In a poignant clash of ideologies, the recent India-Israel Business Meet at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bengaluru, has ignited fierce protests among students and activists. The event, intended to foster business ties between India and Israel, has instead become a flashpoint for discussions about morality, accountability, and the ethical implications of international partnerships.
As the business meet unfolded within the esteemed walls of IISc, approximately 20 students voiced their dissent in the campus’s main building. Their message was clear: by hosting this event, the institute was complicit in promoting Israel, a nation embroiled in ongoing conflicts that have led to the deaths of thousands of Palestinians. Shairik Sengupta, a student protester, articulated the concerns of many when he stated that IISc’s decision amounted to tacit endorsement of violence against innocent lives.
The protest didn’t stop at the gates of IISc. Academics and activists from notable institutions, including the Indian Institute of Management (IIM), the International Institute of Information Technology (IIIT), and the National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS), joined the demonstration outside the Maramma Temple Gate of IISc. Together, they condemned the meet, especially its focus on defense and arms trade, as a stark contradiction to the growing global calls for an arms embargo against Israel. With over 1,600 signatures collected in an online campaign opposing the meet, the dissenting voices were not only loud but also organized.
In an attempt to address the backlash, the IISc registrar issued a statement asserting that the JN Tata Auditorium—where the meet took place—is typically rented out to external organizations and that the institute does not associate itself with the activities conducted therein. However, this response raises a fundamental question: Can an institution of such repute simply wash its hands of the activities it permits? By hosting events that attract controversy, IISc risks compromising its moral standing in the academic community.
Activist Madhu Bhushan, also present at the protests, emphasized the dire implications of the business meet. She argued that Palestine has become a testing ground for Israel’s military technologies, transforming the conflict into a laboratory for weapons deployment. “This is not business as usual; it is about the future of our young minds, and we are firmly against it,” she declared, reflecting the sentiments of many who fear that aligning with Israel’s arms trade is a step backward for India.
This incident echoes similar protests that have occurred at other educational institutions, such as Mount Carmel and St. Joseph’s Colleges, where students resisted members of the Israeli consulate being invited for various events. These demonstrations signify a growing awareness and activism among the youth, who are increasingly unwilling to ignore the ethical ramifications of global partnerships.
As India navigates its international relationships, especially with a nation as controversial as Israel, it must consider the voices of its students and citizens. The protests at IISc are not merely about a business meet; they represent a larger discourse on the role of academic institutions in shaping societal values and political stances. It serves as a reminder that institutions of higher learning are not just centers of education but also platforms for moral engagement and social justice.
