Academic Freedom Index, India now ranks as “completely restricted”, its lowest score since the mid-1940s. | Photo: A still from the movie The Two Popes.
Robert Francis Prevost became the first pope from the United States on Thursday (May 8, 2025), picking the papal name Leo XIV after cardinals from around the world elected him as the 267th pope of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics. This was following Pope Francis’ death on April 21. After decades of conservative leadership of the Roman Catholic Church that culminated in the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, Pope Francis, the first Latin American leader of the church, had sought to promote inclusion and care for the marginalised over doctrinal purity.
Against this backdrop, I watched the movie The Two Popes (2019) on OTT. Taking us behind the Vatican walls, the movie rewinds to the final days of Pope Benedict XVI, where the conservative Pope Benedict XVI and the liberal future Pope Francis must find common ground to forge a new path for the Catholic Church. Inspired by true events, the movie shows a fictitious dialogue between the two popes. Though their views are poles apart, there is space for an open dialogue.
After the Vatican leaks scandal marred the Catholic Church in controversy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio (later known as Pope Francis) submitted his resignation as the Archbishop. Bergoglio, who was also in line to become Pope, had received the second-highest votes after Pope Benedict. Perceiving Bergoglio’s resignation as a threat to the Church, Pope Benedict invites him to the Palace of Castel Gandolfo. At the castle, the two popes converse about homosexuality, communion of the divorced, and more. “You have been one of my harshest critics, there’s a lot of competition for that title”, Pope Benedict says to Bergoglio, as their views never align.
Pope Benedict asks Bergoglio about him openly giving sacraments to those who are out of communion, to the divorced. Bergoglio says, “Oh, I believe giving communion is not a reward for the virtuous, it is food for the starving”. Pope Benedict then questions him, whether his personal beliefs matter more than what the Church has taught for hundreds of years. To that, Bergoglio cites scriptures, “I came to all sinners”. They have a back and forth on the idea of mercy. Bergoglio has the final word: “Mercy is dynamite that blows down walls.” Instead of taking offence, Pope Benedict says, “You have an answer for everything… you are far too clever”.
In many scenes such as these, the movie showed these two religious leaders with opposing views navigating each other’s thoughts, even though they fundamentally disagreed with each other. They were listening, challenging, reflecting, and even becoming friends as a consequence of the dialogue, apparently.
Dialogue in Indian academia
Dialogue has now become a rarity in the Indian context, even in universities and academia. Universities are supposed to be spaces that foster critical thinking, where ideas should clash and grow, where students and teachers question and disagree, but still talk and learn.
Far from this ideal picture, there has been a lot of talk about the loss of academic freedom in India. Over the past 10 years, India has plummeted on the academic freedom index ranks, according to the “Free to Think 2024” annual report published by the Scholars at Risk (SAR) Academic Freedom Monitoring Project. According to the Academic Freedom Index, India now ranks as “completely restricted”, its lowest score since the mid-1940s.
The Supreme Court on May 2, 2025, allowed a Dalit Ph.D. scholar and Left student leader Ramadas K.S. to be reinstated in the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) while reducing his two-year suspension for allegedly indulging in activities which were “not in the interest of the nation”. In a notice that was sent to Mr. Ramdas dated March 7, TISS referred to his role in screening the documentary ‘Ram Ke Naam’ on January 26 as a “mark of dishonour and protest” against the Ram Mandir idol consecration in Ayodhya.
In another instance, Vikrant Singh, a Ph.D. student who had received a termination letter from IIT Guwahati, was reinstated in the institute after the Gauhati High Court stated that the institute had unjustly handled Mr. Singh’s case. The institute alleged that Mr. Singh had been stirring up controversies and trouble in IIT Guwahati, since the time he joined. The court said that Mr. Singh was not given a proper hearing, and the institute didn’t share with him the documents of allegations against him; hence, principles of natural justice were ignored.
The courts reinstating students like Mr. Ramdas and Mr. Singh is welcome. It would, however, be ideal if universities set the precedence by creating spaces where students can hold a dialogue with the administration, faculty and among themselves without rancour.
Published – May 15, 2025 06:57 pm IST