Why public intellectuals matter in present-day India

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

A student protest in 2021 demanding the release of all political prisoners, at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi. | Photo Credit: SUSHIL KUMAR VERMA

The term ‘public intellectual’ has an interesting origin. As Romila Thapar informs us, it was used in connection with Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish captain in the French army who was believed to have leaked secrets to the German army. Later, it was found that he had not done anything of the kind and was declared innocent. When he was facing charges of having leaked secrets, many artists, teachers, poets and writers came together in support of him. These people came to be called public intellectuals.

A public intellectual is essentially a person who engages with the issues of the day and takes a position in support of what she believes to be true and right. She needs to raise questions about social, political and economic issues of the day using reasoned arguments so that societies would become better places to live in. A public intellectual is somebody who seeks to constantly reaffirm the foundational principles of social justice, human dignity and fraternity.

The role of a public intellectual perhaps has never been more critical and important than it is in the present times in India. The growing assertion of authoritarian tendencies, leading to systematic and gradual weakening of public institutions, destruction of democratic practices, silencing and, in fact criminalisation of dissent, disenfranchisement of lakhs of voters on the ground of ‘logical discrepancy’ and bulldozing of houses (especially those belonging to Muslims),’ as well as lynching of people on the grounds of storing beef in fridges and committing ‘love jihad’, are things that everybody is becoming painfully conscious of. If public intellectuals do not speak and raise their voice now, when they would do so is difficult to guess. It is their moral and ethical responsibility to speak up and stand with what is right. Silence is not a virtue in the present times. On the contrary, it can be dangerous.

Perhaps, it would be relevant to mention here what Antonio Gramsci, the celebrated Italian intellectual, wrote, ‘I hate the indifferent, also because I am annoyed by their whining as eternal innocents. I ask each of them how he carries out the role that life ordained him and daily imposes on him, what he has and especially has not done. And I feel like I can be relentless and not have to waste my pity, nor share my tears with them... I live, I am a partisan. Therefore, I hate whoever does not take sides. I hate the indifferent’. What he tried to argue was that public intellectuals should reflect and articulate their position on burning issues of the day. If they do not do so, who would do it? It is not that India has not produced great intellectuals. Starting from Buddha in the ancient India upto B.R. Ambedkar in modern times, India has had a glorious tradition of producing outstanding and powerful public intellectuals who questioned the dominant and hegemonic paradigms during their times.

But what one finds in the present times is generalised silence from those who have the intellectual and critical faculty to be effective public intellectuals. One could refer to university teachers, poets, writers, artists and others in this regard.

A word or two about university teachers, in particular, would be in order. It is true that one need not be a university teacher to be a public intellectual, but a university teacher who is supposed to have developed critical imagination and the necessary conceptual equipment is eminently suited to be an effective public intellectual. A university teacher is expected to critically debate and articulate positions on issues of the day, however unpalatable they may be to the powers that be. But what one finds is the mysterious silence of these people on issues that are posing a severe threat to our constitutional and democratic framework. Silence is almost normalised among the university academia. If they do not write and speak on the issues concerning especially the marginalised and the weak in the society, who would do?

One may also refer to eminent scientists who could make important contributions to the debates in the society in an impartial and objective manner. Unfortunately, it is observed that they confine themselves to their narrow, specialised fields, making them disembodied and decontextualised individuals. There is a certain reluctance on their part to relate themselves to the surrounding social concerns. 

One could take a couple of examples to show what kind of contribution public intellectuals can make, if they wish to, to enrich contemporary debates. Take the example of nationalism. The way it is being constructed in the present times, there is no serious questioning of it (with very few honourable exceptions). There is no critical interrogation of the way in which Hinduism is being weaponised in terms of Hindutva. Also, attempts to convert our inclusive, democratic and civic nationalism (based on constitutional principles of equality, liberty, justice and fraternity), into exclusive, authoritarian and ethnic (Hindurashtra) nationalism are something that need to be on the top of public intellectuals’ agenda. Sadly, this is not so.

They also need to convince people that the European model of destructive, jingoistic and exclusive nationalism is not the right way to strengthen Indian nationalism, which has had a glorious history of fighting British colonialism on democratic, secular and egalitarian foundations.

Another example could be that the line between myth and history is constantly blurred, but professional historians (again with very few exceptions) have preferred to remain quiet. Academic historians are clearly not doing their job of questioning fake history (WhatsApp history) effectively. Or, for that matter, take the case of growing communalisation of public consciousness, which is essentially a tool used to divert people’s attention from issues such as unemployment, youth unrest, the unsatisfactory state of public education, price rise, agrarian crisis, etc.

There was a time when eminent scholars were invited to debates on TV channels, where they could enlighten us about many important facets of our history, culture and society. One no longer finds such debates these days. This is because either such scholars are no longer invited to debates of that kind, or they have declined to be part of debates that are now known more for their noise than for meaningful and substantive content. Anyway, one cannot really expect much from the electronic media these days, as they have allowed themselves to be commodified to an unprecedented degree.

What is thoroughly discouraged in the present times is the questioning mind. When questions are raised about the state of our polity, education, economy and society in general, they are sought to be delegitimised as anti-national and seditious, and even threats of jail are flaunted indiscriminately. Criminalisation of dissent has become normalised. But still if public intellectuals do not speak and make their presence felt now, then it will indeed be a very sad state of affairs in the country. It is true that even their most effective interventions may not result in removing oppressive structures but at least in the long run, they help in enhancing critical consciousness among the people about them.

It is in this context that one needs to appreciate the remarkable resilience shown by young protesters in the recent agitation at Jantar Mantar, in taking their fight to what they believe is its logical conclusion — the resignation of the Education Minister. One lesson that can be drawn from the largely peaceful agitation led by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) is that, contrary to popular perception, the youth of the country are not a depoliticised and indifferent lot.

The large participation of young people, many of whom may have had nothing to with the NEET examination, in the protest is symbolic of their political empathy. They desired to show their solidarity, which they did. They raised a critical question of accountability, which is a basic normative feature of any democratic governance, over repeated lapses in conducting national-level examinations, and pursued it with all the might at their command.

We always underestimated the political consciousness of the country’s youth, and we need to apologise to them for this. Every act of resistance is a political act. Perhaps they have begun to play the role of a public intellectual.

(D.V. Kumar is a former Professor, Dept. of Sociology, North-Eastern Hill University, Shillong)

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.