The recent controversy over Nobel laureate Amartya Sen's remarks point to a dangerous trend where contrary views have no place. But Sen should also have been careful with his statement, writes Abhijit Bhattacharyya
Even as the dust begins to settle on the brouhaha created over Nobel laureate Amartya Sen’s controversial statement on Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, it would be worthwhile to ponder on just one thing: The growing intolerance within society, which is increasingly becoming touchy; where contrary views have no place and any adverse comment is taken as a personal affront that has to be immediately countered, harshly, ruthlessly.
And we are supposed to be a democratic polity, where freedom of speech and expression is a right bestowed by the Constitution!
But back to the controversy and the flurry of unseemly tit-for-tat comments for and against the Nobel laureate who says he does not regret his controversial statement that he would not like to see Mr Modi as India’s Prime Minster. He argues that as an Indian citizen he has the right to express his opinion on the kind of Prime Minister he would like, and was “surprised and disappointed” by the demand made by an angry BJP MP that his Bharat Ratna, conferred no less than by the veteran leader Atal Bihari Vajpayee 14 years ago, be taken back for his anti-Modi remark. In an interview with a news channel, the world-renowned economist also emphasised that his criticism of Mr Modi was not an endorsement of the Congress-led UPA Government.
But there was no quelling the tide of criticism. Though dubbed as a “foreign national” by his detractors, as he does not reside in India or participate in the electoral exercise, Mr Sen is emphatic about and proud of his Indian identity. He is not just a Bharat Ratna but a ‘ratna’ shining brilliantly in the economic domain around the globe. And despite the encomiums and recognitions coming his way, he has never given up his Indian citizenship as some of his contemporaries have done. He is known around the world as an Indian economist, an Indian Nobel prize winner, and an Indian thought leader.
Indeed it is a measure of his erudition, his stature in the world of academia that when he speaks, and this is often, given his pressing public-speaking/lecture assignments around the world, Governments take note and lawmakers stop to listen.
As a professor-at-large, Mr Sen has thrived on these interactions with his global audience. Hence, why should it be held against him if he waxes eloquent on subjects close to his Indian heart, or publicly expresses his views on the model of development in one Indian State being better than the development agenda of another State; or why a certain popular leader in his opinion does not qualify to occupy the nation’s top postIJ But his ‘personal views’, described as ‘biased and motivated’, were challenged by a senior BJP Member of Parliament who went so far as to suggest that the “next NDA Government must strip him of Bharat Ratna”. It is quite another matter that following the political storm this comment generated the MP had to express regret saying he had ‘overstated’.
However, in all fairness, one must admit that if the BJP MP’s utterances are ‘fascist’, then the Nobel laureate’s views too could be deemed ‘controversial’ and ‘provocative’. There clearly existed a potential conflict-creating rationale on the part of Mr Sen when his so called ‘personal opinion’ about the Gujarat Chief Minister being ‘unacceptable’ to him ‘as the Prime Minister’ was seen as a personal attack on a democratically-elected Chief Minister of one of the most advanced States of India.
If a person gets elected thrice (with an absolute majority), through an open, free and fair election, as the Chief Minister, does it imply that the voters of that State have made a wrong choiceIJ Will it be correct to assume thatIJ The controversy does not end here as the Nobel laureate has been targeted by one of his contemporaries, of equal standing and credibility, on his brand of economics and the model of economic development ideal for India. That indeed make things more complex than what it ideally could have been.
In juxtaposition, will any American Nobel laureate of Amartya Sen’s stature criticise and oppose several unprovoked wars by the US President in recent timesIJ Unfortunately, Western nations are more reticent when it comes to criticising their leaders even at the face of proven and transparent wrong doings. Even in a country like China where despite internal divisions and differences one rarely comes across public abuse and criticism of the Chinese leaders by the people in general. China today stands as a shining example for its nationalist fervour.
This is not to suggest that Indians lack any of the virtues that go into making a patriotic citizen. As there is no scientific formula describing or prescribing as to what it takes to be a true citizen, no value judgement can be possible. But suffice it to state that today, politically-surcharged India is a sharply divided scene where the predominant sentiment is: “If you are not with us, you are against us”. And that is a very dangerous portent for a democratic polity.