In an age where 22-second sound bites become the source ofheated political debate and vacuous intellectual discourse, eminent sociologistAshis Nandy’s indiscretion may seem unpardonable. Clearly, he is too old toadapt to bites-induced intellectualism, making him almost incompatible with animpatient class of social elites whose intellectual span is defined by thelimits set by TV studios and Twitter.
Nandy was hounded out by Dalit activists, social media and asection of the mainstream media for saying that the involvement of OBCs,scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in corruption cases has increased oflate. Nandy is known to be one of the most original Indian social thinkers andpsychoanalysts whose body of work is of an exceptionally high standard. Histhesis about the state being a “criminal enterprise” is often referred to byresearchers to explain the foundations and rationale of the state.
But Nandy’s eminence is not worth a vote for Mayawati, RamVilas Paswan or those baying for his blood. His perceived indiscretion in a22-second bite came in handy for jealous academics, who see virtue inconsistency and mediocrity. By any stretch of imagination, Nandy is none ofthat.
It would have immensely enriched the political debate ifNandy’s proposition on corruption had been carefully dissected for an improvedunderstanding of statecraft. But then, this is the age of shooting first andasking questions later. What Nandy says deserves attention, for of late a largenumber of political leaders coming from the underprivileged classes have gotenmeshed in corruption cases. This is certainly not a reflection on their castebut on the quality of politics and governance being practised.
Will anybody deny that A Raja, when caught in a scam, tookshelter behind his Dalit identity? Is it not true that the corruption casesagainst Mayawati and Mulayam Singh Yadav, being probed by the CBI, are beingleveraged by the Congress to solicit political support for the rulingcoalition? Can anybody ignore the fact that mineral-rich Jharkhand isimpoverished because of the corrupt and venal ways of tribal politics in thestate?
It is hardly anybody’s case that corruption is endemic amongcertain social groups. Far from it, Nandy explained it by giving a personalexample to show how corruption is disguised as talent promotion by the uppercastes. Apparently, Nandy’s formulation was intended to delve deeper into thesocio-political malaise and diagnose the ills that plague us.
But the whole project seems to have been scuttled mid-way asthe scholar has been put not only on the defensive but also on the run byslapping police cases against him. He was forced to say sorry for an inferencehe never intended to make. He is paying the price for being an original thinkerwho tried to turn the political discourse from rhetoric to genuineintellectualism.
What appears strange is that this streak of fanaticism andintolerance is discernible in a function organised not by an orthodox religiousor caste forum but those who claim to be espousing liberalism and secularism.And in the din of rhetoric and platitudes is lost an occasion for genuine,enriched and informed debate on contemporary politics and society.
in association with Governance Now
