Discipline and Freedom

St. Stephens versus Devnash Mehta highlights the dilemma as to where to draw the line between discipline and individual freedom and that too in an educational institution. Both are essential for the growth of the institution and   that of the individual, even though they seem to function as co-existent contraries in a context where insistence on discipline conflicts with freedom of expression.  It goes without saying that the corner stone of any healthy institution rests upon these two seemingly co-existent contraries. In his brilliant analysis on Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen raises the question whether freedom leads to development or development contributes to freedom and arrives at the conclusion that freedom is central to development.  Amartya Sen does not limit development to economic growth  but relates it in a holistic way to human development. In his view development is seen as the process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy that include among other things such as right to food, shelter, education, healthcare etc,  political and civil rights that confer on the people the freedom to participate in  political and public discussions. This freedom to enter into open dialogue, debate and discussion allows citizens the right of expression that at the core influences all other freedoms that we enjoy and treasure. In other words, the exercise of freedom is mediated by social, moral and human values, which in turn are influenced by public discussions and social interactions. There is no need to privilege one over the other for both freedom of expression and values influence each other.

The St.Stephens’ controversy is basically an ego-centric clash between the Principal and the student, raising the chicken and egg riddle of whether individual development enhances freedom to express or vice versa.  The college administration represented by the Principal found fault with the E-zine editor Devnash Mehta for going online with the magazine that included an interview with the principal without getting the latter’s clearance. “It is unacceptable” the principal, Mr. Valson Thampu said “that, despite being explicitly told not to publish anything (especially my interview before I had the time to go through and clear the text) you went ahead in defiance. It denotes an awkward failure of education and that is why I cannot take it lightly."

Mehta’s point was that he had submitted the contents to the Principal on Saturday and since he got no comments from him, he assumed that it was fine for him to publish it onlineon Monday. The Principal proceeded with disciplinary action as Mehta refused to apologize because he felt that he had the right to express and the Institution had erred in penalizing him. He went to the court which stayed the suspension of the student till the day of judgement.

The present controversy has stopped short of discussing the contents as it got mired in the debate between right to expression and the right to discipline. Where do we draw the line when in this case, both sides have their own sense of injured freedom? The principal felt as much aggrieved that the student had usurped his freedom to permit publication as the student who felt that his right to express had been curtailed. As an objective observer, I take the cue from Amartya Sen’s argument that the right to freedom of expression is to be mediated by values. An educational institution places a premium on the value of discipline to the institution’s code of conduct. Every student who joins the institution, ipso facto is bound by its regulations. If those rules seem strict or exacting, the student has the option to join another institution. This is applicable to all organizations where to be a part of that unit, one has to follow the rules. It is not fair and just either to one self or to the institution to stay on and defy the set rules unless the enforcement of such rules is unlawful and authoritarian.

Though Mehta had followed the rulebook of submitting the interview with the Principal for clearance, it cannot absolve him of the impropriety of publishing the E-zine without a formal nod from the Principal. He has not deliberately defied the rule book but his assumption that the silence of the Principal meant that he had cleared the content was certainly an error of judgement. On an impartial note, one can also equate the Principal’s silence to disapproval or red flagging the piece. Mehta’s defense of going ahead with the online publication amounted to defiance of authority albeit inadvertently. His protest at being denied freedom of expression cannot nail the authority as he had been given permission to start the E-zine subject to the overall supervision of the principal.

It is here the salient question arises as to how to draw the line between discipline and freedom. The controversy is not about what to express and the right to express, but between exercise of authority and exercise of personal freedom. It is interesting to note that Twitter and Facebook have launched a new initiative to curb abusive tweets and messages that may incite violence among its readers. The point to be understood in this attempt is not to identify what is an abusive language, not to draw the line between good and bad language, but to proscribe what promotes offence, threats and violence against others.

Valson Thampu’s note given above refers to “awkward failure of education”. This is unfortunate as he seems to equate education with discipline. Discipline is not enforcement of rules or the subordination of student to authority. In an educational institution, it promotes trust- the binding force between the student and the authority. Breach of this trust is identified with indiscipline or authoritarianism. The principal’s punitive measure of suspending the student and depriving him of the “good conduct” award shows a streak of wounded authoritarianism. The fact that Mehta had been selected for this award is proof that he was a disciplined student. This action of going ahead with online publication could have been condoned as a single error of judgement  It certainly did not merit strict punishment of a student who had been recognized for his good conduct all through the three years of is graduation. It is a pity that a premier educational institution like St.Stephens has  resorted to high handedness, taking a high moral ground. The college has failed to draw the line between error and discipline especially when the error was not committed in defiance of authority. It almost looks like a willful and deliberate misunderstanding of an over enthusiastic young man who wanted his magazine to be available for a large number of students online. Devnash Mehta’s fault is not so much about his hurried publication as his subsequent criticism of the Principal for stifling his freedom of expression. When he had been given the permission to work on his E-zine, to talk about curbing his individual freedom and considering himself as the victim of authoritarianism seems petulant and immature for a bright and well behaved  young man like Mehta.

It is difficult to draw a line between discipline and freedom. The line can never be a transparent one. Its opacity is enhanced by the different shades of discipline and freedom in any given context. Drawing a line is the first step towards ego clashes because the point where the line has to be drawn differs from person to person.  In any ego conflict, there is always a shadow line that is invisible to others but visible to only to those who are involved in the conflict. Wisdom lies in eradicating these shadow lines and recognizing the two sides of the controversy. No one is perfect as a wingless angel, no one is all knowing and no one is without a blemish. But the root of imperfection, ignorance and inadequacy can be traced to personal ego that suffers from a heightened sense of injustice and victimization. If institutions like Stephens suffer from misreading of a minor aberration,  one can imagine the disaster caused by shadow lines at the macro level between nations- often referred to as LOC or the Line of Control. In our day to day mundane existence, we experience conflicts over exerting jurisdiction on others. Drawing a line- this  far and no further -is a sure recipe for the continued prevalence of  the  authoritarian-victim syndrome  in many parts of the world.

Stepehn’s controversy should be a test case which  could have been avoided if the Principal had shown magnanimity in overlooking an error of judgement and the student had recognized the wisdom of discipline and not misinterpreted it as a paternalistic imposition. Aristotle said:”Through discipline comes freedom” We need to cultivate cognitive and rational  discipline to get freedom from mental claustrophobia  of being in a narrow egocentric space.