The ruling elite today knows that without an umbilical cord to the West, its status among the liberal classes is open to serious doubt
Indians are globally acknowledged for their talking. Think of an Israeli, the image of an uncompromising doer is conjured (consider the fact that in an era of endemic threats of hijack, the Israeli Airline El-Al has never figured in the media for any attempt at hijack). Think of a Taiwanese, the image of an insatiable learner is conjured (even the book shops in Taipei are converted into virtual libraries with voracious readers sitting at any place inside the shop browsing or reading). Think of an Indian and you picture someone who is expressing an opinion or aggressively advocating some point of view. It is believed that the Indian delegation in the UN holds the record for the longest, continuous talk. It is reported that KV Krishna Menon set that record.
This is not to offer an opinion on whether our well-acknowledged trait of ceaseless talk is good or bad. The profession of the writer of these lines discourages him from being judgmental. But Indians do talk in restaurants, homes, offices, while commuting and in any other place where there is somebody to talk and another person to listen. If there are two or more persons together, there is often a competitive bidding for talk time even though neither may be listening. The more popular topics are of course politics — national politics, state politics, local politics, family politics, and much more. Such themes merit much attention and endless energy. Witness many Indian couples trying to beat out each other for talking space. The conversation often begins in a local language and when the ‘conversationalists’ believe they are losing the edge, they often try to switch over to English — at least to what they believe is English. When this does not win the joust, the pitch of the voice is raised. Usually, the bout ends with one or the other or both the parties getting exhausted. Once they recoup their energies, they are back at it.
Among the current favourite of political themes, clearly “the idea of India” is a frontrunner. Put simply, the flashpoint is of whether Hinduism — whatever content that may have — should have primacy or not. Columns, books, conferences, agitations and whatever else one can think of as handy are at use. One can notice even otherwise quite worthless thinkers occupying spaces as great intellectuals reflecting on history, sociology, or for that matter, even economics. This national sport of ‘talking’ sometimes carries the trophy of political power. So be it. It is obvious, however, that whichever way this debate on the idea of India may or may not go, it does give some visibility to the ‘talker’ in an otherwise status-bound society.
In India, status essentially comes out of cloning Western norms or intellectual traditions. Recently, after 2014, there has been some rearguard action of those who avow tradition to enter the sacrosanct space of eminence and prominence. The battle has not yet quite been won. Time will tell. Meanwhile, even in this regime, intellectual traditions with pedigree in Western tradition are highly valued. Someday, someone may file an RTI asking, “How many Government contracts or contracts from the so-called autonomous bodies of the Government for consulting were awarded to consultancy firms of Western pedigree?”
The answer would be not just interesting but illuminating. In many small and big ways, with all the trappings of indigenous glorification, the ruling elite of 2018 knows that without an umbilical cord to the West, its status among the Indian classes is open to serious doubts. This situation was foreseen by many even in pre-Independent India. Several thinkers of the independent Liberal Party of Britain, who were essentially for Indian independence, had voiced their anxieties. George Lansbury, for example, as an intellectual frontrunner, in his private papers had voiced serious doubts. Looking at the trend of the Indian leadership of certain political parties, his worry was that once the British left India, they would only be handing over power to another set of sahibs, the brown ones at that. They would claim to represent India but be totally steeped in intellectual prejudices of the British ruling elite. This would cover social mores, norms and styles of representation. Realistically, indigenous-based traditions would never grow.
Today the protagonists of “the idea of India” debate seem to have inherited this mantle. They seem to be the 21st century version of their forerunners in the Indian political leadership in the second half of the 20th century. Yes, several of them dress in Indian ethnic clothes but their mentality, intellectual standards and ideals are still rooted in a strange modern version of post-Victorian ideals of what a society is all about. Who knows, one day India will also be over the hump.
(The writer is a well-known management consultant)