The narration did not stop there. It went on to mention that the survey was done by a certain Mr Stuart Crainer and Mr Des Dearlove. Unusual names but surely these are not the only usual names which the world has had.
The second paragraph of the mail said, “I would like to draw your attention to some of the names of the thinkers living in India”. It named six people and — no prize for guessing — the Director General figured prominently in the list. That was not a surprise. I went through the list of names, and some of them I could identify. So, I looked for the names which are popularly associated with ‘thinking Indians’ like Amartya Sen. He did not qualify. One can only presume that he did not make the grade of Messers Crainer and Dearlove. I would have been delighted to know the criteria which one had to meet to be called ‘Thinkers50India’.
I was left wondering why such mails are sent. Clearly my name figures in some mailing list which could broadly be of those who need to be informed, for whatever reason. This experience needs no comment and it is perhaps neither unique nor symptomatic of any other feature than to create a brand name which the concerned Director General aspires to. I don’t wish to sound even remotely uncharitable or unsympathetic. He is a dear friend and over decades I have watched him go places. I admire him for that. He is not the only one who seeks branding and status.
The academia, the intelligentsia, the world of written and printed word is populated by self-styled iconoclasts (Notice the number of paid-for awards). The game of one-upmanship and the ‘spirit of holier than thou’ pervades much of the terrain. These are characteristics of so-called thinkers not only in India but elsewhere too. Only that in India the characteristics are a little more pronounced.
That situation arises because the standard of benchmarking is neither clearly articulated nor widely acceptability. Claims to scholarship are many and scholarship by drawing upon the help of ‘cheerleaders’ is becoming increasingly common. This does not inspire confidence in a society which is already riddled with corruption and dishonesty. The political class has been increasingly held guilty of much of this but that is largely because it has more power and patronage than any other.
The quest for social primacy is rooted in the aspiration for all that goes with power. It includes gender indulgence, gadgetry comfort, and the privilege of priority access to resources. The queues are long everywhere; those who do not matter are far too many for comfort, priority helps. It is, therefore, natural to aspire for eminence and fame but if it is not deserved, this can be like the topping of beer with a lot of fuzz but no substance. This is where the jostling begins and substance gets ignored.
These are matters of grave concern because they become endemic. The labels become more important than the substance, and the rush to get ahead without deserving to be at the front intensifies. New players and actors emerge. Public relation companies get into the act and media becomes abnormally powerful. Not only can careers be made and unmade but propensity to manipulate becomes almost a matter of specialisation. Corruption is merely the most obvious manifestation of this phenomenon and is unlikely to be contained unless the root causes are tackled.