Ashis Nandy should have shown courage, not cowardice

When an intellectual is unable to deliver his thoughts with precision, one must question the quality of his intellect. All the more when the person happens to be of the stature of sociologist Ashis Nandy. All the more, when Nandy apologises and clarifies—unconvincingly—that “this is what he meant and not that”.

Nandy was precise and to the point when he said at the Jaipur Literary Festival, “It is a fact that most of the corrupt come from OBCs and Scheduled Castes and now increasingly the Scheduled Tribes.”

He substantiated this point with the following words: “I will give an example. One of the states with the least amount of corruption is the state of West Bengal when the CPM was there. And I must draw attention to the fact that in the last 100 years, nobody from OBC, SC and ST has come anywhere near to power. It is an absolutely clean state.”

His written clarification said nothing about his comment on the least corruption in West Bengal whereas he said, “In the last 100 years, nobody from OBC, SC and ST has come anywhere near to power.”

His clarification came not during the session on the Republic of Ideas itself but after angry reactions had begun pouring in from across the nation. Nandy clarified that what he meant to say was that while the wealthy are able to disguise their corruption, the Dalits, OBCs and SC/STs were unable to do so and therefore it seemed blatant. “However, this second corruption equalises. It gives them access to their entitlements. And so, as long as this equation persists, I have hope for the republic,” he said in his clarification.

It was strange that Nandy expressed surprise that he was misunderstood in the first place. As his statement said, “I hope this will be the end of the matter. I am sorry if some have misunderstood me. Though there was no reason to do so. As should be clear from this statement, there was neither any intention nor any attempt to hurt any community. If anyone is genuinely hurt, even if through misunderstanding, I am sorry about that, too.”

Trouble erupted at the Jaipur Festival itself when one of the panelists and TV journalist Ashutosh reacted by saying, “This is the most bizarre statement I have heard.”

Soon, the heavyweights of Dalit politics such as Mayawati and political non-entities such BR Ambedkar’s grandson, Prakash Ambedkar and the RPI leader Ramdas Athavle, found an opportunity to react and be in the limelight. Just as had happened during the controversy over the Ambedkar cartoon that rocked Parliament in May 2012.

There can be no two opinions that Nandy’s words were offensive, all the more because his observation was not backed by incontrovertible data which could be thrown at the critics to silence them. Dalit writer and activist Kancha Illaiah, who was a witness at the Nandy event, described it as “a bad statement with good intentions”.

As an intellectual, Nandy has the right to present views that may be offensive or perceived as offensive. That is how thinkers and intellectuals challenge prevailing thoughts, ideas and mindsets. Fellow intellectuals and others in society are then expected to examine these views with an open mind and then accept or reject the intellectual merit of the arguments made.

Politicians, by their very nature are intellectually dishonest and deliberately harbour closed minds because their priority is to protect and promote their vote banks and not support ideas that may challenge prevailing mindsets. Take the case of Congress MP Naveen Jindal’s support to the regressive Khap panchayats of Rajasthan. Or the politics at play in the case of the film Vishwaroopam. Many progressive politicians have preferred to maintain silence rather than support the screening of the film, especially as it had been cleared by the Censor Board.

TV anchors on national news channels are highly influential because they cover the length and breadth of the country in an instant through their news bulletins. In the Nandy case, most TV anchors were being intellectually lazy by crying hoarse on the failure of the state to protect intellectual freedom and then stopping at that.

What should one expect? That the Indian State would go out on one limb to protect intellectual freedom as in specific instances in Denmark, France, the United States or the UK as in the case of writer Salman Rushdie? All these nations are far more resourceful than India and do not have fragile, multi-religious, poverty-ridden societies grappling with the problems of terrorism, separatism, insurgency, malnutrition, female infanticide…and gangrapes of the most brutal kind.

And yet one finds rare, shining instances of intellectual freedom being protected in India by none other than the state. Take the case of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi who mocked at the Indian state itself through his cartoons and was arrested and jailed by the Maharashtra police under the sedition law. It was the Bombay High Court which upheld Trivedi’s intellectual freedom, rapped the Mumbai Police for arresting Trivedi on “frivolous grounds” and for breaching “his liberty of freedom of speech and expression”.

Unlike, Nandy, the 25-year Trivedi refused to apologise and thereby displayed greater courage and intellectual honesty than Nandy. Take also the case of journalist, writer and former minister Arun Shourie who was attacked viciously for his critical views on BR Ambedkar in his book Worshipping False Gods. Shourie, unlike Nandy, refused to apologise and stood by his views, displaying intellectual honesty and courage.

If scholars like Nandy want the free thinkers of this difficult country to stand by them, they need to stand up for what they believe in and show courage, not cowardice.

Do not expect the politicians to deliver intellectual freedom to you. In a country like India, writers and intellectuals will have to support one another and fight their own battles; governments led by politicians won’t do it for them though there’s hope from the courts. Unless writers and intellectuals stand up for their voice and freedom, the self-appointed custodians of the community’s mindspace - such as sectarian leaders and the Khap Panchayats will dominate the discourse, leaving no room for an alternate expression.