http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151217/jsp/opinion/story_58784.jsp#.VnItb5N96CQ
Answer the call of duty - It is good to see Indian intellectuals retain their 'moral voice' Prabhat Patnaik Indira Gandhi is reported to have remarked to a friend that her stint in office after returning to power in 1980 was made difficult by her lack of support among the intelligentsia. Indira Gandhi was not an intellectual herself, and hence not given to making extravagant comments for effect, as intellectuals often do; she obviously meant what she said. But then why should lack of support among the intelligentsia matter to her? Those in political power are surrounded by officers belonging to the Indian Administrative Service and other such services, who, in a certain sense, belong to the intelligentsia and who advise them as a matter of course. She obviously did not miss their support. So what is it that she missed that, by her own admission, made life difficult for her in the post-1980 period? The answer one ventures to suggest is that quite apart from the "advisory" or "expert" role of the intelligentsia, which bureaucrats are perfectly capable of fulfilling, there is another role, and that is to influence the public mind regarding those in power. Indira Gandhi was perhaps alluding to this role when she complained that her lack of support among the intelligentsia (outside of the bureaucracy), because of the memory of the Emergency, made life difficult for her in office. Despite her having won the election, her image among the people remained tinged with suspicion because of the barely-concealed hostility of the intelligentsia. In other words, it is not enough to win elections; one must additionally have the trust of the people. And in winning this trust, the support of the intelligentsia is of great importance. In fact, one can go further. Even winning an election is not easy in the face of the systematic hostility of the intelligentsia. Indira Gandhi may have done so in 1980 because of the implosion of the Janata Party government, but that should be counted more as an exception than as a rule. It is interesting in this context that the leaders of the 'Grand Alliance' thanked the intellectuals of the country ( buddhijeevion) after the victory they recently achieved over the National Democratic Alliance in Bihar. There can also be little doubt that the loss of popular support by the Left Front in the 2011 elections in West Bengal was preceded by a significant loss of its support among the intelligentsia. To say this is not to claim that the people simply follow the intelligentsia; it is only to suggest that while they make up their minds about particular political formations on the basis of their own life-experience, an important input into their interpretation of this life-experience is provided by the attitude of the intelligentsia, especially if this attitude happens to be expressed in a fairly forthright manner. It may be argued that the intelligentsia itself is marked by political divisions, so there is no such thing as the position of the intelligentsia. But, oddly enough, despite these divisions, in the case at least of political events that are of overriding importance at any particular moment, it is often possible to detect which way intellectual opinion is inclined. Those opposing the dominant tendency within the intelligentsia on such major events are, on these occasions, either too sheepish, or too subdued or too lacking in credibility to make much difference. I would say this not for all cases, but only for certain cases of overriding importance that occasionally come to occupy centre-stage. In this respect, the United States of America is totally different from India, and indeed from most other countries. In the US, the popular mood is hardly shaped by the predominant attitude within the intelligentsia. I remember in 1972, when George McGovern was the Democratic Party's presidential candidate against Richard Nixon in the thick of the Vietnam War, there was a full page advertisement in major newspapers appealing for votes in his favour. It was signed by a galaxy of American intellectuals belonging to the entire range from the centre to the Left, including such luminaries as Paul Samuelson and Robert Solow; and yet McGovern lost by one of the widest margins in the entire history of American presidential elections. This dissonance between the popular mood and intellectual opinion in the US is reflective of a bizarrely egalitarian culture that prevails there, of which the president's using expletives is an instance, and which can only characterize a country whose history has not been marked by any feudal hierarchy (though it may have seen slavery and racial oppression). Having been through Indian and British universities and observed the respect with which these traditional feudal societies regard academics, I recollect being quite surprised, when, during a stint as a visiting faculty member at the University of California, Riverside, I found my neighbours, in the apartment block where we lived, referring to me as an "instructor". By contrast in Delhi, I have been occasionally let off by the police after some traffic misdemeanour when I have told them that I teach at the Jawaharlal Nehru University. But our feudal past is only one element of the explanation for the importance accorded to the intelligentsia in our society. Equally important, in my view, is the anti-colonial struggle, in the course of which large numbers of lawyers, teachers, writers and educated people (whose numbers then were quite small) subjected themselves to incarceration and great privation for the cause of the country's freedom. The respect that the intelligentsia of that period earned from the people gets carried over to this day. The present government at the Centre, and its clones in other Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled states, are the first in our post-Independence history to actually disparage the intelligentsia. When even a gentle soul like poet Jayanta Mahapatra returns his award in protest against the growing intolerance in the country, and yet the ruling party spokesmen persist in attributing base motives to the protestors, the derogation of the intelligentsia becomes absolutely obvious. Whether, as I have suggested above and as the Bihar 'Grand Alliance' leaders seem to believe, this would bring the BJP-led government to grief, or whether we have indeed entered a new era where the intelligentsia will be cut down to size, is a matter that time alone will settle. But the question may be raised: why should the intelligentsia enjoy such a privileged position in society? If this position is, to an extent, a feudal hangover, then does not democracy demand that the intelligentsia be cut down to size? Besides, does it possess any quality distinguishing it from other sections that warrants society to pay greater attention to its views? The answer to the first question is that it is based on a misunderstanding of democracy. Authentic democracy indeed demands that the distinction between the intelligentsia and the others must disappear; but this must happen through the process of everyone becoming a part of the intelligentsia, that is, through the intelligentsia withering away as a special group, and losing any special status, because everyone has risen up to its ranks. It must not happen by encouraging a curtailment of the intelligentsia's role in providing inputs for the people's consciousness. If this role is abrogated, even as the people continue to be mired in misery and be deprived of education, then the result would be lumpenization of society rather than a strengthening of democracy. The need for a moral voice -even of an individual if not a group - in the prevailing circumstances was emphasized for me by the renowned economist, Joan Robinson. India was negotiating an extended facility loan from the International Monetary Fund, again under Indira Gandhi, in the early 1980s. A prominent and highly-respected economist, whom I shall not name, had for some reason remained silent about it. Robinson asked me if it was true that he had remained silent. When I assented, she further asked: "But then who is providing the moral voice at present?" Upon my mentioning the name of Ashok Mitra, who had mobilized opposition to the loan, she said with satisfaction: "Well, that is all right then!" The need for the intelligentsia to provide this "moral voice" in the prevailing conditions in societies like ours cannot be gainsaid. Here we come to the second question. Is the intelligentsia sufficiently free from self-seeking behaviour, from being mired in its own narrow, material self-interest (as distinct from the desire simply to experience the satisfaction of being part of a more humane society), to be able to provide such a "moral voice"? Whatever doubts one may have had on this score, the very fact that it has raised its voice against the "intolerance" that is currently rampant, provides, at least for now, an answer in the affirmative. The protest by the intelligentsia is its own vindication. The author is ProfessorEmeritus, Centre for EconomicStudies, Jawaharlal NehruUniversity, New Delhi -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
