The Public Intellectual in India

by Romila Thapar, Sundar Sarukkai (Contributor), Dhruv Raina (Contributor)

The public intellectual in India is an endangered species. Should we care? In this well-argued book, Romila Thapar and others tell us why we should. Thapar begins by defining the critical role that such individuals play in our societies today. Collectively, they are the objective, fearless, constructive voice that asks the awkward questions when government, industry, religious leaders and other bulwarks of society stray from their roles of ensuring the proper functioning of a country whose hallmarks are (or should be) social and economic equality, justice for all, and the liberty to say, think and profess the fundamental requirements of good citizenship. Through the lens of history, philosophy, science, and politics, she shows us the key role enlightened thinkers and activists have played in India, Europe and elsewhere. Today, as the liberal space in India is threatened by religious fundamentalism, big business, and, worryingly, a government that appears to be tacitly (and sometimes overtly) encouraging the attack on freedom of expression, secular values and rational readings of history, there could be no book as timely as this one. With contributions from writers and scholars in the fields of philosophy, science, history, journalism and social activism, The Public Intellectual in India shows us why it is important to have independent voices to protect the underprivileged, ensure human rights and social justice, and watch over the smooth functioning of our liberal, secular democracy.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, India, Essays, Philosophy

204 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 8, 2015

About the author

Romila Thapar is an Indian historian and Professor Emeritus at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

A graduate from Panjab University, Dr. Thapar completed her PhD in the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London.

Her historical work portrays the origins of Hinduism as an evolving interplay between social forces. Her recent work on Somnath examines the evolution of the historiographies about the legendary Gujarat temple.

Thapar has been a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the College de France in Paris. She was elected General President of the Indian History Congress in 1983 and a Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy in 1999.

Reviews

[Nandakishore Mridula · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bol, yeh thoda waqt bahut hai
Jism o zaban ki maut se pahle
Bol, ke sach zinda hai ab tak
Bol, jo kucch kahna hai kah le

(Speak, this brief time is ample
Before the dying of the body and tongue
Speak, for truth still lives
Speak, to say what needs to be said)

This book, presented by Romila Thapar and comprising of essays by her and others, begins with this poem by the revolutionary poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz: appropriately, because it is about saying what needs to be said – fearlessly. A tall task for many in India today, when intellectuals are attacked and even murdered for their views.

On October 26 2014, Romila Thapar gave lecture to the Book Review Literary Trust, titled ‘To Question or Not to Question, That is the Question’. This was revised and expanded, and five intellectuals –Sundar Sarukkai, Dhruv Raina, Peter deSouza, Neeladri Bhattacharya and Jawed Naqvi were asked to respond to specific points mentioned therein. What we have as the result is a fascinating kaleidoscope of liberal arguments – not always in agreement, but always relevant and illuminating.

In the introduction, Ms. Thapar clearly delineates what, according to her, is the major problem in contemporary India – the hijacking of every discourse by the majoritarian narrative.

Religion and politics are now seemingly deeply entwined, although more often than not, the root cause for disruptive behaviour is not hurt religious sentiment, as is claimed, but a bid to assert power and control over some crucial aspect of civil society.

To that end, the colonial view of India as that of a monolithic Hinduism versus a monolithic Islam is being promoted by the people who claim, ironically, to be fighting against ‘colonial falsehoods’. Any dissenting view – whether in the field of sociology, history, science, literature and whatnot – is violently reacted against.

The demand for burning and pulping books continues apace, together with the virulent abuse of the authors wherever possible and more so in the social media. The abuse is louder when it comes from those who proudly claim not to have read the books they are condemning. And this is generally the case. Publishers have begun to seek legal opinion before publishing a book. The laws of blasphemy are probably not far behind. Films and documentaries are banned or threatened with banning, or they are censored for little reason.
...
Intellectual differences are now being settled via assassination, as happened with Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare, or with death threats. Terror can also be associated with the agencies of the state, claiming to protect citizens. Worse can come from fellow citizens motivated by extremist ideologies. This lies at the root of the politics of communal riots.

In such a situation, what is worrying is not that the intellectuals don’t speak out – they do – but “the critical mass that is required for public debate to become essential to our civic life is not as large as it needs to be”. That is, the debates are not loud or penetrating enough. And according to Romila Thapar, “Democracy without its complement of secular thinking falls short of being a democracy. Secular thinking has to induct degrees of rationality and logic, as philosophical ways of thinking... Let me reiterate that a democracy ceases to be so if it is governed by permanent majoritarian identities of any kind.”

(Before going further – I am aware that there are many who dispute this contention; many who say that India should not be secular but a Hindu nation. This book is not for them.)

This book comprises six essays. The first one, ‘To Question or Not to Question: That is the Question’ is developed by Ms. Thapar from her speech, and as said above, the other essays are responses. Then Romila rounds it up with her conclusion. As it is written by many, it is rather uneven in quality – but it does succeed in delivering its key message.

To Question or Not to Question: That is the Question

The fundamental catalyst for the public intellectual (and this was the title of the lecture on which this book is based), from the outset, was derived from the following principle: To question or not to question? That is the question. Once that question was answered satisfactorily, everything else followed. It is a principle that remains relevant to the present day.

Thapar’s answer is, of course, to question – and she draws upon enlightenment history and our own argumentative past, and the relative liberalism of the Nehruvian era, to highlight the importance debate to a vibrant society. She bemoans the shrinking of the liberal space, as well as the declining standards of education, and historical and scientific research – all the result, apparently, of reducing the national narrative to one narrow stream of thought. In this scenario, intellectuals simply not doing enough.

We are not bereft of people who can think autonomously and intelligently and ask relevant questions. But frequently where there should be voices, there is silence. Are we all being co-opted too easily by the comforts of conforming? Are we fearful of the retribution that questioning may and often does bring? How can we create the independent space that will encourage us to think, and to think together?

To Question and Not to Question: That is the Answer

In direct answer to the title of Thapar’s essay, Sundar Sarukkai provides the methodology of critical questioning in what is positively the most engrossing essay in this volume. According to him, questioning for its own sake – pure scepticism – is not as productive as ‘critical questioning’, that means, questions raised on a foundation of commonly accepted concepts. This is based on the methodology of scientific questioning, which has surprising concurrence with India’s own Nyaya tradition.

Scientific enquiry is based on the possibility of questioning while at the same time not questioning. This is what distinguishes it from scepticism. Scientific questioning occurs largely within paradigms, theories, models and an established framework.

Anyone who just questions everything is a mere sceptic – even though he too is important in a debate, the intellectual who questions from the firmament of a basic framework is more effective in arriving at a solution. Sarukkai stresses the importance of the ‘maybe’, also, in addition to the ‘yes’ and the ‘no’ as the obvious answers of questions. But to ask any question, however, the intellectual has to be one hundred percent honest with himself – and relentlessly question one’s own biases. In addition to this, he has to “imagine the other”: that is, try to stand in the shoes of the one with whom he is debating.

Finally, we need to distinguish between two ways of engaging with the other: through questioning the other and through imagining the other. Both these ways of perceiving and engaging with the other are extremely important in public discourse... More than ‘knowing’ the other, which critical questioning might enable, imagining the other leads to ‘understanding’ the other... Thus, I would interpret Thapar’s point about the need for public intellectuals as being equivalent to a call for cultivating certain kinds of habits. And the two habits that are essential are those of questioning the other and imagining the other. Once these modes become habits, then social and public discourse will automatically change.

This seems solid advice worth taking.

Science and Democracy

In this essay, Dhruv Raina ponders on the social aspects of (or the lack of it in) science. The concept of the value-neutrality of science – an essential requirement for scientific objectivity – came to haunt human society after the First World War. Science was appropriated mercilessly by totalitarian and capitalist regimes. In India, where the climate of societal debate about the values of scientific development prevailed in the fifties and sixties, have been replaced with one of utilitarian outlook.

This was the weakest essay in the book, according to me. Even though I agree to all the points raised, I believe the author should have elaborated on the lack of scientific outlook in our education curricula. We are a society which breaks coconuts for the success of space missions! Science has been reduced to just a tool for technicians.

Living Between Thought and Action

The intellectual is the one who always thinks things through – so much so that it is difficult to say exactly when it’ll translate to action – if at all. It is this dichotomy between the roles of the ‘autonomous thinker’ and the ‘advocate of social justice’ supposed to be played by the public intellectual, that is the subject of Peter Ronald deSouza’s essay. He says

This means that when the public intellectual intervenes in the public sphere he or she has to allow one persona to be dominant over the other. This point at which one persona yields to the other, the ‘tipping point’, needs to be understood.

DeSouza analyses why intellectuals remain quiet, and what it means for Indian politics. After looking at three intellectuals and their travails, he lists out four factors which prevents them from speaking out: “(i) public authority, (ii) social groups, (iii) one’s peer community, and (iv) the self.”

We are all aware of how governmental authority is muzzling all dissent today, through intimidation. The instances of caste and religious groups holding the society to ransom against the freedom expression is also evident. Apart from these, the pressures of aligning with one’s peer groups and also the voluntary decision to remain quiet (either due to cowardice or in the hope of obtaining benefits) also lead to intellectuals not speaking up.

Peter deSouza identifies six ‘vantage points’ from which the public intellectual must speak: (1) social/ religious criticism, (2) ecology and development, (3) university and education, (4) science and technology, (5) rationalism vs superstition and (6) miscellaneous (satire, ridicule, rebellion etc.) While all the first five points are not actively targeted by intellectuals nowadays, the sixth one has ample representation, though mostly by ordinary citizens. They may not be intellectuals, but they are doing the job (I always knew that my one-liners in FB were good for something!).

Framing a Question: Questioning a Frame

In this perceptive essay, Neeladri Bhattacharya agrees mostly with everything Thapar says, except for one thing: the past was not so great, and it is not there that we should be looking for inspiration to speak up. The Enlightenment which demolished existing orthodoxy created a repressive system of its own. In India too, we quote Buddha and Mahavira as dissidents, but they were essentially visionaries and intellectuals – and those intellectuals of the Nehruvian era functioned because space was given to them. So dissidence on the public stage cannot be imbibed from the past but must be created in the present.

Bhattacharya quotes Socrates, and his method of persisting questioning, as a tool for bringing about change (here he partially contradicts Sarukkai). However, the questioning need not be at the global level but “smaller acts of persistent questioning that can be the basis of a critical public culture so important for the small changes that matter—small changes that at times develop into big changes”. But simple questioning is not enough without actions, however small, to support them. Also, we need to know the reason for the silence – apathy, fatalism or fear – and deal with it accordingly.

The Indian Intellectual and the Hindu-Muslim Trap

Of all the essays, this last one by Jawed Naqvi is the only one which meets the communal question head on: the resurgence of the belligerent right-wing and the reduction of every communal issue into the Hindu-Muslim binary. According to him, this false dichotomy has been created and nurtured by all politicians (including Gandhi and Jinnah, and the leftists) to bury the real fault-line in the Indian polity: that between Dalits and the rest.

He points out the virtual blacking out of Ambedkarian thought from the history of the freedom struggle, and the scant attention paid to the Poona pact when Gandhi literally threatened to commit suicide to prevent Dalits from getting their electorates. Also, right-wing forces as well as the centrists and left were equally interested in enlisting them into their fold as ‘Hindus’. And Dalits are never allowed to forget their station, even when they convert.

According to Naqvi

Perhaps the only sensible course for the public intellectual today is to work for a sound strategy to blend Ambedkar’s fight for the annihilation of caste with the overarching liberal struggle for social justice. It is probably the only worthwhile way for India to keep its tryst with the promise of secularism, democracy, gender and social equality.

He has a valid point – though I suspect whether all of India’s ills can be reduced to this one issue.

***
This book left me with more questions than answers. But then that is good. I suspect I will be mulling over these points for days to come.

[Hrishikesh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Elegant, sophisticated obfuscation. Madam Thapar and her associates are learned, undoubtedly; but it is, unfortunately, too much to expect them to give space to a contrary view within their own pages; they cater only to their own world-view.

Don't get me wrong - many (most?) of their concerns are legitimate. But these concerns, their elaboration, and their argumentation runs contrary to the stern standards of scientific, unbiased and objective enquiry they themselves espouse.

As I told a friend recently, most of those who scream morality from rooftops, do so only till it remains convenient. Underneath, Platus' dictum runs supreme - "Homo Homini Lupus."

As Orwell wrote, "Those who control the present control the past. Those who control the past control the future." All men and women know this - it is only children who live in denial of this rule of realpolitick, and dream sweet dreams of morality.

[Shivanshu Singh · Rating 4 out of 5]

"We have to ask whether the increasing violence and intolerance we now witness is merely the surfacing of what has always existed since time immemorial, despite the fond belief that India has been a society of non-violence and tolerance? Or has this latter activity been nurtured only in the last two centuries? Or even more recently?"

After India's Independence, it has always been argued that the constitution that our forefather wrote was not in resonance with people at large. It was a liberal constitution imposed on an illiberal society, and now politics seems to be catching up with the society. This book traces a somewhat similar arc of history where the author argues that the space of critical inquiry and participation of public intellectuals in the social sphere has been on a decline since independence, more specifically after 90s reforms.

Like all other Romilla Thappar's writings, this essay puts forward compelling arguments supported by anecdotal evidence, in this case, how the state has used its coercive power to shun the critical voices in recent times. What I think was missing in the essay was a more nuanced characterization of the so-called "liberal right", the way she pinpointed their patronage to only political organization and corporations was too simplistic.

What makes this book more interesting is Sundar Sarukkai, Dhruv Raina, Peter DeSouza, Neeladri Bhattacharya, and Jawed Naqvi's comments. It gave Thapar's argument shades by adding more relevant and illuminating dimensions to it, even while disagreeing. Naqvi's digression to incorporate the caste angle is fascinating. He observes that Perhaps the only sensible course for the public intellectual today is to work for a sound strategy to blend Ambedkar's fight for the annihilation of caste with the overarching liberal struggle for social justice. It is probably the only worthwhile way for India to keep its tryst with the promise of secularism, democracy, gender, and social equality. If we want Ambedkar to stop stalking our collective conscience, we must overcome the lure of playing the 'wrong' version of Prince Hamlet.

[Abby Varghese · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brilliant collection of cogently argued essays. The essays provide a better understanding on the key issue and several valid arguments which will probably help your essays in competitive exams. The book also carefully analysis several sensitive issues and also throws light at the present socio-political scenario which is crucial to understand to formulate solutions for future.
Recommend.

[Aditya Surti · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peter DeSouza and Javed Naqvi's essays were the best; other than that this book is a long winded dry rendition of essays; the messages conveyed through these essays could have been conveyed in a better way; authors should have employed means to engross readers by giving more vivid examples.

[Arun Pandiyan · Rating 3 out of 5]

According to Romila Thappar, a public intellectual should take a position independent of those in power, enabling him or her to question debatable ideas, irrespective of who propagates them. A public intellectual has to see himself or herself as a person who seems to be autonomous as possible and has at the same time a concern for what constitutes the rights of citizens, particularly on the issues of Social Justice.

In her essay, Romila Thapar delves into the traditions of skepticism and atheism in ancient Indian society, namely the Chavarka and Buddhist philosophy. Drawing parallels between Socrates and Buddha, the essays in this book issues a pertinent call for civil society to question injustice and irrationality. One can find shades of Amartya Sen in the writings of Romila Thapar, who aligns with a curatorial approach towards analyzing historical and civilizational topics, which is often dismissed by the right-wing as ‘Marxian’.

Concisely, this book presents five reasons for the decline in the realm of public intellectuals in India. There are:
1. Fear of authority, self, and violent retaliation
2. Censorship of free speech
3. The social power dynamics within the intellectuals
4. Political takeover of institutions that disseminate information
5. Non-democratization of science

The essays also argue that a public intellectual is the one who balances his autonomy as an individual as well as the advocate for civil rights and social justice of a group, by letting one take over the other, depending on the merits of his free inquiry. As Amartya Sen explained the growing distance between ‘ethics and economics’ in his famous book, an essay from this book illustrates the widening gap between science and humanities.

What the public intellectuals of India can do? As Thapar suggests, the major role of any intellectual is to create a democratic space for the free-flowing of different thoughts. A civil society where every idea can be discussed without the fear of violence is a prerequisite to cultivating many such intellectuals. Further, there is also a need for curbing the communal tendencies of the masses by nurturing the social habit of questioning. Finally, there is a need to democratize scientific inquiry, reasoning, and scrutiny by inculcating them into social institutions like education. To execute this, Thapar suggests the separation of politics from education, where all syllabi and curriculum would be designed and drafted by educational experts rather than politicians.

To summarise, it is worth remembering that many of the roots of modern thinking, such as liberal values and democracy, by which we describe ourselves as not being medieval or feudal, go back to these debates among philosophers and others. As a civil society, we don’t have to be philosophers or academicians to engage in better dialogue around the topics concerning societal welfare. Instead, what is needed is a democratic space to engage in such conversation. Romila Thapar’s book reinforces the need for such space to foster a liberal democracy.

[Vikas Datta · Rating 5 out of 5]

Quite timely and cogently argued... but the moot point is whether the lessons will be learned or even appreciated...

[Mohit Dhanjani · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 Stars for these beautiful essays —

• ‘Framing a Question: Questioning a Frame’
• ‘Living Between Thought and Action’
• ‘To Question and Not to Question: That is the Answer’

[Gohil Aadityarajsinh · Rating 4 out of 5]

The essays by various writers are with a good flow in building the thesis by Prof. Thapar i.e. book cover. Simple to read, hardly 10-15 unknown words, easy accessibility on audiobook and libgen. I recommend buying a physical hard copy bcoz it will compel the reader to be a new reader every time after researching in life and continued academic or work life. No, it won't make anybody intellectual its not a self-help genre. The work would be more corroborated I think in coming editions as the current essays are highly empty fruit branches in public due to shrinking physical public spaces and clubs in social and academic circles. So, grasping scientific research with integrated sociology I very long ball for the readers but it will ignite us to question a bit. So, yeah go for it if you are ok with a bit-long genre and do build fiction around it when talking in circles about your scenarios and the authors involved if you want material in the debate too. Sorry which is rare.

[Prakash Holla · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good read

The term intellectual, which in the present day is made a cliche, the authors in this book try to bring back the original depth and nuance to the term. They discuss and argue extensively the pros and cons of the history of intellectuals' reactions in the society and leave the thread open for furthering the discussion..

[Rick Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Romila Thapar asserts, "To Question or Not To Question? That is the Question"

Alongside with other Indian writers, explore this.

They cite sources from European History to Modern India through Essays.

Anyone who likes Political History, Politics of India might be interested in this.


Deus Vult,
Gottfried

[Sanchita · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting set of essays. Jawed Naqvi's astute and relevant observations puts all the academicians to shame.

[A.soorianarayanan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The role of public intellectuals in contemporary India has been discussed and freedom to dissent without fear lacking in recent times in view of murders of activists etc.

[Anandh Sundar · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book could have been much crisper than it is (despite being 200 pages). That said, the ideas are important. Ms Thapar opines that with the era of hyperspecialization, professionals are becoming more technicians(highly skilled) than professionals(with social ethos). also, free market forces for knowledge makes universities subservient to Wall Street. This has implications for the dissemination of science, thinkthanks and culture. A book which provoked thought. Some snippets

1) It has been argued that this degree of specialization in many parts of the world has become so intense that in those societies the public intellectual now has a marginal role. Either there is a specialist who knows exactly everything about the little ant and what it does, or there are those who don’t know anything and just carry on doing what they’ve been told to do.
2) In earlier times the state bestowed its patronage on any or all religions, now this will have to be withdrawn in a secular society. The adjustment in India is not limited to the dual role of what has been called ‘the Church’ versus ‘the State’, but requires a revision of the triangular relationship between the state, religions and castes.

[Kartik · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a book which is compartmentalised well, but even though most arguments were very good and with valid concern, they were disillusioned by the kind of sample set that the authors picked (Dhruv Raina) to reinforce their arguments. The reasoning for most bit was circuitous and verbose. The bias is evident in a lot of the arguments the authors make and this is where their inclination to a rational, scientific and unbiased thinking seems to be flushed.
But if we can weed out the mess, the book is an eye opener at the end of the day. I loved the bits by Neeladri Bhattacharya and Jawed Naqvi because of the consistency in the thought process and not a blind faith in the much spoken about Thapar's speech and essay.

[Malcolm Carvalho · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some of the essays have compelling arguments. On the whole though, the writing is too long-winded. Several points are made against right-wing extremists, but without solid arguments, these sound like the average Joe on the street. I expected a more nuanced position from a line-up of accomplished intellectuals.

[John · Rating 3 out of 5]

A must read...

[Ajeet · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is the most important book the one should read.