The Mess in Our Education & Why Modi is Failing the Youth

I would scarcely have believed that I would be referring to a post from this ultra-extremist, Naxal portal, to write favorably about its purport. Normally, I don't bother to even open the link as I am aware of the biases inherent in the posts published at this site:

https://thewire.in/education/why-are-delhi-university-teachers-out-on-the-road

However, it was Ms Renuka Dhar whose endorsement made me look at it twice as the subject is of immense and immediate importance to this country coming out of the thraldom of the Colonial state before 1947 and the neo-Colonial between then and 2014.

Almost exactly a year ago I happened to be in Delhi and just on a whim decided to visit my old college from where I had graduated with Honors in English in the year 1965. Now, over 53 years later, I found I had enough time on my hands and a visit to the old haunts would be a refreshing outing, especially in the pleasant December weather of old Delhi.

I have very fond memories of my 3 years in Kirori Mal (KM) College, situated off Bungalow Road and across Kamla Nagar. While a student at IIMC from 1965 to 1967, I did visit the college and meet friends, during term breaks, but after that my visits to Delhi became infrequent. This would be the first time I would enter the portals of the college in 50 years. The very thought was exhilarating and I was eagerly looking forward to reliving a part of the past that so substantially influenced my future.

Taught by such luminaries as the Principal, Dr. Sarup Singh, with Profs. Mangat Ram, Hiren Gohain, O. P. Bhatia, S. P. Goyal, and others, I had, what can only be described, a privilege. Our batch had just 11 students and many times Prof. Gohain (who taught us Milton) would take us to the Indian Coffee House, that was just outside the Kamla Nagar gate of the college and buy us a cup of coffee, while explaining Satan's despair in "Paradise Lost." The presence of two ladies in our batch gave us the privilege to sit in the "Family Room" of the coffee house.

Dr. Singh, who taught us Shakespeare, never came to the classroom, but instead held the class in his office. We would sit around the large conference table in his room, and the hours would just fly by. His class had no time limit, and no bell would be rung at a specified interval. It would go on till he wished, and we just sat there, absorbing the sunshine he exuded. Dr. Singh would order pots of tea from the college canteen and we would all be treated to it while he agonized with King Lear. Many of these sessions, that would normally start in the evening, lasted for over two hours. Later in my life I found an equivalent in the English teacher John Keating of the film "Dead Poets Society."

KM college had perhaps the best dramatic society those years. Big B was a student, but didn't do anything much while there. The college won the inter-college youth festival award for the best play in 1964. The play was an adaptation of Edgar Allen Poe's horror story "The Tell-Tale Heart." It had the brilliant comic actor Ravi Baswani in the lead role, with Subhash Nehra, a student from Kenya, Amarjit Singh Gill, and yours truly, in the cast. The play was directed by Raghu Sudan, who later did outstanding work with Yatrik. Other of my contemporaries included brilliant artists like Kulbhushan Kharbanda, (who, incidentally, I am still in touch with), Dinesh Thakur, T. P. Jain, V. M. Badola, and Shyam Arora. Unfortunately, Ravi Baswani, Dinesh Thakur, T. P. Jain and Shyam Arora are no longer in our midst, but they have given some memorable performances during their brief careers in Bombay films. I am not very comfortable with calling that era by its present day nomenclature "Bollywood." Prof. Frank Thakurdas, who taught Political Science at the college, was also the faculty in-charge of "The Players" the name by which our Dramatic Society was known. I was not his student as I didn't have Political Science even as a subsidiary subject. Recently I read that Big B claims to have been taught English by him, but I doubt that very much. Big B was a B. Sc. student, and Prof. Thakurdas did not teach English as a subject.

When we won the award Prof. Frank Thakurdas instituted the award of a College Colour for Dramatics that was pinned to our blazers at the annual day of the college. Normally, college colours are awarded for excellence in sports, and we are perhaps the only group of college students who received it for theater. Designed on the crest of Heidelberg University as the outline, the colour was the size of the breast pocket of a blazer, and buttoned on top of it. In my peripatetic life, I have lost this prized pocket decoration that I wore for many years with great pride.

After graduating in 1967 I was planning to do my Masters in English when I got a letter from IIM Calcutta informing me that I had been selected for admission to the second PGP course that began in August 1965. Apparently, I had done well in the written test and the personal interview that followed. I wasn't sure if that was what I really wanted to do. Dr. Singh also heard that I was unlikely to pursue the subject any further. He sent a word to me that I should see him at his residence that evening. I called upon him and he lectured me for about an hour-and-a-half telling me not to abandon my subject and to continue with English literature and complete my masters. He assured me that he would appoint me as a lecturer in the college immediately after getting my M.A. degree, never mind, even with minimum pass marks. Since I didn't have any business blood in my make-up (we Kashmiri Hindus are more inclined towards bureaucratic, teaching or engineering careers) Dr. Singh left me thoroughly confused. I loved my subject as also the professors who taught me. But then, a career in business with all the attendant financial rewards, was also very tempting. At this juncture I ran into Prof. Frank Thakurdas. I told him what Dr. Singh had advised me and how I found myself at a loss. He said that I would regret if I let go of the IIMC opportunity and recommended that I ignore Dr. Singh's advice.

I heeded him, and to this day have not forgiven myself for the mistake I made. I knew it within a week of joining the institute in Calcutta. But I don't blame Prof. Thakurdas for my mistake. He was a wonderful, kind person and he had only my good at his heart. But, obviously, he didn't know me as well as Dr. Singh did.

What happened after Calcutta is another story and merits a separate post.

Coming back to last year's visit to KM College, I found myself at the same place where the Bungalow Road-Kamla Nagar gate used to stand. I found that the entire area had been built up with shops and the usually wide-open gate had been replaced by an iron-grill gate that was mainly shut, and one could enter only through a small opening in it. Once inside, I found a number of new structures had come up in the open spaces that existed half a century ago. I enquired about the situation of the Principal's office and was delighted to know that it was still where it had been in my times. I was told that the Principal was a lady, and that she was in her office at that time. I found my way easily to the room that used to be at the end of a long corridor on the ground floor. The office was there, but had been divided into two sections. The outer section was occupied by the Principal's secretary and staff, and one had to seek an audience with the Principal through the secretary.

I introduced myself to the gentleman as an ex-student who had passed through the portals of this institution 53 years ago, and would be delighted to pay my respects to the Principal for a few minutes if she had the time. The secretary promptly offered me a seat and went in to see the Principal. Within a trice he was out, holding the door open for me to walk into that hallowed space.

Dr. Vibha Chauhan, the Principal, was standing behind her table, welcoming me to a seat in front. Obviously, I must have come as a blast from the past, a time when she herself might have been a toddler. I could sense her astonishment at seeing a student, well into his 70's, coming back to a college that he had left so long back. I have seen such scenes in films, but never thought that it would happen to me. Pleasantries aside, she ordered a cup of tea and biscuits, reminiscent of how Dr. Singh used to do the same while teaching Shakespeare. But, gone was the long conference table and the chairs around it. The room was much smaller as the outer office had been cut out from the earlier space.

Dr. Chauhan also taught English and had been in this post for one year. But her challenges were much harder than what Dr. Singh faced. She had 5000 students on her rolls and a terrible shortage of teachers. This entire narrative I have inflicted upon the readers is only to highlight what I learnt from my visit to one college last year. Apparently, the college needed another 65 lecturers to be able to do justice to the students on roll. In our days the building consisted of a ground plus first floor. Now an additional floor had been added to accommodate more students. But the shortage of teaching staff was hurting the entire community. The college didn't have the flexibility to appoint more teachers and now we know the reasons for this paralysis from Ashley's article referred to in the beginning. From the information I got that day the numbers given by Ashley are no exaggeration.

We spoke of many things including the theater. Dr. Chauhan told me that the condition of the auditorium would bring tears to my eyes. So dilapidated it had become! We were interrupted by a lecturer of history who wanted the Principal to flag off a group of students who were starting a project visiting the neighboring Kamla Nagar area to unearth its history. Instead of going out the Principal asked the lecturer to call the students in as she had an "interesting ex-student" meaning me, in her office, with whom they should interact. About a dozen bright and eager-looking boys and girls walked in and sat on the sofas. I found them to be very involved in their studies and projects and I realized that I was learning much more from them than they were from me. As a student I had lived in Shakti Nagar, a walking distance from the college, and apparently, a part of the area the students were going to study.

I learned from the young students that this area was once known as Chandrawal village and dairy farming was the principal occupation of its inhabitants. The village had been commandeered by the British Army who appropriated all its produce. Apparently, the farmers had taken a pledge from Jawahar Lal Nehru that after independence the lands would be returned to them. But like most of his pledges even this remains unredeemed. This group was going to visit the descendants of those dairy farmers and reconstruct the history of Chandrawal and its redevelopment into the urban slum it is today.

I couldn't have asked for anything better than this wonderful opportunity to interact with fresh, young minds, and it is with great satisfaction and pride that I can say that KM College has not let its commitment to excellence wane by even one bit, despite all the challenges modern educational institutions in India face. It's not the youth that have failed India. It's the entire political-bureacratic establishment as well as the individual families that have failed them. If we put the JNU question to test here, we will find the same culprits responsible for its current state as a Naxal breeding ground. The Education Ministry, the UGC, and the plethora of other administrative interventions have played havoc with the temples of learning. Seventy years after independence we have not created one Nalanda, but have managed to erect a pathetic caricature in its place. 

The ministry of education was renamed Ministry of Human Rights Development by Rajiv Gandhi. And like everything else he did, this too was a euphemism essentially to hide the lack of any constructive ideas. The name has been carried forward since then, and I am sorry to say that even Prime Minister Modi has treated it with scant attention. The Ministers assigned to this portfolio are uninformed and uncaring about the crucial importance of their charge. The Communists had asked Mrs Indira Gandhi for just one portfolio in return for their support to her Government. She gave them Education and Prof. Nurul Hassan was their appointee to this post. The havoc that this gentleman played with our educational system and institutions is worth a whole library of books on it. Any self-respecting government should have made the correction of this damage its primary goal. But Modi, even in his second term, seems to be completely oblivious of it. I fail to understand why?

After thanking the Principal, the lecturer and the students, I took my leave from them. Later, I sent an e-mail thanking her for the manner in which she received me in her office "when I requested for an audience without a prior appointment." I wrote, and I quote:

"I do not have enough words to express the emotionally overwhelming experience I had while interacting with the students and their history lecturer. The three best years of my life were as a student in KM College, and now I can assert that the one hour in your office and the hallowed precincts of the college almost equal that time and will fondly remain with me for the rest of my life.

"What was even more satisfying was the infectious enthusiasm of the children for the project that they were going to undertake. In fact, it was I who learnt a lot during that brief interaction with the students. 

"Whatever I am today, and whatever I may have achieved in my life, it was KM College, its faculty, and the easy environment of learning that gave substance and purpose to me. I was so happy to note that the same spirit continues to pervade through the corridors of the building even now. I am sure that your contribution towards nurturing that spirit would be no less than that of Dr. Sarup Singh, whose office you occupy today."

To end, it's important to listen to Ms. Renuka Dhar, who writes while bringing the reader's attention to Ashley's article in The Wire:

"Read this article to understand why it is imperative for the Govt to take this protest seriously and respond in a positive manner. The HRD Minister must meet DUTA members and listen to their demands. It is high time the much-delayed regularization process started, #DelhUniversity cannot function without the 4,500 Ad-hoc teachers who're literally the backbone of this premier university. Many of these teachers have been working as Ad-hocs for 10-15 years, the worst sufferers being those with no political affiliations. Several teachers have been waiting for promotions for years. A society that neglects teachers cannot hope for a bright future. Before this confrontation takes an unseemly turn, let the powers that be wake up and act and let those with access to the Govt play an effective role!"

"#EndAdhocism"
"#RestoreRightsOfDUTeachers"
"#StopAdhocExploitation"

Vijaya Dar 

December 05, 2019

Future of Liberal Democracy in an Age of Progressophobia and Optimism Gap *

Taking up from where I had left my post

https://myvoice.opindia.com/2018/11/three-indias-and-a-possible-one-india-in-2019/

published about six months before the 2019 General Election results were to be announced, and just now when the Haryana and Maharashtra state election results have come in, (a period of almost one year) perhaps a fresh look at liberal democracy as it is practised in India seems to be warranted.

In the concluding paragraph I had opined, “the Congress, having completed its turnaround from liberal democracy to hereditary monarchy, has no new weapons in its arsenal and, will inevitably enter the phase of terminal decline from which it will not be able to recover.” Looking at the just concluded election results, perhaps I had been a bit premature in writing my obituary of the Congress party. What is it that I missed when I foresaw “terminal decline” when the party appears to have moved from the Intensive Care Unit into a private ward? The answer to this question has led me into a deeper study of the impulses that led humanity towards liberal democracy, the obstacles it had to overcome, and the possible future of this form of government.

Liberal democracy has its roots in the European Enlightenment; that efflorescence of thought that took place almost simultaneously across many of the European nations. “What is Enlightenment?” Immanuel Kant asked this question in his 1784 essay and then proceeded to answer it as “humankind’s emergence from its self-incurred immaturity.” He further fumed at the lazy and cowardly submission to “dogmas and formulas” of religious and political authority. Kant wrote: “One age cannot conclude a pact that would prevent succeeding ages from extending their insights, increasing their knowledge, and purging their errors. That would be a crime against human nature, whose proper destiny lies precisely in such progress.”

Immaturity and submission to dogmas and formulas was the outcome of an unscientific mind that had relegated into oblivion the great scientific discoveries of the early Greeks, who, in turn, had benefited immensely from the insights of Indian sages and savants. As India fell into darkness after Muslim conquest, and Europe emerged from its medieval Papal rule, science and reason began to reassert themselves in minds that saw the apple fall to the ground instead of floating in air, and looked at distant stars and planets through telescopes, realizing that our earth was not the center of the universe but a tiny dot in a vast, unimaginable cosmos that stretched into infinity.

From Creationism to Evolution was a giant leap from ignorance and superstition to skepticism, empirical testing, debate, discussion and the further quest for reliable knowledge. Apart from the study of stars and the cosmos, the new thinkers pondered over the nature of man himself. The biggest mystery in the Universe was not physics, chemistry or mathematics that, once understood, followed a set of principles that would hold true under most conditions. What was most baffling was the nature of man, a creature who was anything but a perfectly rational agent. The animal instincts that are part of human nature were the hardest to understand and explain. What were the moral sentiments that brought us together; what passions divided us; what selfish shortsightedness destroyed all the good that had been accumulated over a period of time? These were some of the questions that engaged the best minds of the Enlightenment. So, gradually evolved the idea of a universal human nature that, for want of any other better term came to be known as “humanism.” The Enlightenment thinkers saw an urgent need for a secular foundation for morality; because their memories were assailed by the demons of the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, and all such acts that were part of the centuries of religious carnage. Humanism put the well being of the individual man, woman and child over the glory of the tribe, race, nation or religion. It is as an individual that the sentient Homo Sapien feels happy, unhappy, pain or pleasure, self-fulfillment or anguish, not as part of an amorphous mass. The objective was to provide the greatest happiness to the greatest number, thereby making the people the ends rather than means. Human happiness or suffering was what eventually must be the concern of all thinkers, opinion-makers and political leaders.

It was this humanistic sensibility that impelled the Enlightenment leaders to condemn not just religious violence but also the secular cruelties of their age, including slavery, despotism, executions for frivolous offenses such as shoplifting and poaching, and imposing sadistic punishments too numerous to list here. When the Europeans militarily conquered India they were flabbergasted by the Enlightenment and the humanistic sensibility that they discovered in the culture and civilization of the East. The wealth of literature on all subjects including all the sciences must have come as a cultural shock to William Jones and Thomas Macaulay. Despite the fact that millions of works accumulated over centuries had been destroyed by the barbaric Muslim invaders, still there was enough material extant that would make the European Enlightenment pale in comparison. The mission to dehumanize Indians emerged from this cultural shock and 200 years later we are seeing the results of this psychological depredation that followed the physical ruination of Islamic rule.

In the West the Enlightenment movement inevitably threw up a counter-Enlightenment movement. There was a whole class of people who felt threatened by this new philosophy that took away their authority, their unquestioned power to accumulate wealth for themselves. Enlightenment asked them to share their good fortune munificently, if not equally, with the rest of humanity. Most of this countermovement came from the Church that till then had held complete sway over the lives of the laity. The other objections came from Existentialists who believed that human nature’s destiny was not progress but decline. On a finite planet with finite resources it is but obvious that humankind will consume itself into extinction or destroy every living thing in a nuclear holocaust. Between the two protagonists the Doomsday scenario is well covered. The creation of a Superman and the comic book hero is part of this existentialism that looks for an outside agency to put Doomsday behind the clock for a foreseeable period of time.

Fast forward to the present times where the Church has been replaced by another institution that we know as Intellectualism. Intellectuals, as we know them today, hate progress. Though they pretend to be progressive and will write whole volumes in pursuit of their ideas of progress, the fact is that they actually dislike it. It’s not as if they hate the fruits of progress; none of them is averse to flying business or first class from one symposium to another; staying in luxury hotels; using the latest computers, Apple phones and watches; jet-setting across the globe, telling mind-numbed audiences how the world was going on a straight road to hell if it did not abjure the pace of progress at which it was moving. It is the idea of progress that rankles the chattering classes – the Enlightenment belief that by understanding the world we can improve the human condition. Intellectuals of the Amartya Sen kind refuse to see that the world is getting better as they have drunk deep from the fountains of the Prophets of Doom. Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Heidegger, Sartre, and a host of other pessimists had become their Gods, and it was their gospel that they preached to their young impressionable students. Most educational institutions in the West and in India are in the iron grip of these intellectual terrorists and with every passing year they let loose a new brigade of militant students who are fed on this propaganda that we call “Optimism Gap.”

Optimism Gap is defined as the gap between the perceptions of individuals who think that the world is on the straight road to Hell, while they themselves are destined for Heaven. If you ask any of these people if their lives are personally threatened and do they foresee anything unpleasant happening to them, the answer in most cases will be in the negative. But change the question from the people’s lives to their society and they transform into the worst pessimists. Crime rates are definitely going down. It is easy to find statistics that will support this assertion. But ask any individual if he believes crime rates are going down the answer will again be in the negative. Same is true of the economy. Most individuals will tell you that they are generally better off while the country is going to dogs. They are living better, eating better, travelling better, but the rest of the countrymen, whom they cannot identify, are starving, living in hovels and contemplating suicide.

Are they right? Is pessimism correct? It’s easy to see why people feel that way: every day the news is filled with horror stories about war, terrorism, crime, pollution, inequality, drug abuse, and oppression. And it’s not just the headlines we’re talking about. It’s the op-eds and lead articles as well. Headlines warn us of anarchies, epidemics, plagues, collapses, and so many crises (farm, health, retirement, welfare, energy, deficit} that make us cringe and really wonder about the nature of progress. Whether or not the world is getting worse, the nature of news is slanted to interact with us in a way that wants us to believe that it is getting worse. News is about things that happen, not that don’t happen. No journalist is going to stand before a multistoried building and say that the said building has not collapsed. That is not news. As they say, “good news is no news!”

“If It Bleeds, It Leads: The Clinical Implications of Fear-Based Programming in News Media is an article by Deborah Serani in which the author examines how fear-based media weaken the ego’s ability to process trauma and can set into motion a variety of maladaptive defensive operations in patients. A case presentation illustrates the psychoanalytic principles that clinicians need to use to help meet this growing media trend that bears on the human psyche.” And it’s not just the professional media that creates these programs. Every individual with a smart phone today is a potential correspondent capable of reporting live from a disaster site almost like a sports commentator. As we all know, bad things happen quickly; good things don’t happen in a day, take much longer, and by the time their relevance is understood, they are out of sync with a news cycle.

The bias in favour of bad news is programmed in our psyche and page editors or newscasters enjoin their reporters to look for negativity, badger witnesses and victims to elicit negative responses that they spread across headlines or scream on TV channels. It doesn’t matter if the news is false and motivated. The moment is of primary importance. A small retraction later seems enough penance for ruining a whole life, like the recent case of Sarabjit Singh who was falsely accused of molestation by Jasleen Kaur. That the courts have thrown out the entire accusation is only available on social media where the clip of an animated Pooja Shali of Times Now is seen badgering Sarabjit Singh with complete conviction of his guilt. I have yet to read that the present employers of this reporter have sought an apology from her, let alone terminate her services.

The consequences of negative news are themselves negative. Far from being better-informed, heavy news-watchers can become actually misinformed. They worry about crime, even when rates are falling, and sometimes they part company with reality altogether. Consumers of negative news, not surprisingly, become glum, fatalistic, saying things like “Why should I vote? It’s not going to help,” and either do not stir out on voting day or press the NOTA button, which is even worse.

Seeing how journalistic habits and cognitive biases bring out the worst in each other, how can we soundly appraise the state of the world? The answer is to count. How many people are victims of violence as a proportion of the number of people alive? How many sick, how many starving, how many poor, how many oppressed, how many illiterate, how many unhappy? And are those numbers going up or down? All this data is easily and freely available on the worldwide web. One just needs to look for it. A quantitative mindset is actually the morally enlightened one, because it treats every human life as having equal value. However, resistance to the idea of progress runs deeper than statistical fallacies. The objections to progress reveal unpreparedness for the possibility that the human condition has actually improved.

However, is it fair to put the entire blame for people’s pessimism on media’s fondness for bad news for the cynical chase of eyeballs and clicks? No, the psychological roots of progressophobia run deeper. People tend to believe that times were much better in the past and the future holds a lot of apprehensions. People dread losses more than they look forward to gains. They are more stung by criticism than uplifted by praise. Franklin Pierce Adams wrote: “Nothing is more responsible for the good old days than a bad memory.” We tend to take all good things that have happened to us in the past as something that was due to us while looking at the future with dread and apprehension. We take our good fortune for granted and soon forget why it happened, or who made it happen. This negativity bias opens up a market for professional intellectual curmudgeons like Sen, who call our attention to bad things we may have missed, or that are going to happen if we continue to vote for the person he particularly hates. It is another truism that society tends to consider a critic more competent than someone who praises. Musical humorist Tom Lehrer once advised: “Always predict the worst, and you will be treated as a prophet.”

There is another negativity bias that relates to wealth and its creation: the belief that total wealth in a system is finite and people are fighting to divide it up. This brings in the story of inequality. Inequality has always been there even from the times of the hunter-gatherer. The stronger would appropriate the larger portions of food while the weaker ones got the leftovers. Intellectual curmudgeons who want us to believe that the poverty gap has widened inexorably; that the rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer, have bred conflict into this debate on inequality. Nothing could be further from the truth. First, wealth is not a constant number. It’s not a lump of gold or an oil well for the possession of which people will fight and go to war. Today we know that wealth can be created. It is created primarily by knowledge and cooperation, by the application of science to the improvement of material life. The industrial revolution ushered in an economic revolution that generated wealth and the total pie got thicker and thicker over time. Genetic modification of food crops kept the Malthusian nightmare at bay and today one can see that malnutrition and famines of the past are truly found only in the pages of history books. It is true that the rich have become richer as the slice of the pie they get is thicker than before. But it is also true that the sliver that the poor get is also thicker. The gap may have widened but the measure of poverty, as we knew a century ago has itself undergone a drastic change. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) that still continues to be used by economists as the measure of a country’s wealth is no longer an accurate indicator. Aggregate statistics like GDP per capita were designed for an agro-industrial economy, not one in which information and data are the most dynamic sectors. Many of the new goods and services are expensive to design, but once they work, they can be copied at very low or zero costs. That means they tend to contribute little to measured output even if their impact on consumer welfare is very large. Information technology has also launched a process of demonetisation that people today take for granted. Many things that we used to pay for are now almost free, including news, dictionaries, books, films, documentaries, maps, cameras, encyclopaedias, long-distance video and voice calls, and the overhead of brick and mortar retailers. People are enjoying these goods more than ever, but they have vanished from GDP.

Human welfare has parted company from GDP in other ways too. As modern societies become more humanistic, they devote more of their wealth to forms of human betterment that are not priced in the marketplace. A growing share of innovative effort has been directed toward cleaner air, safer drinking water, safer transport, safer and cleaner fuel for household cooking, better and cheaper drugs for diseases, and many more such welfare schemes. A larger amount of funds allocated to these efforts puts a higher value on human life, something that conventional economic theory cannot factor into a nation’s GDP. A rising value of human life may dictate a slower growth in regular consumer goods and services, but a natural interpretation of this trade-off is evidence for the acceleration of progress, not its stagnation.

The threat to human progress comes from political parties that tend to undermine these foundations through populism. This brings back the focus on tribalism as against individualism, caste and class divisions, regionalism, linguistic chauvinism, and other divisive factors. Political parties use populism to pander to these atavistic tendencies among the people and undermine institutions that are the bedrock of societal improvement.

Liberal democracy is a precious thing. Until society finds a better alternative, it is the best we have. It will always have problems, but it’s better to solve these problems than to go back to the era of Totalitarianism, Fascism, Feudalistic Oligarchies or Hereditary Monarchy. Selfish and narrow-minded intellectual social critics have been poisoning voters against responsible custodians and incremental reformers like Narendra Modi, who can consolidate the tremendous progress we have made and strengthen the conditions that will bring us more.

In a world outside of hero myths, the only kind of progress we can have is a kind that is easy to miss while we are living through it. As Isaiah Berlin pointed out, the ideal of a perfectly just, equal, free, healthy and harmonious society, which liberal democracies never measure up to, is a dangerous fantasy. People are not clones in a monoculture, so what satisfies one will not satisfy another, and the only way they can end up equal is if they are treated unequally. Liberal democracies can make progress, but only against a constant backdrop of messy compromise and constant reform.

“The children have obtained what their parents and grandparents longed for – greater freedom, greater material welfare, a juster society; but the old ills are forgotten, and the children face new problems, brought about by the very solutions of the old ones, and these, even if they can in turn be solved, generate new situations, and with them new requirements – and so on, forever – and unpredictably.”

Such is the nature of progress. Pulling us forward are ingenuity, sympathy, and benign institutions. Pushing us back are the darker sides of human nature and the tendency from order to disorder and chaos; the second law of Thermodynamics. Kevin Kelly explains how this dialectic can nonetheless result in forward motion:

“Ever since the Enlightenment and the invention of science, we’ve managed to create a tiny bit more than we’ve destroyed each year. But that few percent positive difference is compounded over decades into what we might call civilization. …. Progress is a self-cloaking action seen only in retrospect. Which is why I tell people that my great optimism is rooted in history.”

The Haryana and Maharashtra results prove to reinforce this definition of the nature of progress. The results are disappointing because the darker sides of human nature pushed the political system from order to disorder and chaos. The people have, mostly unpredictably, opted for short-term objectives, given preference to caste and class, and generally forgotten the mess the previous hung assemblies had bequeathed to them. That a Gopal Kanda could actually win an election or an Ajit Pawar could sail through with a margin of over one-and-a-half-lakh votes shows how the negativity bias works on the human psyche. Let us hope that when these people go to the polling booths in 2024 they will remember the good work of the incremental reformer and not get persuaded by intellectual curmudgeons to bring the patient out of the hospital ward, fully recovered, and ready to repeat its history of uninhibited plunder and destruction of institutions.

*Inspired by Steven Pinker's "Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress"


 Vijaya Dar
Oct 29, 2019

Personal Destiny or Nation – The Choice We Must Make

“Kleptocratic India, The Enemy is Within!” is the title of a thought-provoking article written by Mr. M. G. Devasahayam, a former Army and IAS Officer, who happened to be posted as the District Magistrate of Chandigarh in June, 1975, when Indira Gandhi ushered in the long, dark night of Emergency, and into whose custody-in-jail Lok Nayak Jaya Prakash Narayan (JP) was sent by the District Magistrate of Delhi. The author believes that the Emergency “ushered in, and ripped apart, India’s delicately crafted and carefully nurtured democratic fabric and the institutions of governance.” Tracing the rot in the breakdown of the elite All India Services, when a “committed bureaucratic-police coterie had been smuggled into the Prime Minister’s Household (PMH), and positioned in the Home Ministry, Delhi Administration, and Police” the author delineates the steep decline in the governance of the country, and quotes the Supreme Court’s observation about the “nexus between law makers, law keepers, and law breakers.” It is an article that all citizens of India must read and be concerned about the future of this nation, which in 2014 was fast moving towards becoming a ‘failed state’ until the people rescued it by drumming the Congress out of office.

But then, did the rot really set in with the Emergency? How did Indira Gandhi come to believe that she could take such an extreme step and get away with it? Is only the ruling elite of India responsible for the current state of affairs? What has been the role of the individual citizen in permitting this “Trojan Horse” to infiltrate and subvert the collective conscience of the nation? I think we need to look at ourselves a little more closely, and not only from the end of the Nehru era but also right from the time when we seriously began to entertain the idea of a nation free from foreign rule. From the time we achieved our independence in 1947, we have turned from a nation of brainwashed patriots to a population of in-turned selves. All that we, as an independent nation, have ever cared for is personal destiny: all the other destinies have become burdens. We have failed to see what is really happening; and just as we also failed to evolve new political parties to meet the needs - and dangers - of an increasingly self-centred society, so also we have lacked the honesty to throw away the old masks. Obsession with self is everywhere, and it is reflected in the over 1000 political parties that have sprouted to “fleece the farmers and small investors of their flesh and bones.”

Truly speaking, what we achieved in 1947 was not real freedom but a craving for freedom. Our freedom is a myth in its simple, primary sense. Unlike the Americans (whom we wish to emulate in every way), who have created their own myth of free will, where one can choose oneself and will oneself, we have extrapolated freedom from all living reality. It is a thing in the mind, a dream world we secretly retreat into from our daily ordinary reality. That is what permits our extraordinary tolerance to national decay, of somehow muddling through, our Marxist conservatism and our Nehruvian conservative socialism. Our society, and its actual state, is nothing; merely the dead real world, not the living imaginary one; and that is why we have evolved a rhetoric that always means more than it says, both emotionally and imaginatively. The real tyranny comes from the totally accepted belief in the system, the existing social framework.

The communication industry consisting of the press in the early days, and later of the visual media, sap and leach the native power away, insidiously imposing their own conformities, their limits of vision; denying any existence of what they cannot capture. As John Fowles observed in his magnificent novel ‘Daniel Martin’: “Our cinema and television, through frequently repeated experience, create a paradigmatic effect by analogy, much beyond the immediately seen - indeed, all spheres of life where a free and independent imagination matters.” The much-proclaimed transience of television images and reports is no consolation; one might as well argue that since no one drink can by itself cause cirrhosis, tippling holds no danger.  In spite of their vaunted virtues as disseminators of popular art and instant democracy, there has begun to smell something rotten in the state of both these dominant media. Fowles again: “There is something ominously stereotyping, if not positively totalitarian, in the machine and its servants.” But, just as there is no doubt that many Chinese who did not like Mao and the Communist Party, yet felt that treason against their country was a worse crime, we have inured ourselves to these feelings. The latest case is of Nishant Agarwal, a young 20-something techie working on India’s vital defence systems. The #MeToo campaign raging on social media, brutally exposes the rot that has set in the film and television industry. Fowles was perhaps writing about Hollywood and the British Film industry when he wrote:  “The commercial cinema is like a hallucinogenic drug: it distorts the vision of all who work in it. Its madams, pimps, whores and bullies masquerade publicly as ‘distinguished’ directors and stars, famous producers and agents, simply showing how much there is to hide.” It is perhaps too early to write the history of the period. But when it comes to be written, the media and the communication industry will come in for serious indictment. The hucksters had wilfully blocked a connection between national reality and national awareness of it. But the public, who allowed the block to take place, and to endure, will also stand indicted in the dock. We tolerated a clogging phlegm of pundits and pontificators, editors, interviewers, critics, columnists, media humbugs, puppet personalities, shyster lawyers and attitude-hijackers; a combined media Mafia, squatting on an enormous dung heap of empty words and tired images, and conjoined, despite their private rivalries and jealousies, by one common determination: to retain their own status and importance in the system they had erected.

The fact is that no one really listens anymore, nothing registers: an audience of one billion is an audience of no one. The speed of forgetfulness is approaching the speed of sound. We hear and see, and the next moment it is expurgated. To criticize the glamorization of the worthless, the flagrant prostitution of true human values, the substitution of degree of exposure for degree of actual achievement, now invites an immediate accusation of harbouring obscurant ideas, of being out of touch. Natural processes are all being cosmeticized. The real function is not to inform, but to excuse one from thinking. One feels a pervasive cancer at the heart of one's world; but still prefers it to the surgical intervention that must extirpate the affected organ, preferring the cancer to a freedom from it.

We have perfected the art of compromise, which in reality is a refusal to make a choice - out of cowardice, apathy, and a selfish laziness. The act of going on vacations on election days for some is thought to be “intellectual” as voting is something the uneducated, illiterates do! Now with the NOTA option there are some who will take the trouble of going to the election booth but express their angst through this choice, little realising that the refusal to make a choice in itself is choosing the greater evil.

The Great White Hope of the Congress party refuses to take any responsibility either to help his party out of the morass in which it is stuck, or even to help his family in retaining its hold on power. Being born mummified, his failure to adapt is a result of the huge superstructure of wealth, tradition, family, that he has to carry; but the analogy is better made with the last of the brontosaurs, whose armor dragged them down. When he looks in the mirror, he does not see the reflection of an extinct creature, but instead paints an ideal, dream-self on the glass and begins to see himself in that image.

In the coming elections the country is going to choose its rulers from among a-thousand-and-more political dispensations that are no different in their ideologies, of which the disorder known as kleptomania is the central core. Narendra Modi, in the four years until now, has proved that this disorder is absent from his make up. It is up to us now to seize the moment and make a paradigmatic shift in our political evolution. Another five-year term for Modi will ensure that the Brontosaurs do not get hatched in some forgotten Jurassic park. If we choose correctly and make this shift, we will give ourselves a fair chance to evolve into a civilisation that our ancestors had striven towards before the invasions of the trolls that came from the West. No form of life or political idea has survived on the basis of enforced equality. The whole of evolution depends on the freedom of the individual to develop in his own way. All history, human and natural, demonstrates that - again and again. The country's last chance of walking out of this enforced equality is in our hands. Will we seize it?

Vijaya Dar

Link to M. G. Devasahayam’s article:

http://karnataka.bjp.org/kleptocratic-india-the-enemy-is-within/

“THE LOTUS & THE ROBOTS”

With each passing day the countdown to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections is getting, in the words of Lewis Carroll’s Alice, “curiouser and curiouser.” There are Narendra Modi and Amit Shah on one side looking through the glass at a Mad Hatter who is running from pillar to post searching for an Indian factory where he can manufacture non-Chinese mobile phones. Why he wants to make these in India when Chinese versions are available at throwaway prices is perhaps safely tucked under his hat. There’s also the Red Queen, probably from Javier Moro’s proscribed book, whipping the Mad Hatter into frenzy whenever she looks at the ruins of the Kingdom she had conquered with no effort. Then there are various other characters coming together and separating like Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers while performing their American style Ballroom dances. These, like the Elephant Queen, or the Bicycle Thieves, separate faster and more often than they come together. The Elephant Queen has an ego the same size as her symbol; while the Bicycle Thieves think they are smarter than the Mad Hatter having donned a red cap thinking its colour will compete favourably with Moro’s draped-in-red Queen. Then, there is the buffalo-feed robber, searching with a lantern a way up from the dungeon where he is presently lodged. There are disgruntled ex-Ministers within the BJP, once part of Lutyen’s cocktail circuit, and now made to cool their heels in anterooms waiting for a call to serve the nation. Their methods of showing their displeasure confirm the wisdom of Modi and Shah in keeping them out of the inner circle. Being part of the IAS or a World Bank economist-cum-journalist, or a successful Bollywood villain, does not guarantee an automatic place at the table with Modi. He had found these people out even before he was chosen by the party to lead it in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections.

When Narendra Modi was elevated to the BJP’s Parliamentary Board, it sent shock ways through the political firmament and brought about a virulent reaction from the Congress and the secular brigade; the first casualty of which came from within the NDA. Nitish Kumar’s departure from it, and the sulking of the senior leaders in the BJP, reminded me then of a book of essays by Arthur Koestler, that the Hungarian-British author and journalist wrote after his travels to India and Japan in 1959. The book titled “The Lotus and the Robot” primarily explored Eastern mysticism, through the practices of yoga and Zen. The book was promptly banned in India by the Nehruvian establishment, as was the propensity with the Supreme Leader who brooked no dissent.

Koestler was a political activist, having lived through perhaps the most turbulent period of European history. He was thirteen years of age when the First World War ended in 1918 that saw the end of the Austro-Hungarian, the Ottoman, and the Tsarist Russian empires. As a German-speaking Jew in Europe, the period between the First and the Second World Wars was perhaps the most stifling time for a writer of his talents. Educated in Austria, he joined the German Communist Party, but was soon disillusioned by the state of terror unleashed by Stalin. He resigned from the Party in 1938, having closely witnessed another facet of totalitarianism in Franco’s Spain, and immigrated to England. In 1940, he published “Darkness at Noon,” a novel that is as strong an indictment of totalitarianism as George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four.”

Koestler’s terrific sense of phraseology has resulted in some very catchy titles that adorn his writings. Apart from the two titles mentioned above, he also wrote: “The Yogi and the Commissar,” “The Ghost in the Machine,” “Thieves in the Night,” “Arrival and Departure,” and “The Age of Longing,” besides several other works of fiction and non-fiction.

But, as is my wont, the reference to Koestler’s writings in this essay, is actually not any critique or an appreciation of his craft. It is just my way of writing. When I read a book I tend to pick out words, sentences, and sometimes whole passages that can be used to expand a particular idea that I may be developing in my mind. My indulgent readers would have noticed that I write opinion pieces on current politics as it is shaping up in India, and I usually build these pieces around a phrase, or a word from a known work of literature. My last piece was constructed from the writings of Manohar Malgonkar and John Spencer Hill, two writers, poles apart in their styles and themes. But, the response from my readers has been encouraging enough to allow me to indulge in my favourite method once again. The inspiration I draw from these intellects is enough to make my two-bit opinions a bit more weighty and sound scholastic.

Now, coming to the crux of this piece:

In 1975 Indira Gandhi imposed a state of Emergency to save herself from political oblivion. When the Emergency was lifted in 1977 it brought about a whole new experiment in Indian politics. For the first time since Independence, a right of the centre party, that Nehru and the Congress publicly reviled, had found common cause with the socialists, and a new dispensation called the Janata Party replaced the Congress at the centre. But the experiment did not last even two years. The socialists within the Janata Party took objection to the Jana Sangha members retaining their membership of the RSS, and brought about the collapse of the experiment. The break-up of the Janata Party led to the formation of small, left-leaning, sectarian, regional, parties that became the private fiefdoms of political warlords whose sole purpose was to amass huge personal fortunes that would be used for buying elections in the future. The political landscape of the country had completely changed from the days of Nehru in the first flush of Independence, when people voted for the Congress, as it had no worthwhile opposition anywhere in the national or regional arenas. Vote-bank politics, that was largely absent till 1979, raised its ugly head, as political parties vied for power on narrow regional, sectarian, class and caste calculations. The Jana Sangha, which was a major constituent of the Janata Party, also morphed into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), replacing its symbol of a lighted lamp with a lotus flower in bloom.

In disgust, the people voted Indira Gandhi back into office, giving her and the Congress a new lease of life. But, by now the Congress had shed all those members who had made common cause with the Janata Party and challenged the leadership of Indira Gandhi. The new Congress that emerged was christened Congress (I), making it a political vehicle wholly dedicated to her persona. Indira Gandhi systematically dismantled the structure of the old Congress party by concentrating absolute power in her hands; forcing the state legislatures to (s)elect her nominees as their leaders. She nominated each Chief Minister, and the party had no say in the matter. Inner-party democracy disappeared and sycophants and flatterers quickly filled the spaces vacated by dedicated Congressmen. Dissent was promptly suppressed and chosen commissars were unleashed upon those who dared to differ. They were heckled and hounded out of the party by being dubbed as “CIA agents” or simply “anti-nationals.” The “court jester” of a Congress President, Deb Kant Borooah completed the transformation of the once grand old party to a fascist dispensation when he said that “Indira is India, and India is Indira”. Indira Gandhi, at the top of the power structure, started the emasculation of the Congress party and gradually replaced the human elements with mechanical robots, trained to genuflect to the ruling Deity, and open their mouths only to stifle dissent and to sing paeans in praise of the First family.

Politics across the country became a fertile ground for violent conflict, unleashing vast fires of strife between castes, creeds, languages, and every other distinction among the people of the land. Punjab was the first state to burn in this conflagration.

The actions of the two Sikh bodyguards of Indira Gandhi, in 1984, would have very far-reaching ramifications. Coincidentally, it was the year that George Orwell had chosen for his ‘futuristic’ depiction of a dystopic state at its peak of power and repression. The resultant retribution that the automatons and their mindless legions visited upon the hapless Sikh community has been recorded in great detail, and it is not my purpose here to revisit those terrible times. Within less than a generation after the dismemberment of the Indian subcontinent, India was once again descending into religious fratricide, dividing the nation into smaller constituents of Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs etc., and into even smaller fragments along sect, caste, and class; each constituent ready to spring at the throat of the other at the slightest provocation.

But did these tragedies make any difference to the descendants of the Nehru-Gandhi’s? On the contrary, Rajiv Gandhi followed the same policies, which perhaps led to his own tragic assassination. If anything, his widow has perfected the art of Total Dictatorship and taken it to levels that were matched only by Mao or Stalin. This is the state of affairs that has continued from that fateful year in 1979 when the Robots and the Lotus first began their struggle for political control at the centre. The automatons of the Congress have systematically hounded out all potential threats to the First Family, and have brought the party down to such farcical levels that the best it can field in the upcoming elections are, to my mind, mechanical robots programmed only to replay the inanities of the Mad Hatter. Not that these people were actually blessed with the ability to think independently! The reason they have stuck to the First Family like limpets is precisely that! They are unable to reason for themselves. As the poet said: it’s not for them to reason why, but just to do and die. Lord Tennyson’s Light Brigade had 600 brave soldiers who were ready to charge into the valley of Death, knowing they were fighting for a higher cause. But the Mad Hatter’s Robots are riding into the hereafter fighting for the basest cause. The tragedy is that they are not even aware of it!

The Red Queen and the Mad Hatter have no time for anyone who has even an iota of intelligence. It is appalling to listen to party apparatchiks like Surjewala, Manish Tiwari, Sanjay Jha, Rajeev Gowda, and others mechanically repeating the lies and inanities uttered by their Hatmaster. Here’s a Tweet that perfectly expresses how the so-called senior leaders of the Congress have become mere programmable automatons:

This collection of programmed and programmable Robots would do any puppet-master proud. The Robots have been unique in letting opprobrium upon opprobrium wash off their synthetic backs, day in and day out, and still continue “to crawl when asked only to bend.” They are the closest to Orwell’s Winston Smith after having been “treated” by O’Brien and his colleagues, in what is best described by Nandini Bahri-Danda as LYBB (Leave Your Brain Behind) chamber, where they are made to see the “light”.

Meanwhile, the Lotus, after the departure of Vajpayee from the scene, found it difficult to raise its head above the mud. L. K. Advani, with his penchant to go on rath yatras on makeshift automobiles, in search of a utopian Ram Rajya, looked more and more like Cervantes’ Knight of the Sour Countenance, tilting at imaginary windmills. After the unpleasant surprise of 2004 this Lord of Lost Causes kept losing one state after another, destroying any chances of the BJP becoming a serious contender for power at the centre. Until Narendra Modi came upon the national scene, it looked like the Congress would really have no worthwhile challenge from the opposition.

“The people who must never have power are the humourless.” This is what Christopher Hitchens wrote in June 2011, shortly before his untimely death. Can you imagine a more humourless bunch than Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, and Mamata Banerjee? Add the visages of Chidambaram, Kapil Sibal, A. K. Antony, Salman Khurshid, and the entire Congress leadership, and you will be seeing perhaps the most humourless faces in one group in history. To quote Hitchens once more: these are the kind of people who are “secretly hoping to prove that it is they themselves who are the pet of the universe…those who overcompensate for inferiority are possessed of titanic egos and regard other people as necessary but incidental.”

We must hope that the general public is no longer swayed by these interlopers and has learnt to use its vote with deliberate discretion and careful consideration. Those who wish to divorce the BJP and get married once more to the Congress must recall Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous quip: “A second marriage is a triumph of hope over experience.” 1979 and 2004 are enough indicators that the “triumph of hope” in these marriages is merely ephemeral while the tragedy of experience is permanent!

Vijaya Kumar Dar