By Roshan Pussewela –

In the wake of recent developments that led to the forced retirement of Prof. Sasanka Perera, it is crucial to reflect on the implications of this decision for academic freedom and intellectual discourse. Prof. Perera, a distinguished scholar and public intellectual, found himself at the center of controversy after one of his doctoral students submitted a research proposal that included a citation from a YouTube video featuring an interview with Noam Chomsky. In this interview, Chomsky made critical remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asserting that Modi “comes from a radical Hindutva tradition” and is attempting to “dismantle Indian secular democracy” and “impose Hindu technocracy.”

Prof. Sasanka Perera | Picture from his Facebook

The university’s decision to question the citation of this video and subsequently pressure Prof. Perera into retirement raises several alarming concerns. First and foremost, it challenges the very foundation of academic freedom—a principle that allows scholars to explore, analyze, and discuss ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. Academic freedom is not merely a privilege but a necessary condition for intellectual progress. When this freedom is compromised, the integrity of the academic institution itself is called into question.

Prof. Perera’s situation is particularly troubling because it highlights the growing intolerance toward critical discourse, especially when it touches on politically sensitive issues. The content of the Chomsky interview, while provocative, is a legitimate subject of academic inquiry. Scholars have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to engage with diverse perspectives, including those that critique powerful political figures and ideologies. By penalizing Prof. Perera for his association with a student’s work that cites such a source, the university is effectively stifling academic debate and discouraging the pursuit of truth.

It is also important to consider the broader context in which this incident occurred. The remarks made by Noam Chomsky in the cited interview are not isolated opinions; they reflect a broader international discourse on the policies and ideology of the current Indian government. As a scholar, Prof. Perera’s role is to expose students to a wide range of viewpoints, encouraging them to critically evaluate all sides of an argument. The citation of the Chomsky interview in a research proposal should be seen as an exercise in academic rigor, not as a political statement or endorsement.

The decision to force Prof. Perera into retirement can be viewed as a dangerous precedent. It sends a chilling message to other academics and students that engaging with controversial or politically sensitive topics can have severe consequences. This, in turn, can lead to self-censorship, where scholars avoid certain subjects out of fear for their careers. Such an environment is antithetical to the mission of higher education, which is to foster critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and the free exchange of ideas.

Moreover, the targeting of Prof. Perera for something as tenuous as a student’s citation choice reflects a broader trend of undermining intellectuals who dare to question or criticize powerful entities. In recent years, there has been an increasing polarization of public discourse, where dissenting voices are often marginalized or silenced. This not only impoverishes the academic community but also deprives society of the diverse perspectives necessary for democratic governance and social progress.

In defending Prof. Sasanka Perera, we must assert the importance of protecting academic freedom and the rights of scholars to engage with complex and controversial issues. His forced retirement is not just an individual injustice but a symptom of a larger problem—a growing intolerance for critical inquiry and intellectual diversity. As a community, we must resist these pressures and stand firm in our commitment to the principles of open dialogue and rigorous scholarship.

Prof. Perera’s contributions to the academic world and his commitment to nurturing critical thinkers should be celebrated, not punished. His experience serves as a stark reminder that the defense of academic freedom is an ongoing struggle, one that requires vigilance and solidarity from all those who value the pursuit of knowledge and the free exchange of ideas. In standing up for Prof. Perera, we are also standing up for the integrity of the academic enterprise and the future of intellectual inquiry. of Prof. Sasanka Perera: Academic Freedom and the Cost of Intellectual Honesty

In the wake of recent developments that led to the forced retirement of Prof. Sasanka Perera, it is crucial to reflect on the implications of this decision for academic freedom and intellectual discourse. Prof. Perera, a distinguished scholar and public intellectual, found himself at the center of controversy after one of his doctoral students submitted a research proposal that included a citation from a YouTube video featuring an interview with Noam Chomsky. In this interview, Chomsky made critical remarks about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asserting that Modi “comes from a radical Hindutva tradition” and is attempting to “dismantle Indian secular democracy” and “impose Hindu technocracy.”

The university’s decision to question the citation of this video and subsequently pressure Prof. Perera into retirement raises several alarming concerns. First and foremost, it challenges the very foundation of academic freedom—a principle that allows scholars to explore, analyze, and discuss ideas without fear of censorship or retribution. Academic freedom is not merely a privilege but a necessary condition for intellectual progress. When this freedom is compromised, the integrity of the academic institution itself is called into question.

Prof. Perera’s situation is particularly troubling because it highlights the growing intolerance toward critical discourse, especially when it touches on politically sensitive issues. The content of the Chomsky interview, while provocative, is a legitimate subject of academic inquiry. Scholars have the right, and indeed the responsibility, to engage with diverse perspectives, including those that critique powerful political figures and ideologies. By penalizing Prof. Perera for his association with a student’s work that cites such a source, the university is effectively stifling academic debate and discouraging the pursuit of truth.

It is also important to consider the broader context in which this incident occurred. The remarks made by Noam Chomsky in the cited interview are not isolated opinions; they reflect a broader international discourse on the policies and ideology of the current Indian government. As a scholar, Prof. Perera’s role is to expose students to a wide range of viewpoints, encouraging them to critically evaluate all sides of an argument. The citation of the Chomsky interview in a research proposal should be seen as an exercise in academic rigor, not as a political statement or endorsement.

The decision to force Prof. Perera into retirement can be viewed as a dangerous precedent. It sends a chilling message to other academics and students that engaging with controversial or politically sensitive topics can have severe consequences. This, in turn, can lead to self-censorship, where scholars avoid certain subjects out of fear for their careers. Such an environment is antithetical to the mission of higher education, which is to foster critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and the free exchange of ideas.

Moreover, the targeting of Prof. Perera for something as tenuous as a student’s citation choice reflects a broader trend of undermining intellectuals who dare to question or criticize powerful entities. In recent years, there has been an increasing polarization of public discourse, where dissenting voices are often marginalized or silenced. This not only impoverishes the academic community but also deprives society of the diverse perspectives necessary for democratic governance and social progress.

In defending Prof. Sasanka Perera, we must assert the importance of protecting academic freedom and the rights of scholars to engage with complex and controversial issues. His forced retirement is not just an individual injustice but a symptom of a larger problem—a growing intolerance for critical inquiry and intellectual diversity. As a community, we must resist these pressures and stand firm in our commitment to the principles of open dialogue and rigorous scholarship.

Prof. Perera’s contributions to the academic world and his commitment to nurturing critical thinkers should be celebrated, not punished. His experience serves as a stark reminder that the defense of academic freedom is an ongoing struggle, one that requires vigilance and solidarity from all those who value the pursuit of knowledge and the free exchange of ideas. In standing up for Prof. Perera, we are also standing up for the integrity of the academic enterprise and the future of intellectual inquiry.