. But that is precisely why Columbia did a service to American political discourse. That is why all American politicians, including 2008 presidential candidates vying to be the most trenchant critic of university campus 8216;politics8217;, are wrong. Just as India8217;s politicians, or a section of them, were wrong when they made an issue of George Bush addressing Parliament. There is an important lesson for Indian institutions, whether political or academic, in Columbia University sticking to its decision on inviting Ahmadinejad 8212; never ever shut out the possibility of interacting with those who hold views or values most different from yours. It is a great strength of America8217;s university system, undoubtedly the best in the world, that it engages, shapes and defies the national political mainstream. Some of the world8217;s most read and most eloquent critiques of American policy are to be found on American university campuses, and may they be there always. Whatever it is that Iran represents for America8217;s foreign policy, the American system would have been poorer had Ahmadinejad been disinvited.

So here8217;s a sobering question for the world8217;s largest democracy: Would one of our premier institutions 8212; let us take this opportunity to mourn the fact that there are so few of them 8212; have had the vision to host an event that attracted similar controversy and political opprobrium. The answer has to be no. There are two sets of reasons. One is that we are not yet a mature system in that institutions don8217;t have the degree of operating autonomy to take decisions that go against the supposed national grain. The few universities that take things like furthering dialogue seriously and have the brand to attract marquee policymakers are vulnerable to official interference of all kinds. Ministries can block seminars and discussion forums pretty much when they want to; 8216;anti-national8217; is the adjectival equivalent of a blunt instrument.

The second reason is less obvious but more important. We have developed a tendency to want to listen to only those who say what we want to hear. Would a certain well-known university known for its left-leaning academic staff and campus politics invite an unapologetic American neocon? Doubtful. Would any top-of-the-line institution host a speaker who flatly and aggressively contradicts, say, India8217;s position on Kashmir? Doubtful. This inability to engage with the 8216;other8217; has of course infected politics and is partly engendered by current political practices. Thus it is that the two national parties can barely say hello to each other. Put it this way. A US president may in the near future have to talk to Iran8217;s. But when a BJP president and a Congress president will have a constructive chat is anyone8217;s guess.