“And today, with a
computer, everybody is an intellectual. So I don’t think it has anything to do
with someone’s profession or with someone’s social class. According to me, an
intellectual is anyone who is creatively producing new knowledge. A peasant who
understands that a new kind of graft can produce a new species of apples has at
that moment produced an intellectual activity. Whereas the professor of
philosophy who all his life repeats the same lecture on Heidegger doesn’t
amount to an intellectual. Critical creativity—criticizing what we are doing or
inventing better ways of doing it—is the only mark of the intellectual
function.”- Umberto Eco
There is much
debate on intellectuals today in India. Many of them are troubled by what they
call as shrinking space of dissent. The fact remains that while in the earlier
days they were relegated to the unimportant pages of local newspapers, now they
are celebrity in Television news where they rant about ‘Good, old days’ and
curse the government of the day at the top of their voice, and they complain in
a shrill, although articulate voice, exquisite words, even though at times
repetitive. Sagarika Ghose, high-priestess of faux-secularism, recently wrote a
blog on ToI (Target: Intellectuals—Governments that target intellectuals aredemonstrating the weakness of their own argument), in the title of which she
used the term Intellectual twice.
In the body of the
blog, she attacks Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi and Ms. Kirron Kher, two of the BJP
Parliamentarians for blaming intellectuals for selective outrage. The fiery
women parliamentarians, successfully pointed out to the political design of the
protests by the intellectuals as the all the façade of award returning promptly
died out, with the closure of Bihar election. My quarrel is not that. My
quarrel is how Ms. Ghose safely assumes that those articulate ones opposing
the government are intellectuals and those who are supporting are not. By that
logic, neither Ms. Lekhi, nor Ms. Kher, nor Mr. MJ Akbar qualify to be an
intellectual being on the right to the center of the ideology, even when he is
a noted thinker and writer of global repute. The way things stand now, if you
are a thinker and your logic supports the government, you cannot be an
intellectual. This set me in search of who qualifies to be an intellectual. I
needed to search for the same as for some myriad reason, Ms. Ghose and Mr. Guha
(Ramchandra Guha, noted Historian) considers the government which stifled the
press during emergency, which is responsible for banning 30 out of the 31 books
banned in India, which came out with 66A to ban internet dissent, and Press
reforms to regulate media, was a custodian of liberty and intellectuals, and
believes that the current one targets the intellectuals who are abusing,
cursing the government from all avenues, be it television channels, be it
foreign newspapers, with impunity. Who are those intellectuals who the government
holds animus towards and who qualifies to be termed as intellectuals that are
currently aggrieved? Why the people who are on the digital media or social
networking sites and who do not believe that these intellectuals are actually
aggrieved, on factual premise, are termed, in derogatory sense, even if they
are as articulate, as experienced of the real world and real-politic as the
journalists and historians. Why do they not qualify as intellectuals?
Sagarika Ghose in
the blog where she blames the current government of attacking the intellectuals
and begins the post by obliquely compares a democratically elected government,
which awkwardly tries to firefights a cleverly crafted campaign on ‘intolerance’
so weak on facts that if it were to be left hanging, it would collapse under
its own weight, with Nazis, Stalinist Russia and even Khmer Rouge. She in some
way sides with ‘Intellectuals’ as one of them. She is of course, from enviable
educational background, with education in History. But do all history graduates
quality as intellectuals?
She doesn’t begin
her article by facts, but by conclusion, and then proceed to facts. This is an erroneous
way of propositioning the point of view. However, there is a logic to it. In
today’s environment of information avalanches flooding our days, it a smart technique.
A lazy, or hurried reader, doesn’t sift the article through for substantiation.
Any marketer will tell you, this is the way to leave the words, even if
unsubstantiated, lingering in your mind. A quick reader remembers the beginning
of the article. Umberto Eco says that repetition of what others have said
before is not intellectual exercise. Sagarika quotes Ramchandra Guha (again a
historian, not a sociologist, or social scientist) that this is the most anti-intellectual
government India has ever seen. It is odd for a historian to have forgotten
blank newspapers during emergency and people being jailed absurdly, or a tweet
alluding to corruption of a congressman resulting in a common man from Chennai being
jailed under 66A brought in by Congress. As per Ramchandra Guha, this
government exceeds the intolerance of those governments. She quickly accepts P
Chidambaram’s apology for banning Satanic Verses, which was more as acceptance
of mistake, which came after 27 years, only after they lost the power. Then she
proceeds to put the responsibility of protecting Rushdie on current government,
not that Rushdie has expressed any worries, nor there is any news of ‘Hindu’
hoodlums threatening the noted author. She very swiftly leaves the argument in
between, not calling for un-banning of the Rushdie book since she knows that it
would outrage those hoodlums who aren’t so awkward in their retort.
It appears that
what we consider as intellectuals in today’s Indian context is not the
intellectual which fits Umberto Eco’s definition, rather he is the one who has
good English, who had the privilege of elite education, and who, above all, has
access to the traditional media in terms of using it as a platform for any idea
he might have, without having the necessity to substantiate it. More outrageous
the idea, the better it is, for it results more sales. That could probably
explain why Sagarika Ghose could narrate even Chennai flood victims with
reference to their religion. She expresses her concerns on Wendy Doniger’s
security if and ever she wanted to visit India, however, not for once refers to
the plight of Tasleema Nusreen. She is very careful about the people she feels
outraged about and in turn, want to outrage.
Historian
Ramchandra Guha, holding a long grudge against Modi and RSS, on his part wrote
his latest in Indian Express on 10th of December, 2015 (Dr. Ramchandra Guha's Article on Mohan Bhagwat's statement on Dr. Ambedkar)
The object of article is to oppose what he calls appropriation of legacy of
maker of Indian constitution, Dr. B R Ambedkar. He seems to be comfortable with
Congress appropriating the legacy of Dr. Ambedkar, while recently we found a
dalit leader, holding slippers to the young congress scion. As a historian, he
quotes from the past where RSS had opposed Dr. Ambedkar bitterly. He however,
ignores the advice of a disenchanted Dr. Ambedkar to Dalits to be wary of
Congress. An intellectual speaks from a high pulpit, and must not misuse the
vantage point he has. Some may dig deep to find Dr. Ambedkar’s unhappy relation
with the Congress for instance, Article 370, which he was totally against, but
which most intellectuals will safely ignore. His discomfort with his own role
as congressman is understandable given that any thinking man (intellectual)
would find difficulty with any organization demanding complete subordination to
the collective. Dr. Guha in his article quotes, behold, himself to substantiate
his point that RSS before independence opposed Dr. Ambedkar. While that is
quite a weak substantiation, it glosses over the fact, that it speaks much
about the strength of an idea that today RSS endorses Ambedkar. So while RSS
decides to reinvent itself, Mr. Guha rather would want to stay stuck in its
historical prejudices. He wants RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat if he wants to take a
view of Dr. Ambedkar different from RSS founders to denounce the founders of
RSS. By the same logic, would he want the current day congress to denounce Mrs.
Indira Gandhi when they regret emergency, or Rajiv Gandhi as they apologize for
1984? Why would an intellectual like Mr. Guha want the history to decide the
future? Didn’t Umberto Eco say that intellectual must be creative and thereby
welcome new changes?
I have delved inadvertently into getting into
wrong side of people with established credential, unfortunately driven by, what
I call a bad mix of brinkmanship and political leaning of a mugwump. There are
others like Pankaj Mishra who wrote brilliant books writing articles in foreign
journals saying people were being killed in India for their faith, their
opinion, without any substantiation. A man killed by goons is their fig leaf of
fact, around which the whole propaganda is woven, notwithstanding that that one
man’s kin get at least four time the standard compensation by the state, which
failed to protect him (not the central government which these writers so hate
that some wanted to walk naked in the eventuality of this political party
coming to power, before election). I come back to what I began with and why I
cannot consider a historian, a journalist or a painter as an intellectual, just
as I would not consider an electrical engineer as one. I do not have anything
against intellectual. I am for sure not bitter as Jean Paul Sartre who said “The intellectual is someone who meddles in
what does not concern him.” Naom
Chomsky expanded it further, mincing no words, as he wrote, “The
intellectuals are specialists in defamation, they are basically political
commissars, and they are ideological administrators, the most threatened by
dissent.” (Qualifier- Neither myself nor Mr. Chomsky have affiliation
to BJP or RSS). Paul Johnson wrote “The
desire to impose them (their ideas) on others that is the deadly sin of the
intellectuals”, something we saw during Bangalore LitFest. They will
talk about poor and poverty in the safe confines of their luxurious existence. Nietzsche
is even more scathing, when he write, with which I end this post, and as always
most profound as he writes about those who proclaim themselves as
intellectuals, and driven by their interest and lethargy to pursue the hard
truth (some, I believe began as true seeker of truth but turned lazy later)
gang up to muzzle the simplistic voices. He writes
When I lay asleep, then did a sheep eat
at the ivy-wreath on my head,—it ate, and said thereby: "Zarathustra is no
longer a scholar."
It said this, and went away clumsily and
proudly...
A scholar am I still to the children, and also
to the thistles and red poppies. Innocent are they, even in their wickedness.
But to the sheep I am no longer a scholar: so
willeth my lot-blessings upon it!
For this is the truth: I have departed from the
house of the scholars, and the door have I also slammed behind me.
Too long did my soul sit hungry at their table:
not like them have I got the knack of investigating, as the knack of
nut-cracking.
Freedom do I love, and the air over fresh soil;
rather would I sleep on ox-skins than on their honours and dignities.
I am too hot and scorched with mine own thought:
often is it ready to take away my breath. Then have I to go into the open air,
and away from all dusty rooms.
But they sit cool in the cool shade:
they want in everything to be merely spectators, and they avoid sitting where
the sun burneth on the steps.
Like those who stand in the street
and gape at the passers-by: thus do they also wait, and gape at the thoughts
which others have thought.
..........
.........
When they give themselves out as
wise, then do their petty sayings and truths chill me: in their wisdom there is
often an odour as if it came from the swamp; and verily, I have even heard the
frog croak in it!
Clever are they—they have dexterous
fingers: what doth my simplicity pretend to beside their multiplicity! All
threading and knitting and weaving do their fingers understand: thus do they
make the hose of the spirit!
(My apologies for too long a post. During the writing of this, I thought about why we have most of the intellectuals in left, and lesser in the Right? that will be my next post)
Comments