SHAPING THE NEW IDEAS OF INDIA
The Pioneer, Monday, 23 November 2015 | KG Suresh
The Left has long dominated India’s intellectual discourse while the Right shrivelled away. Slowly but steadily, this is changing but much work is needed before the Right can become a credible and substantive voice. The India Ideas Conclave was a step in that direction
The intellectual discourse in this country has for long been dominated by the Left, irrespective of its diminishing political presence over the years. From academia to media to even the scientific and artistic community, pro-Left elements have survived and thrived in the absence of any ideological challenge or an alternative discourse. Unlike the Left, the Congress, a political organisation, had no specific ideological moorings whatsoever. When it was formed in pre-independence India, some kind of self-rule was its objective. Subsequently, under Mahatma Gandhi, this was elevated to self-determination.
Otherwise, the Congress was a melting pot of borrowed ideologies, where leaders like Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Madan Mohan Malviya and Syama Prasad Mookerjee all found common grounds with Jawalarlal Nehru and people of his ilk, who were influenced by socialist ideology.
If freedom was the first goal, post-independence, power became the Congress’s raison d’être. With the Soviet Union becoming India’s close ally, Left-leaning intellectuals had a free run and gradually, were deeply entrenched into the system. Over the years, the vested interests became so deep and strong that the so-called inclusive liberals became conservative to the extent that they unabashedly practised intellectual untouchability — wherein anyone who differed, deviated or dissented was viewed as an enemy who had to be decimated.
The result was not only a massive penetration of the academic-intellectual-media sphere by these ideological warriors but also a denial of space to their opponents. While Left intellectuals grew with time, both in stature and status with the entire state apparatus at their command, the dissenters suffered. In the absence of opportunity and resources, both excellence and scholarship evaded them, and they ended became a mediocre lot, holding relatively inferior positions in the socio-intellectual sphere.
The Left intelligentsia in India also developed traits or at least projected attitudes which were rarely identified with their ideology the world over. Call it duplicity, contradictions or an evolving of their own identity, the Left was able to sell their double standards to a vulnerable and docile middle class. The followers of Stalin and Mao emerged as the champions of human rights, the advocates of the Cultural Revolution became the voice for freedom of speech and expression, the votaries of nuclear-armed Soviet Union, China and North Korea became the cheerleaders of non-proliferation at home, and the supporters of an aggressively nationalist China and Nepal vehemently opposed nationalism in India.
What’s more, in States such as Bihar, class war was replaced by caste war. The upper castes dominated the politburo and central committees of the Communist parties with a token Dalit and minority presence. The liberal leadership led a bohemian lifestyle at the expense of poor workers who gave a sizeable part of their earnings for the cause of the proletariat struggle. Under the guise of workers’ rights, industrialisation was stunted and aggressive pursuit of minorityism came in the way of national reconciliation and integration.
While the Left preached inclusivism, the manner in which it discounted any dialogue with emerging nationalist voices, otherwise called the Right wing, was strange. Was this out of insecurity or an inability to face or counter certain harsh truths? Ironically, they continued to dub their opponents as ‘reactionary’ and ‘exclusivist’ while resisting any debate or dialogue with them. What exposed the Left further was its indifference to or even connivance with extreme elements in certain communities, such as its electoral tie up with the blatantly communal Muslim League in Kerala, even as its pretended to be the guardians of secularism in the country.
On the other hand, the nationalist Right gradually gained momentum as it offered an alternative ideology that was rooted in the soil. From agriculture to economy, Right-wing intellectuals professed an ideology which had its foundations in its culture, history, philosophy et al. However, even as they found resonance at the popular level, the advocates of this ideology ended up as pamphleteers rather than scholars in the intellectual sphere in the absence of the aforementioned opportunities and patronage. Rhetoric ruled over substance and quantity suffocated quality.
With the English -speaking middle class opting for opportunity over ideology, the elite unwittingly came to be identified with Left liberalism and non-Left voices primarily from the Hindi heartland. The small towns ended up as the poor cousins espousing a retrograde ideology.
While the Shah Bano case, the Mandal Commission fallout, and the Ram Janambhoomi movement led to an intellectual churning, Lutyens’ Delhi, which influenced the intelligentsia, remained by and large immune to the phenomenon. Consequently, even the Centre-Right Vajpayee Government failed to generate an alternative discourse and the deeply entrenched elite succeeded in instilling an intellectual inferiority complex within the new dispensation, which resulted in self-doubt, constant defensive posturing and an attitude of tokenism towards one’s own ideological supporters. This in turn led to disillusionment among the loyalists who found themselves at sea, notwithstanding the change of regime. And this disillusionment also contributed in no small measure to the rout of the NDA in 2004.
Perhaps learning from the past, the India Foundation in 2014 took the initiative for an alternative discourse with its India Ideas Conclave in Goa. What is heartening is that in its second edition in Goa last week, the Ram Madhav-led initiative chose not to remain a mutual admiration club and hear out voices from the other side. From British writer and historian Patrick French to BJD MP Jay Panda, intellectuals with strong reservations about the nationalist ideology, were invited to share dais. Critics from within the Right, such as journalist Tavleen Singh, were questioned but allowed to bare their heart. Even the RSS top brass was quizzed on issues of culture and nationalism.
Issues such as growing radicalism and reforms within the minority community were not raised by Sangh Parivar members but credible, progressive voices from the community such as New Age Islam editor Sultan Shahin and the Washington, DC-based political commentator Tufail Ahmad. There was less rhetoric and more substance. Not rabble rousers pursued by an agenda-driven mischievous section of media but suave, modern and ideologically-rooted voices from the ruling BJP such as Ms Nirmala Sitharaman, Mr Manohar Parikkar, Mr Suresh Prabhu and Mr Jayant Sinha put across their viewpoint in the language the elite understood.
Perhaps, the event could have been more focused. Maybe a strong message could have been conveyed or the media could have been given greater access. Suggestions are galore but what is more significant is the effort at the intellectual level to generate an alternative narrative, more laudable is the endeavour to engage with other voices though limited for the time being, more welcome is the acceptance, though reluctantly, of the need for serious ideological scholarship and more constructive is the openness to criticism which is a guarantor for sustainability, credibility and sincerity of purpose.
If the 2014 conclave marked the birth of an idea, 2015 witnessed the baby steps towards a mature and serious debate reaffirming that the idea of India cannot be unidimensional and singular. Much like India, these ideas have to be diverse, pluralistic and multi-dimensional. They have to be inclusive, acceptable to everyone and celebrated by all.
(The author is Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation)