New Delhi: Earlier this week, the Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi, decided to initiate a probe into an academic seminar held between January 16 and 18, following a social media uproar from Hindutva supporters against what it believed was a contentious and malevolent comparison between race and caste. The conference, titled ‘Critical Philosophy of Caste and Race (CPCR): Celebrating 25 Years of Durban: Indian Contributions to Combatting Caste and Racism’ was intended to be what most academic seminars are – a gathering of academics, activists, and authors to discuss both similarities and differences between the two forms of discrimination. But, above all, it was a platform that was in its third such edition and intended to bring together scholars who have closely worked with people affected by various forms of discrimination. The 2001 Durban Conference’s 25th anniversary provided an ideal window for the organisers to commemorate the United Nations organising the historic global forum against racism.It is easy to wonder what about this conference could have possibly offended the section of people who raised a hue and cry against it with their social media handles. These social media warriors did not just attack the conference but also its proposed individual speakers, many of whom have been at the forefront of global campaigns against all forms of discrimination. None of this was as surprising as the fact that, following the backlash, the premier institution was prompt in initiating an inquiry. A “fact-finding committee” was constituted to note the “serious concerns…over the choice of speakers and content of the conference”. It did not matter that the anti-caste conference was in its third edition, and had been duly greenlit by the institutional authorities and the concerned ministries of the government of India. ‘Defamation of India’On social media, several arguments against organising such an anti-discrimination conference were advanced. A few thought that comparing race and caste-based discrimination was a malicious attempt on the part of the organisers to defame India. Others targeted Union education minister Dharmendra Pradhan for permitting such a conference that could purportedly lead to great communal disharmony among students. Some even believed that an institution like IIT should concentrate its focus on devising new technological tools only, and not subjects that relate to the social sciences. Many others derided the conference aggressively and said that the IIT was going “fully woke”, or becoming a platform for “radical activists” who “push only a single-sided view of caste”. But what possibly made the IIT authorities promise “appropriate action” against “concerned faculty” if found guilty of any wrongdoing was a scathing X post by former interim Central Bureau of Investigation director M. Nageshwara Rao, who is known for voicing his Hindutva beliefs. In his letter to the IIT director, Rangan Banerjee, Rao unhesitatingly labelled the anti-caste conference as “anti-Hindu, deep-state initiative”, and alleged that even Banerjee was a patron of such an effort because he had permitted such a conference. Rao called for an immediate disbandment of the CPCR group and the prevention of any such effort in the future. He likened the CPCR conference to “ongoing anti-national and destabilising activities – reminiscent of ‘Bharat Tere Tukde Honge’ elements”. A gag on critical studiesThese criticisms appear to have absolutely no knowledge about the fact that the organisers of the conference – the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences – is as integral to IIT as its engineering and sciences centres. But as it happened, an academic conference turned into a controversial event because of an aggressive pressure group that sees every academic initiative that does not toe the Hindutva line as antithetical to the country’s interests. Yet, scholars who have devoted their lives to research on caste-based discrimination do not seem surprised at such an attack on a plain academic conference, but view it as a part of a larger political trend that seeks to gag all critical studies. Former UGC chairman and economist Sukhadeo Thorat, who was also a keynote speaker at the conference, told The Wire, “A general trend has begun in which a few groups try to silence all freedoms of expression and academic discourse, and gag alternative voices, particularly those which articulate anti-caste theory. I gave the keynote address in the seminar. It was purely an academic discourse; why should it be silenced?” Regarding the argument peddled by Hindutva supporters online that IITs should focus entirely on technology-related studies, Thorat said that such an understanding goes against the Union government’s own education policy. “The New Education Policy encourages multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies. In fact, it clearly states that a science student should take up courses in social sciences and vice-versa. Such an argument is completely unfounded.”“Discussions on caste, race, and identical forms of discrimination should happen with greater strength. How can we have a world where freedom to express themselves is accorded to people who advocate Brahminical texts like Manusmiriti, but those who want to offer a critique of these texts are gagged. In fact, I believe that a new trend has started where the state is gradually conducting itself on certain principles of Brahminism. Brahminical texts are being included and promoted in curriculum, but discussions on discrimination are being seen as an attack on Hinduism,” he said. One of the speakers at the conference, who requested anonymity, said that the topics discussed at the conference punctured the Vishwaguru image that the Indian government is trying to project at the moment. They said that the online attacks on the conference were part of an organised effort, instead of being organic. “The sudden attack on the conference commemorating the Durban resolution has happened in a context when the media and the government is constructing a larger-than-life image of India that is decidedly Hindu majoritarian. If you speak on the internal hierarchical system prevalent in India, it doesn’t suit the government narrative,” they said. “I also see the whole campaign against the conference as manufactured because most people I know have responded to the conference really well. The conference itself saw participation of activists, authors, and serious academics from both Dalit and non-Dalit communities,” they added. “Certain speakers faced the biggest wrath. For instance, Thenmozhi Soundararajan, who recalled her experience in the 2001 Durban conference as a speaker, faced the maximum attacks. Her session was very informative. Her slogan ‘Smash Brahminical Patriarchy’ is not the first time that someone gave such a call. Earlier many academics have engaged with aspects of Brahminism in patriarchy. I believe she was singled out by the ‘upper’ caste diaspora for her strong campaign in the US against discrimination,” they said. They said that the speaker Aarushi Punia’s comparison of Dalits and Palestinians was also attacked with great vigour as it extrapolated an internal hierarchical system of India to an international stage and compared it to the discrimination Palestinians have faced. Given how Hindutva supporters have openly supported Israel, her topic became contentious for them. “But her theoretical framework stems from her PhD thesis. You can agree or disagree but her scholarly work needs serious engagement, not attacks from trolls. Social media highlights select clippings to highlight or circulate for convenience of the attackers,” they said. ‘We must discuss these things’Renowned human rights activist Martin Macwan, who also participated in the conference, told The Wire, “The conference was one of the best models of education in an institution where humanities and tech-related studies converge. International institutes known for their technological innovations like MIT and others regularly conduct conferences and seminars on issues of social sciences. We must discuss these things. You are free to have a different point of view, but we must discuss these matters that affect millions of people in the world,” he said. “It is the duty of the government to address the caste question in India, not obfuscate it,” Macwan said. Paul Divakar, convenor of Global Forum of Communities Discriminated On Work and Descent, was also one of the keynote speakers. He said that such conferences that open up avenues for a global power like India to make improvements in their social structure are part of the “nation-building process”. “In the three days of the seminar, we looked at race and caste as social constructs. We explored the anthropological connections between the two. We didn’t say they are the same, but discussed social theories to find both similarities and differences. It is a fact that a large number of people face discrimination on the basis of both race and caste across the world,” he told The Wire. “Recently, countries in Africa, too, passed a strong resolution to prevent discrimination of affected communities. Why can’t India even discuss these issues? Moreover, it was a purely academic seminar. It was not divisive at all. At least 50% of the participants belonged to non Dalit communities,” he said. “I didn’t know that talking about caste is becoming a crime in this country. It is necessary to talk about caste-based discrimination in India. I should add that addressing structural discrimination in seminars like these is a part of nation-building exercise. Indians should champion this, not attack it. As a prominent nation, we should set the norms and see how these norms can be shared globally,” he averred. ‘Facilitated by the Union social justice ministry’Professor of political science at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Harish Wankhede, said that the controversy was entirely manufactured as this talk and its earlier editions were facilitated by the Union government’s ministries. “The conference commemorating was the third instalment in IIT, having been conducted peacefully over the last two years. I seriously don’t know what in this academic seminar offended people who singled it out for attack. All these conferences were actually facilitated by the Union social justice ministry. I seriously believe that the controversy was manufactured. There is a fear that if loud and anti-caste voices are promoted, the existing upper-caste hegemony will be challenged,” Wankhede said. Another participant in the conference, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Wire that the contention that critical race theory and talking about caste are woke topics and are imported from The West is absolutely ridiculous. “All these aggressive attacks have come from only sections within the Savarnas in India, which feel threatened by any possibility of equality and equity,” they said. Such silencing is the primary reason why Dalit and Bahujan communities feel discriminated against in spaces like IIT and other elite institutions. We wanted to intervene and create an environment where these matters could be spoken loudly,” they said. “There is a real demand from society and the constitution that there should be social justice in our institutions. Such conferences contribute to the prestige of institutions like IIT globally, not affect it. Yet, people who have not been part of such vibrant university spaces, or even sufficient education, feel that IITs should only focus on tech-based studies, and nothing else. In fact, globally all prestigious institutions, such as MIT, make it a point that Humanities and Social Sciences are discussed in institutes known for sciences,” they said. “It is this kind of fear of attacks that young faculty feel terrorised; rules are rhetorically framed in such a way that they can’t really conduct their basic research. All of this contributes to a situation that students end up dying by suicide or leaving acadmics. Such attacks are a part of design to prevent anti-caste research. Academics is meant to contribute to our society, not merely conform to the majoritarian rhetoric,” they said. “The conference commemorating Durban 2001 aligns with academic goals, there is a lot of preexisting scholarly work; Durban resolution has been praised and written about by many people. It was an intellectual space, there was no party politics or ideology involved in it. Why was there a sudden hue and cry over it if not to meet political ends, which is to invisibilise all talks about caste-based discrimination,” they added. An afterthoughtClearly, the IIT Delhi’s decision to constitute a fact-finding committee appears to be an afterthought. The institute not only obtained all clearances for the conference but even the ministry approved the visas of international scholars to speak at the conference. Yet, with the institution showing little autonomous strength in its response, IITs may now become premier in buckling under manufactured pressure, even if it means throwing its staff and faculty under the bus. Only a few months ago, IIT Mumbai distanced itself from a few faculty members and barred everyone from attending a conference after backlash over a workshop flyer jointly produced by IIT Bombay, UC Berkeley, and UM-Amherst. In 2019, the IIT Kanpur set up a similar fact-finding committee to inquire about what led some students to sing the legendary Faiz Ahmed Faiz poem Hum Dekhenge after a few students and faculty complained about the song being “anti-Hindu”. A Times of India article summed up the IIT’s dilemma quite precisely. “The broader point here is not about one professor or one conference. It is about how Indian campuses operate under two audiences at once: The academic audience that reads argument as argument, and the public audience that reads argument as intent. When the second audience becomes louder, institutions tend to respond in the only idiom that protects them on record: Process.”