Latest news with #AntonioGramsci
The Wire
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Silencing the Academy: From Trump's Harvard Offensive to Modi's War on Free Thought
'Every relationship of hegemony is necessarily an educational relationship.' — Antonio Gramsci In both, the United States and India, universities – once bastions of critical inquiry – are increasingly being reimagined as threats to national integrity. In May 2025, US President Donald Trump announced a sweeping crackdown on Harvard University, threatening to revoke over USD 2 billion in federal research funding over allegations of antisemitism and political bias. While framed as a culture war manoeuvre, this move serves as political discipline – punishing elite institutions for tolerating student dissent and pro-Palestinian activism. In India, the Narendra Modi government has been charting a parallel course. Since 2014, public universities like Jawaharlal Nehru University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University have faced repeated assaults – from budget cuts and bureaucratic interference to arrests of student activists and the slashing of scholarships. Notably, in 2022, the government quietly scrapped the Maulana Azad National Fellowship, a crucial program supporting minority scholars pursuing PhD degrees. The message was unambiguous: support for marginalised voices in higher education is no longer a priority. What binds these seemingly disparate actions is a growing consensus among right-wing regimes: dissent within the classroom is a political liability. Students who critique the state, question foreign policy or demand historical justice are increasingly treated not as engaged citizens but as internal adversaries. In both countries, this assault on universities is being waged under the banner of the taxpayer. Trump's administration argues that public funds should not support 'radical leftism' or 'wokeness.' Similarly, Modi's government accuses public universities of squandering resources on 'anti-national' thought and fostering a liberal elite disconnected from 'real' India. This rhetoric constructs a false moral economy: critical thinking is recast as indulgence, the humanities as sedition and student protest as criminality. By claiming to represent the apolitical, hardworking taxpayer, these regimes obscure the essential role of universities in a democracy – to question, to debate, and to envision alternatives. The campaign is not about accountability; it is about control. The university curriculum has become a central front in this ideological war. In the US, efforts to defund universities are part of a broader culture war targeting critical race theory, gender studies, and climate science. In India, the New Education Policy promotes a sanitised, mythological version of Indian history, marginalising critiques of caste and erasing Muslim contributions to the subcontinent's past. A recent and telling example is the recommendation by Delhi University's standing committee for academic affairs to remove Karl Marx and Thomas Malthus from the sociology syllabus. The paper 'Population and Society,' which introduces students to foundational theories of population dynamics, currently examines Malthusian perspectives and Marx's critiques. According to faculty members, Malthus's theory remains essential for understanding population growth, and Marx's critiques provide critical context. The proposed removal of these thinkers reflects an ongoing effort to reshape academic discourse to align with a particular ideological narrative. Such curricular changes are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic attempt to transform universities from spaces of open-ended inquiry into sites of nationalist education. The goal is not to produce informed citizens but compliant subjects. The suppression of dissent within academia cannot be disentangled from broader racial and religious hierarchies. In the US, campus activism around Palestine has become a flashpoint. The Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, targeting scholars and students involved in pro-Palestinian activism. Notably, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, was detained and faced deportation under a rarely-used provision allowing the Secretary of State to expel individuals deemed adverse to US foreign policy. A federal judge later ruled this action likely unconstitutional, highlighting concerns over free speech violations. Similarly, Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University scholar, recounted his harrowing experience of being detained without due process, allegedly for social media posts critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. These cases underscore a disturbing trend where academic critique and political activism are met with punitive measures, eroding the foundational principles of free expression and academic freedom. In India, the situation is more acute: Muslim scholars like Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam and Dr. Hany Babu have been jailed under sweeping anti-terror laws for exercising their constitutional rights. For Muslim academics, intellectual life is now entangled with existential precarity. They are compelled to demonstrate loyalty to the nation before being permitted to contribute to its scholarly discourse. This systemic repression is not merely about individuals – it aims to silence a worldview that sees power as accountable, citizenship as plural and justice as an ongoing pursuit. Despite these challenges, universities remain potential sites of resistance. Across campuses, students and faculty continue to challenge authoritarian drift. From Harvard's Palestine Solidarity encampments to Jamia's anti-CAA protests, the university persists as one of the few spaces where democratic dissent endures. However, this space is shrinking. Funding is being slashed, fellowships are disappearing, international scholars face deportation and the cost of posing critical questions is escalating. If we allow universities to become echo chambers for state power, we risk losing more than academic freedom. We jeopardise the very notion that public life should be governed by reasoned debate rather than fear. The global assault on universities – from Trump's offensive against Harvard to Modi's dismantling of minority fellowships and curricular purges – is not coincidental. It reflects a political moment wherein the capacity for critical thought is perceived as a threat to national coherence. In place of knowledge, these regimes offer nostalgia; in place of critique, conformity. To defend the university today is to defend the possibility of a freer, more just society tomorrow. This defence must emanate not only from within the academy but from all who value democracy beyond a mere slogan. It must involve public intellectuals, journalists, educators, students, and civil society at large. Because once critical thinking itself is criminalised, we find ourselves already inhabiting a post-democratic world. Ismail Salahuddin is a writer and researcher based in Delhi, focusing on Muslim identity, caste and the politics of knowledge. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Are hegemonies a relic of the past? The role of coercion and consent in global domination
The era of U.S. hegemony has come to an end – or so declare headlines emanating everywhere from Tehran to Washington. But what does that mean? The concept of hegemony has been central to international relations since the advent of the field. In addition to being a measure of state power, hegemony reflects the ability of a single nation to influence both the actions of others and the rules, norms and institutions that govern international politics. It's this dynamic mix of coercion and consent that makes hegemony distinct from mere dominance and highlights the complexities of maintaining leadership in a contested world. The term hegemony originates from the Greek hegemon, meaning leader or guide. It was initially applied to the dominance of one city-state over others. In ancient Greece, Athens exemplified hegemony in its leadership of the Delian League of city-states, where it combined military superiority with political influence to direct the actions of its allies. While this dominance involved coercive power – primarily Athens' naval strength – it also relied on consent, as the league's members benefited from collective security and economic ties. The modern understanding of hegemony emerged during the 19th century as a way to describe Britain's role in the global order. Britain's dominance was underpinned by its unparalleled naval power and economic leadership during the Industrial Revolution. It was not, however, just material capabilities that made Britain a hegemon. The global trade networks it built and the norms of free trade it championed established a system that other nations, mainly in Europe, accepted, often because they too benefited from the stability and prosperity it provided. This era demonstrated how hegemony involves more than coercion. Indeed, it requires a dominant state to shape an international order that aligns the interests of others with that of the dominant nation. Antonio Gramsci, the early 20th-century Italian Marxist theorist, expanded the concept of hegemony beyond international relations into a class analysis. He argued that hegemony involves not only coercive power of the dominant class but also the ability to secure consent by shaping cultural, ideological and institutional norms. Applied back to international politics, this means that a hegemonic nation's dominance is sustained by creating a system that others perceive as legitimate and beneficial, not just through military or economic might. In the 20th century, the United States emerged as the quintessential modern hegemon, particularly after World War II. U.S. hegemony was defined by its material power – unmatched military strength, economic dominance and technological leadership – but also by an ability to construct a liberal international order that aligned with its interests. The Marshall Plan, which facilitated postwar Europe's economic recovery, exemplified the combination of coercion and consent: The U.S. provided resources and security guarantees but also set the terms for participation, embedding its leadership within the system. Into this mix, the Soviet Union emerged as a secondary hegemon, establishing its own equivalents to the U.S. aid program through the Molotov Plan and an alternative order to exert influence among the world's socialist countries. Defenders of hegemonies argue that a dominant power is necessary to provide public goods such as security, economic stability and rule enforcement. And thus the decline of a hegemon can often lead to instability. Yet critics argue that hegemonic systems often mask the self-interest of the dominant state, using consent to obscure coercion. For instance, while the U.S.-led order promoted free trade and democracy, it also advanced American strategic priorities, sometimes at the expense of weaker states. And hegemony is difficult to maintain in the long run. Those that rely too heavily on coercion risk losing legitimacy, but excessive reliance on consent without the backing of power can undermine the hegemon's ability to enforce rules and protect core interests. In today's multipolar world, the concept of hegemony faces new challenges. The rise of China, along with regional powers such as Turkey, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, has disrupted the unipolar dominance of the U.S. These would-be regional hegemons bring with them their own means of imposing influence through economic incentives and coercion. In China's case, infrastructure and trade development through the Belt and Road Initiative is counterbalanced with shows of military strength in the South China Sea. As the global order becomes increasingly fragmented, the future of global hegemony is uncertain. While no single power currently has the capacity to dominate the international system, the need for leadership remains critical. Many observers would argue that issues such as climate change, technological regulation and pandemic responses require coordination that only a hegemonic or collective leadership framework can provide. Whether hegemony evolves into a more shared model of leadership or gives way to a more anarchic system could shape the trajectory of international relations in the 21st century. This article is part of a series explaining foreign policy terms commonly used but rarely explained. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Andrew Latham, Macalester College Read more: The Thucydides Trap: Vital lessons from ancient Greece for China and the US … or a load of old claptrap? What is the rules-based order? How this global system has shifted from 'liberal' origins − and where it could be heading next Disinformation and other forms of 'sharp power' now sit alongside the 'hard power' of tanks and 'soft power' of ideas in policy handbook Andrew Latham does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
The Star
27-04-2025
- Politics
- The Star
Giving birth to a new international order
The multipolar world will be born when the geopolitical weight of Asia, Africa, and Latin America matches their rising economic weight. WRITING in his cell as political prisoner in fascist Italy after World War I, the philosopher Antonio Gramsci famously declared: 'The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.' A century later, we are in another interregnum, and the morbid symptoms are everywhere. The US-led order has ended, but the multipolar world is not yet born. The urgent priority is to give birth to a new multilateral order that can keep the peace and the path to sustainable development. We are at the end of a long wave of human history that commenced with the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco da Gama more than 500 years ago. Those voyages initiated more than four centuries of European imperialism that peaked with Britain's global dominance from the end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the outbreak of World War I (1914). Following World War II, the United States claimed the mantle as the world's new hegemon. Asia was pushed aside during this long period. According to widely used macroeconomic estimates, Asia produced 65% of world output in 1500, but by 1950, that share had declined to just 19% (compared with 55% of the world population). In the 80 years since WWII, Asia recovered its place in the global economy. Japan led the way with rapid growth in the 1950s and 1960s, followed by the four 'Asian tigers' (Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Korea) beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, and then by China beginning around 1980, and India beginning around 1990. As of today, Asia constitutes around 50% of the world economy, according to IMF estimates. The multipolar world will be born when the geopolitical weight of Asia, Africa, and Latin America matches their rising economic weight. This needed shift in geopolitics has been delayed as the US and Europe cling to outdated prerogatives built into international institutions and to their outdated mindsets. Even today, the US bullies Canada, Greenland, Panama and others in the Western Hemisphere and threatens the rest of the world with unilateral tariffs and sanctions that are blatantly in violation of international rules. Asia, Africa and Latin America need to stick together to raise their collective voice and their UN votes to usher in a new and fair international system. A crucial institution in need of reform is the UN Security Council, given its unique responsibility under the UN Charter to keep the peace. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (the P5) – Britain, China, France, Russia, and the United States – reflect the world of 1945, not of 2025. There are no permanent Latin American or African seats, and Asia holds only one permanent seat of the five, despite being home to almost 60% of the world population. Over the years, many new potential UN Security Council permanent members have been proposed, but the existing P5 have held firmly to their privileged position. The proper restructuring of the UN Security Council will be frustrated for years to come. Yet there is one crucial change that is within immediate reach and that would serve the entire world. By any metric, India indisputably merits a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Given India's outstanding track record in global diplomacy, its admission to the UN Security Council would also elevate a crucial voice for world peace and justice. On all counts, India is a great power. India is the world's most populous country, having overtaken China in 2024. India is the world's third largest economy measured at international prices (purchasing-power parity), at US$17 trillion (RM74.5 trillion), behind China (US$40 trillion) and the United States (US$30 trillion) and ahead of all the rest. India is the fastest growing major economy in the world, with annual growth of around 6% per year. India's GDP is likely to overtake that of the US by mid-century. India is a nuclear-armed nation, a digital technology innovator, and a country with a leading space programme. No other country mentioned as candidate for a permanent UN Security Council member comes close to India's credentials for a seat. The same can be said about India's diplomatic heft. India's skillful diplomacy was displayed by India's superb leadership of the G20 in 2023. India deftly managed a hugely successful G20 despite the bitter divide in 2024 between Russia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) countries. Not only did India achieve a G20 consensus; it made history, by welcoming the African Union to a new permanent membership in the G20. China has dragged its feet on supporting India's permanent seat in the UN Security Council, guarding its own unique position as the only Asian power in the P5. Yet China's vital national interests would be well served and bolstered by India's ascension to a permanent UN Security Council seat. This is especially the case given that the US is carrying out a last-ditch and vicious effort through tariffs and sanctions to block China's hard-earned rise in economic prosperity and technological prowess. By supporting India for the UN Security Council, China would establish decisively that geopolitics are being remade to reflect the true multipolar world. While China would create an Asian peer in the UN Security Council, it would also win a vital partner in overcoming the US and European resistance to geopolitical change. If China calls for India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council, Russia will immediately concur, while the US, UK, and France will vote for India as well. The US geopolitical tantrums of recent weeks – abandoning the fight against climate change, attacking the Sustainable Development Goals, and imposing unilateral tariffs in contravention of core World Trade Organisation rules – reflect the truly 'morbid symptoms' of a dying old order. It's time to make way for a truly multipolar and just international order. Prof Jeffrey D. Sachs is director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. This article was first published in Other News.
