Professor Chomsky is reported, in recent surveys, to be the most cited of living authors. Raising the question ``Why is Chomsky important?’’ Neil Smith, a linguistic theorist and author of an insightful and accessible book on his ideas and ideals, provides the following answer:

Professor Chomsky has ``revolutionised linguistics’’ by showing that ``there is really one human language’’ and that the immense complexity of the world’s languages must be ``variations on a single theme.’’ This theorising has profound philosophical implications. By resurrecting the theory of innate ideas, he has demonstrated that a substantial part of our knowledge is genetically determined. Reinstating rationalist ideas that go back centuries, he has provided evidence that `unconscious knowledge’ is what underlies humankind’s ability to speak and understand. Further, overturning the dominant school of behaviourism in psychology, he ``returned the mind to its position of pre-eminence in the study of humankind.’’ In short, Professor Chomsky has changed the way we think of ourselves. But this is by no means all. He has done this while devoting a great deal of his time to political and social analysis and activism: ``documenting the lies of government, exposing the hidden influences of big business, developing a model of the social order, and acting as the conscience of the West.’’

This mild-mannered academic is the polymath as great dissenter. His work in every field he has entered has been described as ``an unrelenting refusal to follow the herd,’’ with his dissent being no ``obstinate rejectionism’’ but a deeply worked-out position, which, depending on the field, encompasses a serious defence of alternatives, including the ``centrality of explanation.’’

His political outlook and the specific positions he has taken over the decades on central issues, issues that matter to millions of people and mark and define the period, are celebrated or notorious, depending on which side of the fence you are on. He was one of the first among American intellectuals to take a clear and uncompromising stand against the Vietnam War. In an influential and widely admired essay on ``The Responsibility of Intellectuals,’’ which appeared in The New York of Review of Books in February 1967 and enraged the U.S. establishment, Chomsky examined the positions and arguments of a range of American intellectuals from Walt Rostow to Henry Kissinger vis-a-vis the United States’ war of aggression and butchery against Vietnam.

At a broader level, he looked at the role of leading American intellectuals in the construction of pro-imperialist ideologies and propaganda, their justification of the use of force by the United States to impose its writ on the rest of the world, especially the third world. He spotlighted the unsqueamish equanimity with which some well-known American intellectuals countenanced, recommended or endorsed such methods as mass starvation, intensive bombing, and the extinguishing of national sovereignty. ``In no small measure,’’ observes Professor Chomsky about such responses, ``it is attitudes like this that lie behind the butchery in Vietnam, and we had better face up to them with candour, or we will find our government leading us towards a `final solution’ in Vietnam, and in the many Vietnams that inevitably lie ahead.’’

In his 1967 essay, which marked a watershed in the development of opposition to the Vietnam War, he offered a clear and powerful formulation that cut through hypocrisy, cant and confusion in order to emphasise the great intellectual and moral imperative of truth-telling and activism in its behalf; ``Intellectuals are in a position to expose the lies of governments, to analyse actions according to their causes and motives and often hidden intentions. In the Western world, at least, they have the power that comes from political liberty, from access to information and freedom of expression. For a privileged minority, Western democracy provides the leisure, the facilities and the training to seek the truth lying hidden behind the veil of distortion and misrepresentation, ideology and class interest, through which the events of current history are presented to us…It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies…it is also his duty to see events in their historical perspective…The question, `what have I done?’ is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam -- as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defence of freedom.’’

Noam is also the great exemplar of an intellectual being able to integrate the theory with practice. He has had no hesitation in putting his dazzling academic career on the line for the sake of the intellectual, political and moral principles he has espoused. He has spent time in jail for his role in the demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Asked once why he took such risks, he replied: ``It has to do with being able to look yourself in the eye in the morning.’’

As is well known, Noam has invested a great deal of his intellectual time on researching and analysing U.S. international or foreign policy. He is best known in the public sphere for this magnificent contribution, unmatched in our time by any other academic or intellectual. While Noam’s concerns are truly universal, he has paid particular attention to four areas: South-East Asia, above all Vietnam; Central and South America; Israel, the Palestinian liberation struggle and West Asia; and East Timor, where the Indonesian military dictatorship committed genocide with U.S. connivance and military support. We can add to this his clear and powerful analysis of the unjust character and calamitous effects of the U.S.-led Gulf War and consequent military actions and atrocities against Iraqi civilians, notably children. Since 1991, Frontline, the magazine I edit, has had the privilege of publishing several interviews with him on this subject, with my friend, Dr V.K. Ramachandran, doing most of the interviews. As a journalist, an Indian journalist, I would like publicly to thank Noam for this extraordinary generosity with his time.

Not surprisingly, about ``September 11, 2001 and its Aftermath,’’ which has ushered in international crisis, he has had a great deal to say. By addressing the essential questions and focussing on concerns that are sought to be marginalised, he has provided a clear analytical framework for understanding and acting on the current international crisis.

A word on his method. A self-avowed believer in ``Cartesian common sense,’’ the scientific method laid our by Descartes, Professor Chomsky applies the following methodological rules in thinking logically towards reliable conclusions. ``Accept only clear and distinct ideas. Break each problem into as many parts as necessary to solve it. Work from the simple to the complex. Always check for mistakes.’’ I quote from a primer on his work, which I trust provides a reasonable idea. His typical analytic technique has also been described as ``the classic academician’s accumulation of massive documentation, relying both on standard references and on sources that are frequently ignored by mainstream commentators and historians,’’ with the method flavoured by a use of irony.

Noam is also the rarest of intellectuals -- one with a fan following across the globe.

The last time he was in India was in January 1996. As many of you are aware, since he is in great demand as a public speaker in many parts of the world -- I have over the past few days received calls from Pondicherry, Bangalore, Hyderabad and even Tunisia imploring me to use my good offices to persuade Professor Chomsky to make just this slight detour during the current visit to give lectures in those places -- his time needs to be booked literally years in advance. The last time he came to India, no public engagement was scheduled in Chennai (although I learnt last night from Noam that he passed through Chennai and was hijacked for something like an all-night discussion on linguistics). This public lecture is a result of the booking we made soon after the last visit.

The programme and schedule of this visit were, of course, drawn up much before September 11 happened. Nevertheless, the distinguished lecturer readily agreed to speak about the present international crisis and what must be done about it, accepting the title we proposed. This is a major theme he is taking up in his public engagements in India, but elsewhere he has also covered other issues relating to linguistics, militarism, democracy and the people’s right to know, and globalisation.

This morning we had a wonderful intellectual treat: Noam in a two hour ``open and free discussion’’ at our Asian College of Journalism, administered by the Media Development Foundation, of which Sashi Kumar is Chairman. Many issues were covered -- from linguistics to Afghanistan -- and students got priority in asking the questions. In our original plan for this public lecture, we had doubts we could factor in any time for questions. But when we mentioned this to Noam, he clearly preferred to take questions following the lecture. I think we can take something like 30 minutes for that.

It is a special pleasure to be able to welcome Carol Chomsky, a scholar who has made contributions to language and linguistics in her own right. Already, over the past eight hours, Sashi and I have collaborated sincerely with Carol to protect Noam’s vocal chords against the relentless demands made against them. The outstanding musicians and the distinguished President of the Music Academy, my friend T. T. Vasu, who are present here will especially appreciate the importance of this.

Friends, I have the honour of presenting to you Professor Noam Chomsky.