
Ideas on trial, critical thinking in retreat
In an era marked by heightened geopolitical tensions and global scrutiny, nations are compelled to not only safeguard their territorial integrity but also uphold their moral foundations. For countries, characterised by their profound diversity of languages, cultures, and faiths, such moments present an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to democratic principles and pluralistic values. The projection of national strength tempered by restraint and public reassurances, stands out as indispensable components of this endeavour. However, the alignment of democratic values at home with the image projected abroad is equally crucial, necessitating the nurturing of freedom and open discourse domestically.
An erosion of intellectual freedom
Regrettably, a growing chasm exists between this ideal and the prevailing realities on the ground across the world. The sanctity of intellectual freedom is being steadily eroded across institutions, particularly universities and academic spaces, due to pressures of conformity and control.
The consequences of this trend are far-reaching, with professors facing reprimand or dismissal over minor comments, and students being subjected to punitive action for raising critical questions. This phenomenon constitutes a pressing global concern, albeit one whose repercussions are particularly pronounced in nations that have historically valorised open discourse and intellectual freedom. The United States, during Donald Trump's presidency, exemplifies this trend.
Philosophers such as Hannah Arendt have warned against these dangers of banality in oppressive regimes and the slow numbing of thought, where citizens retreat into private lives and abandon the public realm. Understandably, the assault on freedom is not only about censorship but also about inducing this kind of silence, where fear replaces inquiry, and conformity takes the place of imagination.
In such a climate, society's capacity for critical self-reflection and growth is severely impaired, leading to stagnation and intellectual rigidity. For instance, when curricula are rewritten to reflect ideological imperatives rather than pedagogical or historical rigour, when scholarly work is attacked for political reasons, and when free speech on campus is framed as sedition, we are witnessing the slow erosion of academic advancement. We have witnessed this phenomenon on campuses across the U.S., particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Democratic backsliding is visibly accompanied here by an assault on intellectuals and independent media. In such times, it becomes easy to imagine that freedom of speech is a luxury or a liability, something to be curtailed for the sake of national unity or cultural pride. But, this is a false choice.
An intolerance of voices that question
At the heart of this crisis lies a growing intolerance with voices that challenge prevailing narratives, offer nuanced historical perspective, or simply ask inconvenient questions often painted as suspect. It must be taken for granted that democracy, by definition, demands disagreement and requires the ability to listen to those who think differently, to be challenged, and to evolve. The silencing of scholars, intimidation of writers, and discouragement of free inquiry do not merely target individuals; they diminish the society as a whole.
Noam Chomsky, whose work on propaganda and power remains seminal, noted that the destruction of independent culture is among the gravest abuses of authority. When knowledge itself is politicised, when truth is decided by decree, and when the university becomes a site of ideological performance rather than learning, we find ourselves perilously close to what he called 'manufactured consent', or in other words, a democracy in appearance but not in substance.
Historically, universities have served as spaces where civilisational questions are posed, where the past is interrogated, and where future possibilities are imagined. To reduce these institutions to sites of ideological policing is to betray their very essence. The danger today lies not only in the curbing of dissent but also in its systematic delegitimisation. When critical voices are branded as 'anti-national', when scholars are seen as threats instead of resources, and when academic inquiry is stifled by fear, society drifts toward intellectual repression. The result is a thinning of public discourse, a narrowing of thought, and a culture of self-censorship.
The geopolitical irony of this situation cannot be overstated. At a time when nations face real external threats, internal cohesion is undeniably vital. However, cohesion cannot be achieved through the suppression of thought. Unity born of fear is not unity; it is coercion. What the world respects is not only a nation's economic or strategic clout but also its ability to be a vast, diverse, and argumentative civil society. This vitality, rooted in disagreement, debate and intellectual freedom is what defines a truly robust democracy.
The erosion of this vitality has long-term consequences, including the alienation of a generation of students who once believed in the university as a space of exploration and growth, but now the evident discouragement of public intellectuals from speaking their conscience, and the undermining of the moral seriousness with which a nation historically addresses its internal complexities, has set in the steady decline of the very idea of democracy. Moreover, it sends a chilling message that intelligence must be policed, that critical thinking is unwelcome, and that freedom is conditional on obedience.
But there is hope
And yet, there is hope. History reminds us that the tide of suppression, however forceful, is always contested. Whether through protest movements, or the courage of individuals who refuse to be silenced, the spirit of free inquiry has always found ways to endure. Václav Havel, writing under the shadow of Soviet repression, reminded us that 'living in truth' was itself a political act and a refusal to join in the collective lie.
In societies that valorise critical inquiry and unfettered debate, the capacity to confront and resolve complex challenges is significantly enhanced. A nuanced understanding of patriotism recognises the intrinsic value of constructive critique, acknowledging that loyalty to one's nation or institution is not predicated on unyielding conformity, but rather on a commitment to its betterment. The democratic ideals of freedom, justice, and equality are not merely aspirational, but are instead contingent upon the ability to challenge entrenched injustices and interrogate authority. When societies compromise academic freedom, they not only erode their moral authority, but also imperil their capacity for envisioning and implementing transformative change.
Rosa Luxemburg's words serve as a poignant reminder that freedom means little if it is reserved only for the majority or the loyalist. Real freedom, the kind that nurtures innovation, empathy and justice, begins with the courage to listen to those who speak differently. This capacity for receptivity to dissenting voices constitutes a litmus test of democracy's vitality, and its failure to meet this test has far-reaching and deleterious consequences for the polity.
Shelley Walia has taught Cultural Theory at Panjab University, Chandigarh

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Trump, India, Pahalgam: When Terrorists Are Easier To Deal With Than Tariffs
Weeks after the Indian media engaged in a shrill diatribe against US President Donald Trump for claiming that he had ended the escalation between India and Pakistan in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor, the public sentiment against the US seems to be softening, thanks to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announcing that the State Department is going to designate the Terrorist Resistance Front (TRF) as a terrorist organisation, with a specific reference to the Pahalgam attack. That's a handshake of no mean order, especially after a series of western 'analysts' had desired 'proof' of the outfit's involvement in the attack. All this, of course, occurs in parallel with Trump apparently threatening a 100% secondary tariff on anyone who trades with Russia. But hold on. That is a reference to a proposed legislation supported by both political parties, which demands that 500% tariffs be levied on states trading with Russia - India included. So, the 'tariff man' is being outpaced by his own Congress. Things are not always what they seem. TRF Gets A Handle First, the designation of the TRF as a 'Specially Designated Global Terrorist' has been welcomed by Foreign Minister Jaishankar as a "strong affirmation of Indo-US Counter terrorism cooperation", as indeed it is. Earlier, Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri had stated that India's efforts at the United Nations to get a similar listing had been blocked by Pakistan, and even a reference to it removed from a press statement by the Security Council on Pahalgam. So, the US move is not something to be set aside lightly. The TRF is an interesting entity. It announced its presence on encrypted platform Telegram after the abrogation of Article 370 and when the Lashkar-e-Taiba took a back seat due to pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). The TRF's name and imagery seems carefully chosen to avoid any "radical" religious flavour, as also to position itself as indigenous. But a series of attacks it has claimed, including against Makhan Lal Bindroo, a popular owner of a medical shop, as well as those against Sikh and Hindu schoolteachers, were clearly aimed at creating communal tensions. The outfit also threatened journalists and released 'lists' of those it was prepared to kill. Notably, the TRF was the first terrorist group to launch a twin drone attack, on the Jammu air base in 2021. In the Pahalgam incident, the group again claimed the attack on Telegram but back-tracked three days later as it became apparent that India was on the warpath and that the UN was getting ready to release a resolution. Unlike the LeT, the leadership of the TRF is diffused back in Pakistan, and their 'assets' are unknown. But their leaders in Pakistan have known and long-time Lashkar affiliations. One of them, Abu Qatal, who was shot in March this year in Jhelum, uses the same infiltration routes and is part of the United Jihad Council. So, if it walks, talks and looks like the LeT, it should be the LeT. The designation there is uncomfortable business for Rawalpindi - the now-famous 'lunch' of Field Marshal Asim Munir with Trump notwithstanding. Working Groups Are Working Hard Now consider this. Just days earlier, on July 16, the Wavelength Forum held in New Delhi brought together Quad partners to strengthen subsea cable connectivity and resilience across the Indo-Pacific region. Organised under the US State Department's 'CABLES' programme, it highlighted the critical role of subsea cables in supporting the global digital economy and the importance of using trusted vendors for construction, maintenance, and repair. That underlined India's growing importance as a digital hub accounting for some 20% of global internet traffic, and the common concerns of members. This delivered on the Quad foreign ministers' joint statement, which itself was short and crisp, unlike the usual long-winded and fuzzy documents earlier. It announced the first Quad Critical Minerals Initiative, the first Quad Indo-Pacific Logistics Network field training exercise, and a Quad Ports of the Future Partnership in the works. Separately, a read-out of the meeting between Foreign Minister Jaishankar and Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth was rich in content, noting 'dangers of aggression in the 'Asia Pacific' (a rather surprising nomenclature). Coming up is the signing of the next 10 Year Defense Framework, and progress on advanced technology policy reviews, which will take forward the landmark INDUS-X which has brought together innovators to US shores, as well as the launch of the Autonomous Systems Industry Alliance (ASIA), where our own innovators are racing ahead. Earlier, even as Operation Sindoor was unfolding, the Quad was holding a tabletop logistic exercise in Hawaii, while a joint working group on Aircraft Carrier Technology cooperation was held in May even as the operations wound down. In sum, there are more areas of cooperation that can be listed easily. And that's an ongoing process, set in place years ago, with the US administration showing every inclination to push all of this harder and faster. That Public Glitch Now consider the brouhaha on tariffs, which are announced with much fanfare even as a trade deal is being hinted at. That is not going to be easy as Trump wants access to agriculture, a sensitive area of Indian politicians and a huge voter base. True also that a bill sponsored by Senator Lindsey Graham, widely credited with urging a change of heart to Pakistan under Imran Khan, has sponsored a bill calling for the President to "increase the rate of duty on all goods and services imported into the United States from countries that knowingly engage in the exchange of Russian-origin uranium and petroleum products to at least 500% relative to the value of such goods and services; that's the Trump administration's effort to get Russia to stop a wasteful and vicious war". In Sum... Much can be said about this pointless arm-twisting of countries like India, which did not start the war and have their own populations to think of in terms of inflation from rising oil prices. But the point is, relations between countries are not one composite whole. One may differ violently with one issue even while cooperating closely on another. True, with the Trump administration, there is a deliberate public confrontation in policy, but bureaucracies work quietly behind the scenes on sorting out issues with a country that is otherwise a 'Major Defence Partner', which for the first time, is becoming a two-way street. In other words, it is profitable for US companies to work here in this and other fields. It's a slow journey, but it's got to a place where a certain velocity has been achieved. After all, this is a path undertaken since at least George W Bush's days. The dangers of Trump linking trade with almost everything else persists - like pushing Apple to set up shop elsewhere - but the core relationship is in place. That, in turn, is based on one unchanging principle of US policy; which is never to allow another country to overtake it. As China grows in absolute terms, that is one fundamental that will determine relations with India. The danger is that there are also those in Washington who see India as growing too fast for comfort. US bureaucracy would ideally like all 'partners' to just roll over and play dead. Delhi is hardly in that league, and is a hitch that needs careful manoeuvring. Think of a certain 'warming' of relations with China recently. It's a dangerous game, but it seems the present dispensation seems confident. There are squalls ahead. Meanwhile, prepare to open all sluices as the Quad summit comes up.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Why India should recognise South Yemen's independence
Rather than follow the West's tired and failed strategies on Yemen, India should take the diplomatic lead. The greater problem is the unchallenged belief among many diplomats that unity brings stability read more An Indian security guard was rescued from the Red Sea on July 10, 2025, after Yemeni Houthis sank the Eternity C, the ship on which he worked. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), meanwhile, helps the Houthis target Red Sea shipping not only out of animus toward Israel and the United States, but also because Revolutionary Guards-owned transport companies lose out financially if India-Middle East Economic Corridor (IMEC) traffic bypasses Iran. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD As a regional superpower and the world's fourth largest economy, India also relies on freedom of navigation and stability and security in the Indian Ocean basin. Rather than follow the West's tired and failed strategies on Yemen, India should take the diplomatic lead. For too long, Western priorities and assumptions have shaped policy toward Yemen. First and foremost, the US, the UK, and the UN have prioritised unity over defeating the Houthis. Outside powers have also promoted a big-tent approach. Both approaches make defeat of the Houthis and restoration of security impossible. The assumption that broad coalitions bring peace and stability is rooted in wishful thinking rather than evidence. Forcing US President Donald Trump to share an office with Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party nominee for the post Trump contested and won, would bring dysfunction, not smooth governance. Yet the international community forces divergent groups together into Yemen's Presidential Leadership Council. President Rashid al-Alimi represents the General People's Congress, the former political party of Yemen's long-time leader Ali Abdullah Saleh. Vice Chairmen of the Council come from the Southern Transitional Council, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Saleh's own family. Other tribal leaders and religious agendas fill out the council. The practical problem with the Council, though, is that each member promotes his agenda over the paramount goal of defeating the Houthis. Yemen's Muslim Brotherhood branch too often supports Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and facilitates the smuggling of weaponry to the Houthis. Their actions make them liable to the former terror designation, yet they remain a Trojan Horse inside the Presidential Leadership Council. Other northern officials prioritise undermining southern success over Houthi defeat. Aden has a surplus of fuel oil in its storage tanks, yet northern officials will not allow them to sell it. Residents of Aden suffer through 45-degree Celsius days with high humidity and no electricity for fans, let alone air conditioners. The greater problem, however, is the unchallenged belief among many diplomats that unity brings stability. In Yemen, that has never been the case. The British colonised Aden in 1839 as a coaling station to support British commerce and shipping to and from India. The Aden Colony became the Aden Protectorate, which then formed the Federation of Arab Emirates of the South and finally the Federation of South Arabia before the British withdrew and Communist insurgents formed the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, colloquially called South Yemen. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With the fall of the Soviet Union, North and South Yemen united, but it was not a happy marriage. South Yemen has always been more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and progressive. It sought to leave the union in 1994, but North Yemeni forces conquered and occupied the region. Even if outside powers date Yemeni unity to 1990, the Houthi conquest of Sanaa in 2014 led South Yemen to restore its de facto autonomy. Put another way, Yemeni unity accounts for only 13 per cent of Yemeni history. Not by coincidence, those 24 years represent the most tumultuous and least stable time in Yemeni history. Any honest historical assessment would conclude that Yemen is most stable with South Yemen—or South Arabia, as many residents now see themselves—independent. The notion that there must be only one Yemen makes no logical sense when there are 22 Arab states, two Albanias (one called Kosovo), and two Romanias (one called Moldova). The international community recognised Kosovo and Moldova for purely practical reasons, as they recognised that forcing unity could actually worsen regional conflict. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Here, India should play a diplomatic role. South Yemenis orient themselves toward India. Many Indians immigrated into Aden during the period of British control and chose to stay following South Yemen's independence. Today, Indian heritage is a source of pride. Some Yemenis introduce themselves as Indian, and it is common for Yemenis whose families arrived from India five generations back to still speak Hindi and know their home regions and towns. As India seeks to secure the Indian Ocean basin, it should leverage positive feelings toward India to support former British protectorates like Somaliland and South Yemen in their quests for independence. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, India became the intellectual and diplomatic centre of anti-colonialist sentiment. Today, his goal is incomplete. India could resume its intellectual and diplomatic leadership, leverage its Indian diaspora, and bring stability to South Arabia and the Gulf of Aden by forcing other influential states to reconsider the stale assumptions underpinning their diplomacy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Trump ‘caught off guard' by recent Israeli strikes in Syria and Gaza, says White House
US President Donald Trump was 'caught off guard' by the recent Israeli strikes in Syria and the IDF shelling that hit a Catholic Church in Gaza, said White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday (July 22). The incidents drew a prompt reaction from the US President, who called his staunch ally, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to 'rectify' the situation, the White House press secretary said. 'The president enjoys a good working relationship with Bibi Netanyahu and stays in frequent communication with him. He was caught off guard by the bombing in Syria and also the bombing of a Catholic Church in Gaza,' Leavitt told reporters. 'In both accounts, the president quickly called the prime minister to rectify those situations,' she added. Trump 'wants the killing to end': Leavitt Leavitt said that Trump was deeply concerned about the increasing death toll in war-torn Gaza and that he wants the bloodbath to end. 'The president's message on this conflict we've seen in the Middle East taking place for far too long, that has become quite brutal, especially in recent days, you've seen reports of more people dying. I think the president never likes to see that. He wants the killing to end, and he wants to negotiate a ceasefire in this region,' the White House press secretary said. 'He wants to see all of the hostages released from Gaza. That has been a top priority for this president,' she added. Trump is pressing for an end to the ongoing war in Gaza and is also attempting to support the new Syrian government. However, the military operations by Israel have jeopardised these initiatives. Last week, the IDF strike on a Catholic church in the besieged Palestinian enclave, killing three people, sparked massive outrage. Additionally, Israel intervened during the latest outbreak of sectarian violence in Syria, bombing the country's capital, Damascus. Trump's special envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, told The Associated Press that Israel's intervention in Syria 'creates another very confusing chapter' and 'came at a very bad time.' Leavitt further emphasised that Trump wanted to see peace and applauded his efforts to push humanitarian aid into Gaza. 'The president is the reason that aid is even being distributed in Gaza at all,' she said. 'It's a very difficult and complicated situation that the president inherited because of the weakness of the last administration. And I think he should be applauded,' Leavitt added. 'The president wants to see peace, and he's been pretty clear on that.' (With inputs from agencies)