Do liberals have courage to fight intolerance for the right wing?
Results for Bihar Assembly elections were announced in the first week of November last and thereafter, suddenly we saw a change in, what can be described as "the discourse of the day". Debate about intolerance suddenly disappeared only to be resurfaced in JNU in early February.
Many in academia and intelligentsia repeatedly assailed Modi government but few of them could gather the courage to even disassociate let alone unequivocally condemn slogans like "Desh ki barbadi" or "Bharat tere tukde honge". Does it really require courage to condemn what is genuinely condemnable? Absolutely, it does.
Such is the intensity of the grip of so called progressives on academic affairs that they remain silent even in the face of attempts to glamourise disintegration of the people and the country as well. In an atmosphere dominated by "Tyranny of Political Correctness", many law-abiding individuals also choose to keep mum. This is mainly because one is threatened by the fact that he/she may end up becoming a persona not grata for refusing to go by political correctness.
The point not to be missed here is whether those clamouring for an academic freedom and autonomy really have any credence. Had that been the case, why and how could they digest bans on writings of Taslima Nasreen? Or, denial of freedom of screening of the film Da Vinci Code few years ago? Years after years, the ghost of selective and politically correct support to freedom of expression has been visiting us and those claiming to be custodians of liberalism, betraying their vociferous commitment to convenient cases and remaining eloquently silent about the other. Take the case of Aryan invasion theory. Although highly-acclaimed historians have long rejected this theory, group of historians in India continue to stick to the same. None of those had any qualms in accepting Teesta Setalvad as a historian commissioned to write a book for teachers, as revealed recently.
Many in the literary and creative circles feel that regardless of who is ruling the country, they rarely have the liberty to speak against the licence to suppression in their own circles. Sadly, many believe that objective consideration was never a hallmark of either the institutional mechanism or organisational activism in the intellectual world, whether the platform is of scientists or association is of littérateurs, or even journalists. Dominance of a particular clique, consolidated through usual tactics of group-politics or groupism only to be defended under the pretext of promoting liberalism and progressivism (read: a crass non-BJPism only to keep the BJP-RSS out of the establishment) has more often than not, been ruling the roost in these bodies. This could well be described as something more sinister and hard to break "networking of vested interests". If you are openly associated with the RSS, ABVP, BJP or any RSS inspired organisation, chances are that you will continue to miss most buses in your career, especially in academics, media or even in areas like theatre and literature.
Take the example of organised labour unions in sectors like banking. Here too, thought-apartheid has always remained very strong. Leaders of those unions who call themselves as progressive and liberal just cannot tolerate their members aligning with other ideologies.
It's ironic, even Dalit writers engaging with the RSS have had to face this discrimination. In 1993, at our Rambhau Mhalgi Prabodhini, we established a library for social activists, named after Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. We invited Dr Sharan Kumar Limbale, now a well-known Dalit litterateur but a young, upcoming writer of those days as chief guest at the inaugural function. He gladly came and spoke very well.
But later, many openly criticised him and he was forced to face a kind of ideological apartheid, depriving him of certain awards for a while. Not surprisingly then, that two recent ghastly murders of Dalit activists in Aligarh and in Agra did not find even a cursory mention in utterances of the JNU leaders or for that matter, even Behenji. Reasons are obvious. Those murdered belonged to the BJP and VHP and hence their deaths deserve no condemnation.
Scores of examples could be cited to support this thesis. Years before, a much celebrated Marathi playwright had openly said that if somebody avails him a gun, he would go and shoot Narendra Modi. While his provocative statement created a flutter, there were very few rational voices to convincingly and openly condemn this kind of an attempt to give respectability to violence.
This kind of ideological apartheid is at the basis of objections being raised to the RSS-leaning academicians being appointed as vice chancellors. Are they second-class citizens? If they qualify the norms, why should one be objecting to their appointment? If professor Nivedita Menon can openly call Jammu and Kashmir is illegally occupied by India, why can't those espousing the idea of national integration and unity enjoy at least semblance of respectability in corridors of universities?
This happens because there is a very strong networking of vested interests (NVI) in academics. This involves gagging the opposite view, cartel-ing for protecting certain individuals, promoting only those who are "ready to crawl when asked to bend" and eventually not only rejecting but suppressing merit at the cost of quality of the enterprise. What should cause serious concern is that this never gets discussed, much less focused in media.
Understandably, attacking government is always easy. It is the most attractive way of portraying oneself as a torch bearer of liberalism. To take cudgels against the ruling clique in any establishment you interact with almost every day - be it housing society where you live, educational institution where you teach or any office where you work - demands huge courage, a commodity normally in short supply.
This is not to suggest that outburst of littérateurs needs no serious consideration. Certainly not. They deserve respect for their creativity and intellect regardless of their ideology. But that doesn't mean that they can get away with double standards. The only limited point therefore is that like commoners, creatively talented persons - authors, scientists and academics as well - too have their own limitations, deserving their anti-establishment postures to be seen with suspicion.
Hypocrisy therefore is not confined only to politics. And perhaps, a hypocrite politician facing electorate every five years could easily be a much lesser evil than any intellectual indulging in dishonesty bordering cheating.