At the Crossroads between intellectual shallowness and intellectual vibrancy

                  At the Crossroads between intellectual shallowness and intellectual vibrancy

Last week was refreshingly and intellectually stimulating after weeks of somnolence induced by the Indian media that either keeps singing paeans to the new PM and his subservient ruling party or stifles any dissent from the opposition in written or verbal form. The media in recent months has been incredibly active to headline anything that PM says or does, purporting them to carry weighty and symbolic messages to every Indian in all the nooks and corners of the country. I receive a dozen mails from Modi -worshippers on a daily basis extolling his modiloquence, his  colourful ensemble of attires, his stride, his smile (though reserved for the world leaders and NRIs), his mockery of  his opponents  or of anyone who dares to dissent, his swagger that enhances his self-confidence, his handsomeness highlighted by his 56” chest,  and last but not the least his muscular leadership and vision (that has  Congress-mukht Bharat topping the list).  The Fawning Media swoons at his feet and will feel highly privileged if it is re-christened Modia .

In this Theatre of Modi, two writers have stepped forward to express their fears and anxiety about the Modi juggernaut that is at present advancing with an incredible force crushing everything in its path. Those chanting Modinama (like the Sahasranama  on Lord Vishnu)  feel outraged at the temerity of these two writers to criticize the PM and are battle ready to file a criminal suit against them. We Indians suffer from a pathological obsession with superheroes- whether they are reel or real heroes. We go hysterical in our admiration of anyone who is not of our kind, but a notch above our ordinariness, whether he is a cinestar or a cricketeer or a singer or a RJ/DJ though very few intellectuals receive such adulation from us unless s/he is awarded a Nobel prize.

Modi is today the rockstar and his adulators cannot brook any form of dissent that may bring their star just a little down to the next rung on the victory ladder. Hence they view the writings of a diplomat -cum -writer- cum-politician(Pavan Varma) and of an eminent sociologist(Shiv Viswanathan) as a critical comment on their leader and not as an objective  critique on the intellectual health of the society and about the future of Indian liberal democracy. Every issue is seen through the prism of Modi and labeled pro-Modi or anti-Modi and there is no issue left that can be seen beyond Modi. Any discussion on these two vital issues raised by Pavan Varma and Shi Viswanathan should not be misconstrued as a criticism of Modi or Moditva as his admirers have rechristened the BJP’s Hindutva agenda.

The two articles deserve close reading to refresh our minds as to what a one man rule (though euphemistically called the Modi governance) that has received legitimate endorsement as majoritarian rule can lead the state to!  Shiv Viswanathan, the Sociologist states “Majoritarian definitions of the world can articulate old repressions, once illegitimate, into new tyrannies. Narendra Modi has acquired an electoral majority but this new majority seeks a redress of old scores.” PM  has been in a hurry to redress a whole lot of things - the alleged congress amnesia with regard to remembering and honouring icons other than the Nehru lineage, the  plethora of schemes bearing the names of the erstwhile first family of the country, the importance given to English as against Hindi, the appeasement of minorities at the cost of the silent majority(which has now risen to power), the yielding  of space to modernism in social and political discourse to the suppression of Hindu mythologies, tradition and religion and above all the idea of secularism that denied a distinct place for the religion of the Hindu majority,  reducing it to  one among many other religions (especially of foreign import like Christianity, Islam, Zoroastrianism etc).The new majority that has come to power has set itself the agenda to aggressively assert itself and quell all opposition and reclaim for itself its legitimate dues. The viciousness with which it expresses its contempt for the old repressions and its intolerance of the erstwhile government’s approach towards modernism and secularism are new forms of aggression and a reversion to primitivism and cultural and religious atavism. The result is the slow emergence of a new form of authoritarianism, spreading violence, anger and hatred. With their fierce loyalty to their own culture and civilization, the fringe elements among the majority have begun to use religion for asserting its superiority and causing violent clashes among the population of diverse traditions, religions and cultures.. The new hegemonic order is resentful of the erstwhile  adherence to secularism and pluralism that had caused  the marginalization of the indigenous Hindu tradition and  cultures. The  liberalization of the last two and a half decades under the Congress government had  re-affirmed the  co-existence, enhancement and enrichment of different world cultures, but with the current establishment of a majoritarian rule there has come about cultural atavism  that is regarded as the new aristocratism of the Hindu majority. This is the fear expressed by Shiv Viswanathan where the majority is arrogating to itself the right to be dominant, aggressive and intolerant of all other minorities. The clever appropriation of the nation’s icons- not for their core beliefs and faiths, but for much smaller ends like Swachh Bharat  is another instance of intellectual cleverness.

 Pavan Varma the distinguished author of many thought provoking books on Indian culture has also voiced his fears about intellectual shallowness that has overtaken the nation and the absence of space for a civilized dialogue today. Dialogues have been replaced by debates, debates have become slanging matches, civility is passé and  full throated shouting to drown other voices is passed off as exemplary intellectualism. The less the content, the more flamboyant the shouting. Reason and logic have given way to emotional outbursts. Today there is no scope for discussion as any discussion is about the pros and cons of a weighty matter. When there are no cons, and when pros alone are permitted, discussions are no longer possible. This is evident in all the current debates and writings in different forms of the media- the print, the electronic and the social. The language used is acerbic, extravagant and uncivil, full of hate and derision. All this is happening because the majoritarian rule is slowly becoming intolerant and brooks no brakes. In his article “Disagreeing to Disagree”, Pavan Varma writes: “ Indian democracy has become a barren landscape of brittle mediocrity. People expound, but rarely listen. The cyber world in India is full of unpunctuated, ungrammatical, uncouth expressions of hate. Such illiterate venom raises the decibel of debate but reduces its quality to abysmal levels…to question is to be suspect. Democratic dissent is equated with disloyalty. Those in opposition are enemies” and he ends with the new order: “Don’t talk, vilify; don’t discuss, condemn; don’t differ, just follow.”

 In all this PM is not to be blamed, only his sycophants. In fact many concede that the PM never speaks on controversial issues as he did during his election campaigns. But what is alarming is the deification of a single person and his silence on the ranting of his party men who seek to stifle dissent of any kind.  It may seem odious to institute a comparison between Narendra Modi and ManMohan Singh. Both are known for unimpeachable integrity.  Though Modi rechristened Man Mohan Singh as Man Mouna Singh, Modi himself has appropriated the virtue of ‘Mouna’ from his predecessor(on issues where he needs to speak).

India is at crossroads. Intellectual shallowness and intellectual inertness can certainly bolster the majoritarian rule. But can it sustain forever in the absence of intellectual discussions? Are we ready to usher in a post-idea civilization where no new ideas can germinate, where no arguments can take place and where dialogues have to give way to monologues that are beamed from the PMO secretariat or from the Doordarshan and All India Radio?  These are questions to be raised and not to be stifled. In answering the questions, the new government can find the right balance between modernity and tradition, between secularism and pluralism, between majoritarian rule and minority voices, between emotion and response, between consent and dissent, between intellectual shallowness and intellectual vibrancy. India is at the crossroads caught between aspirations of the young modernists and the diehard views of the traditionalists. The only way forward is through encouraging serious and meaningful dialogue between contending views without fear and anxiety. Otherwise, India will become  (using Eliot’s cerebral lines from his poem The Hollowmen)

a hollow land of hollowmen ,

the stuffed  men leaning together,

headpiece filled with straw
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar.