I blinked twice when I read what the Delhi police told the Supreme Court. They said that sometimes intellectuals are more dangerous than a terrorist. Was this the voice of a non-intellectual thinker, because it was a terrible statement?

One of the first signs that a nation is toddling towards authoritarianism is the sudden suspicion of people who think. Not people who throw stones or lob grenades, but people who hold a pen or a thought. History shows this repeatedly. When rulers feel insecure, they lock up thinkers. They put them behind bars and announce that peace has been maintained.

They confuse silence with safety. They forget that ideas have feet. They forget that ideas walk through walls. They forget that the questions asked by thinkers are what have brought civilisation this far.

It happened with kings. It happened with governments. It even happened with the Church. Whenever an institution felt threatened, it turned its attention to those who questioned its authority. It is almost a tradition. If you cannot answer a question, get rid of the questioner. If you cannot refute a thought, silence the thinker. It is an old remedy with disastrous side effects.

I think of this again as I recall a book I recently wrote with scientific input from a renowned scientist. It opens the Biblical event of Creation and suggests that science and faith can walk together without stepping on each other's toes. Will everybody accept the idea? They will not. Some will frown. Some will scoff. Some will throw theological tomatoes. But should that stop me? It should not.

The world moves forward because those who think differently refuse to sit quietly.

I remember Galileo standing before the powerful Church of his time and saying the Earth moves around the Sun. They excommunicated him. They tried to bury the thought. But the Earth refused to stop moving, and the idea refused to die.

That is the power of thinking. It cannot be extinguished by fear. It cannot be jailed without leaving the bars shaken.

And if by intellectual the police meant the suicide bomber who was produced in court, then let us be clear. He was a doctor. He may have been educated. He may have studied human anatomy. But he was certainly not an intellectual.

An intellectual uses thought to question and improve. A terrorist uses anger to destroy and kill. Let us not mix the two.

A nation that cannot tell the difference between a thinker and a terrorist will soon have neither thinkers nor safety. When thinking is criminalised, terrorism becomes the only loud voice in the room. And that will be a tragedy.

For our strength has always been in those who think bravely and speak boldly. Let us not label them dangerous. Let us recognise them as the guardians of our freedom…