Friday, June 26, 2015

An island of equanimity amidst the sea of turbulence




Virginia Review of Asian Studies
Volume 17 (2015) 269-272
(ISSN 2169-6306) 

Book Review Section



“Journalism can never be silent: That is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.”
– Henry Anatole Grunwald
                       
Along the Red River: A Memoir by Sabita Goswami, translated by Triveni Goswami Mathur.  New Delhi: Zubaan, 2013. 320 pp Pbk, ISBN 9789381017012.

Reviewed by R. Radhakrishnan
Symbiosis International University, India
A memoir is usually an outlet to tell an untold tale, where the writer usually talks of his/her achievements and their relentless struggle to attain their objectives apart from confronting the usual vagaries of life and the challenges in negotiating with the world around them.  Along the Red River by Sabita Goswami is more than a memoir and it  comes at a time when the world is infested with memoirs written by some people which are merely a “tell all tales,” collection of anecdotes about movers and shakers and their tryst with destiny.
A memoir as one’s personal account and commentary is also an arduous task of not gravitating towards partisanship, for its presence in the public domain, also renders personal getting transformed into political. Hence a memoir by this logic has an inbuilt idiosyncrasy, of presenting an account of agony as well as ecstasy.
Along the Red River is a memoir written by a person with a multilayered identity – a woman, a mother, a journalist, an observer and commentator covering one of the regions with a turbulent history, a chronicler of our times, who was witness to the traumatic encounters of the nation building exercise, experimented in India’s northeast region.
Since independence, the northeast region of India has been confronted by a series of problems ranging from uneven development, ethnic and cultural minority syndrome and influx of illegal migrants have shaped the politicization of ethnic identities and the separatist movements in the Northeast.  While many policy analysts’ have written about this region and called for resolving the crisis which continue to even baffle many scholars of the Indian constitution, since the federal state with unitary features have, over the years, given adequate space for a kind of consociational democracy, as propounded by political scientists like Arend Lijphart. 


The political representation of various groups and the exercise of veto by minority groups are hallmarks of consociational politics, which are seen in nations to address the fears about majoritarianism. Sabita Goswami precisely highlights these issues with much more finesse, through her perceptive accounts of the state of Assam in India, the failure of party politics in evolving an inclusive and stable socio-political order.
The narrative and the dissection of the conflicts in the northeast of India, with special reference to the volatile situation in Assam have been very vividly documented. The commentary is further enhanced at various points, substantiated by the rich details that transcend a mere firsthand account of a journalist working in a disturbed region in terms of the ethnographic details about the region, insightful comments and feedback, on to the public policy and the role of the state government under various leaders, towards ethno politics.
The author rather takes a holistic view of the issues concerning the genesis of the conflict which lies in the demographic changes that have occurred in the region since independence. With massive influx of illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, almost made Assam into a ‘refugee’ state in the first three decades since independence. Large-scale transfer of cultivable land to the settlers/refugees was followed by the economic exploitation and alienation generating a strong sense of intra-tribal identity and militancy. Hereafter, political parties were competing with each other for getting these refugee votes, which played a significant role in electoral victories.
This scenario is not only very complicated to comprehend but a rather daunting task for a journalist and a social commentator to give an authentic and unbiased account, which is the hallmark of this book. The book offers an insightful and evocative note on the transformation of the society; break down of the state and the subsequent militarization of the region.
While the narrative is a firsthand account of a journalist, the detailed analysis of the role of the Indian state in a heterogeneous society has been very vividly described through her visits to the sites of contestation and frequent interaction with the power centres. The author’s memoir clearly hints that India is passing through a critical phase of its post-independence history and that its polity has come under severe pressure due to the collapse of political institutions followed by erosion of democratic norms, prevalence of social unrest and increasing corruption.  Assam according to her has been witness to the rising demand for power by more social groups on the one hand, and limited resources on the other, which had flared up political and social turmoil.
Moreover, apart from its own diversity what has accentuated the crisis in Assam has been the widening economic disparities and increasing unemployment which posed a major challenge to its stability as a federal unit of the Indian nation. The author highlights the role of communalism; caste prejudices and politicization of ethnicity continue in endangering the social fabric and harmony in Assam.  She strongly emphasizes that these conflicts had led to an erosion of state authority and its ability to usher in social transformation within the society.
The author’s commentary on the rise of various insurgent groups provides an insider view and perspective on regions affected by ethno-politics, which the author attributes to the militarization of the region and the shrinking of democratic space leading to the aggrieved groups resorting to extra constitutional means. This is also marked by rank opportunism, corruption and nepotism which is marked by the steady decline in the mediatory role played by the governing elite and the party system.
The analysis of events including the infamous Nellie massacre and various terror strikes, by the author brings forth an important aspect which must be noted by any scholar of social science, is that of the role of the state, which remains significant in a heterogeneous society. Its complicity especially during sectarian conflicts, robs it of its neutrality and legitimacy, resulting in communities seeking to settle their disputes outside the constitutional domain, resulting in the State becoming an epicenter of conflict.
While democracy and federal polity in India have by and large taken care of its plurality, through constitutional safeguards, it must be noted that the ethnic movements are forms of mobilization, mainly concerned with seeking parity in an uneven social order or competing for power with other groups. They are not necessarily divisive and that the groups can transform themselves into a larger aggregate or split into smaller units during the various mobilizations, as suggested by the author.
The nation-building exercise in India also involves safeguarding the autonomy and interests of the state from the quagmire of ethno-politics, which revolves around distribution of official positions, legislative representation and control over political agendas. The author elucidates this argument and also conveys the futility of the political agendas of various contending groups, since the state remains intact as an institution, with the new rulers’/players only continuing with their old game in terms of perpetuating their domination. So the author clearly suggests that State in Assam has either acquiesced with the politics of mobilization or has tried to deal with it by repression, at different points of time.
The author is very categorical in reading the challenges to the region and has called for utilizing the ethnic identities in a constructive manner to promote nation building and for strengthening democracy.
The publication of this book by Zubaan is a welcome intervention but at the same time it shouldn’t be perceived as yet another addition through the prism of feminist discourse, as has been the case with some other works. It is an account provided by a senior journalist and a social commentator who happens to be an Indian woman and who continues to live life on her own terms whilst being confronted by the male patriarchal order. So in terms of negotiating with an unequal order and saving oneself from the inherent subjugation, the author has displayed tremendous courage and conviction, even to the extent of sacrificing and suffering within the institution of marriage. Yet her equanimity as an individual is commendable since her memoirs doesn’t give an inkling of victimhood, it rather expresses her determination to confront such inequality against women.
In other words one may conclude that Along the Red River is an account of an upright person with self respect and without an iota of self righteousness. Her comments on journalism as a career having a glamour quotient, where women like her were meted out an unequal treatment in the male centric social order, is very pertinent in understanding the underlying discourse in the South Asian societies.
                                                __________

Friday, September 26, 2014

Contradictions of the Indian Intelligentsia (Unabridged Version)



(The unabridged version of my earlier post in Opendemocracy)

The advent of a new government in India has been welcomed with a kneejerk reaction among certain sections of the Indian intelligentsia.  Their main concern has been about the alleged threats to the future of the ‘liberal order’ and to the ‘freedom of speech and expression’ that they claim to have been professing. 

“The respected intellectuals are those who conform and serve power interests”.

-Noam Chomsky

An intellectual should be honest and can take sides, support and as well as oppose based on merits of the issue. In India Modi bashing has been a fashionable phenomenon and it had been the standard hallmark since a decade, to prove one’s intellectual and liberal credentials, something which is akin to a political version of rites of passage[i]. Any debate on religious strife had to invariably revolve around the communal riots in Gujarat, that occurred in 2002 and the alleged culpability of the Narendra Modi, the present Prime Minister of India and the then Chief Minister of Gujarat. The official enterprise of anti-Modi campaign provided a perennial intellectual fodder for certain sections of the Indian intellectuals, and helped them in varnishing their scholarly pursuits and as well as what they proclaimed to be their ‘left and liberal credentials’. This argument had even gone to the extent of not only dismissing the independence and credibility of Indian Judiciary but the refusal to adhere to a civilized and sensible debate on intellectual freedom and scholarship.

Ironically this has led to an Indian version of McCarthyism in the intellectual circles, wherein anyone disagreeing with the anti-Modi discourse, have been selectively targeted and their very scholarly credentials lampooned at in the universities and media studios, in a brazen manner. So this has led to a scenario wherein a considerable number of intellectuals in India by and large even fear, to extend issue based endorsement of the policies of the BJP party, out of political correctness, lest they get branded and enmeshed in the secular-communal debate, in the academic circles. The national polls of 2014, witnessed the shrinking of the numerical strength of the Indian national Congress as well as the Left Front, one of the causes, which Shiv Vishvanathan[ii] attributes to the Left wing intellectuals and their liberal siblings undermining religion as a way of life and for having overemphasized secularism, while the BJP under Modi stuck to the aspiration of the common masses and invoked good governance and economic well being of the common people.

This situation has been further aggravated by the selective intervention by the Indian English media. The Indian English media (TV channels/print and social media), have more or less never questioned the intellectuals subservience to the Nehru-Gandhi family, who have controlled the reigns of the Indian state for the last four decades.  State organs, on the lines of the Ideological State Apparatus, as defined by Louis Althusser, have patronized academic institutions for nurturing ideological foot soldiers in order to promote and perpetuate a certain leader’s legacy.

It also perhaps explains why urban India and its anglicized institutions of higher learning, unlike the west doesn’t nurture an environment where one can have diverse opinions nor does it  even have a caricature of Noam Chomsky, a conscience keeper of a liberal order, who could defy and remain a dissident against the state in United States. Amartya Sen's[iii] recent comments are perceived to be very sober and in consonance with the existing realities, wherein he publicly acknowledged that Modi has every right to govern, after the BJP won in the recent elections. While the electoral results of India are now invoked by the hitherto officially endorsed academics and scholars for seeking some overseas, assignment in western countries, to keep their bogey of ‘defending democracy’ going, Dipankar Gupta[iv] cautions us about the proclivity of some sections of the Indian intellectual class to toe the line of the political class, and let themselves be seduced by inducements, resulting into their degeneration into ideologues for partisan interests, and then become inflexible and refuse to accept contrary facts.


Debate on Freedom of Speech and Expression
  
Girish Karnad's (1998 Jnanpith Award winner) view that the Nobel Prize has given British writer VS Naipaul a sudden authority [v]and his use of it, especially his comments about Islam and Muslim societies, needs to be looked at, is reminiscent of similar disdain displayed by many Indian intellectuals towards the Jnanpith [vi]Award winners in India. Karnad went to comment on the literary credentials of Rabindranath Tagore[vii], the legendary Indian poet and a Nobel laureate for literature. Karnad[viii] questioned Tagore’s contribution to dramatic literature in the country and remarked about his alleged inability to represent the common people and the poor. 

Karnad probably knew what he was doing was controversial, but still worth it, as it had enabled the political motives, in the quintessential politics of left Vs right, if not this drama helps to score some brownie points for the left, and assess them as a yardstick, as to how the "literary" world is polarized in India today. Karnard’s belated response[ix] on Naipaul and Tagore comes at a time after having served in various plum positions in the state funded institutions and also as a Minister of Culture in the Indian High Commission in London. Karnard went on to justify his late response to the limitations, citing being ‘governed’ by the services rules of the state. 

Such contemptuous unfounded views are perceived as more of an academic rabble rousing rather than enriching democratic space or diversity of views, without understanding of the about the relevance and richness of Indian literature in Indian languages. The same argument is used with much more credibility and righteous anger by Dalit[x] scholars about the harsh and abysmal condition of their intellectual space, since Karnard and other upper caste academic coterie are also accused of having appropriated the space of various other cultural groups to represent themselves. 

Joining ‘conscientious’ writer Karnard was his fellow kannada writer U.R. Ananthamurthy[xi] who proclaimed that he wouldn’t like to live in India[xii], if Narendra Modi is elected as its Prime Minister, clearly mocking at the democratic process and universal adult franchise. Ananthamurthy and Girish Karnard represent those hallowed tradition that surprisingly operates in a random fashion yet selectively confronts the ‘system’ or the alternative political discourse. They are very elitist in their manifestation and in a subtle fashion seek to retain the hegemony of the hitherto well entrenched group in the power structure.

Secondly, one would argue that Indian intellectuals, politicians, litterateurs, artists, journalists, and especially all with ‘left or left-liberal’ sympathies, to be precise have failed. In their desire to divide and rule, they outdo the former British colonial state, but all they teach public is pit one against another rather than striving to bring solutions and foster an inclusive society. Indian intellectual space also faces challenges from an excessive reliance on identity politics. It is also felt that the left has used 'political correctness' as a tool to monopolize public discourse, assert its right to speak all the time on select issue and deny any opinion that casts any doubt on the logic and validity of any left-wing discourse, even to the extent of obstructing the basic right to expression. The society has been confronted with a scenario, where anyone questioning the assumptions of the left-liberal and their agenda, is automatically bulldozed away into silence, through a vicious condemnation, from the conventional academic circles, NGOs and the ‘free media’ and all predictable in their regularity. Their hold on the Indian state and it ideological apparatus has been disproportionate to their empirical presence in the institutions of democracy, whom Ashis Nandy[xiii] had termed as tools to ensure political control by the state as some people who were self styled vanguard of the proletariat and arm chair revolutionaries, sought to cleanse higher education of all other ideological strands and went to help the Indian state to quell intellectual dissent.

The case of Joe D’Cruz

The recent issue involving Sahitiya Academy [xiv]award winning Tamil writer Joe D’Cruz[xv], merits mention, who had argued that Jesus was one of the gods incorporated, into the existing pantheon of gods worshipped by his (fishing) community after having embraced Christianity.

The English translation of his first Tamil novel Aazhi Soozh Ulagu which dealt with the lives of fishermen, who converted to Christianity, has been indefinitely halted by Navayana, a self-declared progressive left-liberal publishing house, for having expressed his support for Mr. Narendra Modi, the BJP Prime Ministerial candidate in the Indian national elections, on his Facebook page.

While there is no inherent conflict, to cite Asish Nandy who had addressed the similar dilemmas’ associated with it in his study of the multiple identities through, Facing Extermination- Gods and Goddesses in South Asia[xvi] It has been rather, a pan South Asian experience, that having multiples identities necessarily doesn’t pave way nor result in what one may call a divided self-consciousness. Even prior to the process of Globalization, various groups in Asia, Latin America and Africa and individuals like Gandhi and Tagore had negotiated with multiple identities and were able to reconcile multiple identities and cultural experiences, whether primordial or even constructed due to the membership of a particular class. The issues get complicated when one is forced to do away with the choices and confine to a singular identity as the case of Joe D’Cruz[xvii] suggests.

The official conscience keepers had vociferously questioned the chain of events concerning Penguin Publishers decision to withdraw and pulp Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History[xviii], even when it was an outcome of a legal battle, after the petitioner Dinanath Batra availed the judicial process within the democratic framework. The same high decibel chorus of protests which transformed into ‘conscience keepers’ and upholders of free speech, were conspicuously silent when the publisher’s bullying tactics of seeking Joe D’ Cruz reconsider his decision on Modi, as a precondition to publish his work, had clearly manifested itself in the public domain.

The issues of giving space to dissent and divergent opinion merit attention - in other words can Non-Left opinions be given the space in the so called Indian academic discourse? The stony silence on the freedom and rights of authors like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen, hints at the double standards guide the official intellectual class which also includes eminent scholars and columnists. Rajiv Gandhi government went ahead and banned Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, following pressure by some sections of the Muslims. This provided easy ammunition to articulate political and religious demands by community centric movements notwithstanding its rationale.

The present concern about Modi dismantling the existing structures of power, which had provided the present elite an unrestrained socio-cultural and intellectual dominance[xix] in the day to day affairs, stems from the fear of the perceived sense of loss of self-importance at the hands of new government.

This perhaps explains how the last decade has taught Indians to embrace hatred and deploy the lexicon of dislike in academic and intellectual discourses for their acceptability by the establishment and for getting patronized for it. Hence while dissent and disagreement have been the hallmark in a liberal social order, they are also used in a blatant manner to target political opposition.

In the last 67 years of independence, the discourse gives an impression that the intellectual class is yet to discover India and relate with the challenges that confront their nation and its citizens.

(I would like to thank Mr Vinay Varma and Mr Nataraja Upadhya for sharing their views in an earlier discussion related to the theme of this article.)


[i] Rites of passage by Arnold van Gennep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_passage
[ix] http://www.ibtl.in/column/1316/girish-karnads-toxic-tantrums/
[xii] Dhiraj Nayyar,  Crude Modi bashing is just lazy intellectualism,
[xvi] Ashis Nandy, Facing Extermination - Gods and Goddesses in South Asia,
[xviii] Vivek Gumaste, The Wendy Doniger controversy: An Alternative View,
[xix] Swapan Dasgupta,  AFTER THE VERDICT - The aesthetes versus the outlanders,

Challenges of Religious Terrorism

BOOK REVIEW: Published in The Book Review, Volume XL, Number 3, March 2016, pp. 71-72, ISSN: 0970-4175 Deconstructing Terrorist Vio...