A researcher presented a paper on MK Gandhi’s belief in non-violence and honesty at a reputed institute, pointing out serious lapses and contradictions in his statements during his entire political career.
The researcher reviewed several statements, claims, and decisions of Gandhi and showed that the father of the nation had been involved in lies, wrong acts, or else he was innocent in the sense of being ignorant. In both cases, Gandhi’s worth as a responsible leader or thinker has been greatly undermined in the paper.
Several copies of the paper were distributed to the audience before the event. Thus, if the points made were untenable, it was available to be dissected by anyone. After the presentation, a research scholar said, “The paper contains logical points, which I cannot refute. But I do not agree with any of it.”
The institute’s director—who was also present during the event—said, “This is how one should write—with care of facts, reasoning, and evidence. However, I disagree with many points in the paper.” He, too, did not clarify the reasons for his disagreements.
To take another example, an educationist questioned a writer, “Why did you write about Gandhi ji’s acts related to brahmacharya?” He was distressed. He could not say that the writer had written anything unreasonable. He was upset because the subject was taken up at all. He ignored that Gandhi himself said that the foundation of all his work was ‘truth, non-violence, and brahmacharya’. Thus, according to the writer, whatever he did was directed by these three principles, as he interpreted them. Therefore, assessing his acts or ‘experiments’ of brahmacharya becomes indispensable. But the very objection to discussing the subject is a telltale of a chain of unsavory, undefendable views and acts. So much for the principles of Gandhi.
“Accept my words only after examining them, just as gold is accepted after testing in fire and rubbing on a touchstone. Don’t accept anything simply because I said it,” Gautam Buddha has said this in India. Today, not only do several intellectuals insist on faithfully accepting the words of even ordinary leaders, but they are also enthusiastic about it. Whoever does not do so is doubted and blacklisted.
Such incidents are just examples. Today, every writer, teacher, or journalist is flooded with articles, comments, podcasts, and more. Taken together, these diverse inputs reveal clear patterns and tendencies.
The devotee-intellectual
First, the dominant tendency of many Indian intellectuals is a habitual and narrow mindset. Not just in politics, but also in social, literary, cultural events and even news—things are seen rarely as they are, but through a partisan lens. Frequently, connections to political leaders, party, or agency, etc, are presumed without any evidence. A corollary is a fascination with conspiracy theories: anonymous claims about a leader, party, ‘deep state,’ China, CIA, Vatican, Soros, or disaster warnings—no matter how outlandish—spread instantly. And when asked for sources, no one feels embarrassed to say, ‘I don’t know’.”
Second, everyone wants to criticise or praise someone, something—a party leader, an author, institutions, a political—without evaluating the words or actions in question.
Third, there is a mania for criticising or praising someone/something—a leader, writer, institution, party, etc—without evaluating the words or actions. Events, policies, tragedies or statements rarely get considered on their own. Instead, the person, country or institution associated with them becomes the target of routine condemnation. That’s all.
Fourth, closely connected is refusing to see one’s own party, leader, government, or country as responsible for correcting a wrong or problem. Merely censuring, blaming, and hurling accusations at someone seems to be pretty normal. Those who criticise remain careless about any analysis of the bad situation (for example, the worsening condition of the native languages & literature in the country), let alone making efforts to fix it. As if it is irrelevant. If pressed further, they deflect blame again and the matter ends there.
It shows that solving a problem, or rectifying a wrong, always depends on ‘others’. The intellectuals’ job is merely to criticise and accuse everybody, including the dead (like Thomas Macaulay or Jawaharlal Nehru). This pattern remains the same whether it concerns local issues or international affairs, past or present. Nowhere is a party, organisation, sect, leader, or country’s duty held accountable. As if duties belong permanently to ‘others’, while making demands and passing judgment is reserved for ‘us’ — it’s a righteous stance taken by many.
Lack of consistency is another problem in India’s intellectual circles. If a leader of party A says or does something, it is condemned. But if a leader of party B says or does the same—or worse—it is ignored or justified. This double standard is applied again and again in contexts of government policies, lapses, and more. When party A is in office, the government is blamed for every failure and expected to fix everything. When party B is in office, the same mistakes become society’s responsibility, with the familiar refrain: ‘everything cannot be done by the government’. Many intellectuals see no contradiction in this.
Fifth, Indians are irrationally devoted to someone or something—whether to a leader, public figure, organisation, ideology, or even to a book (like Gandhi’s Hind Swaraj)—mostly without reason. Devotion is not to a considered ideal, but to the figure, institution, conclusion, or text itself, which is taken as inherently venerable. Questioning or examining it by any standard does not arise. Instead, the standard itself must conform to that leader, organisation, conclusion, or book.
Such a devotion is found among activists, scholars, and writers of various hues. The incident mentioned above about Gandhi is an example, but the attitude applies to the supporters of other leaders, organisations, or ideologies. Concern for evidence or common justice is ignored to protect the image of a chosen leader or group. Doing so, the devotee-intellectual twists every principle in such a way as to let his leader or party remain unscathed.
Is all this among Indians, especially Hindus, a ‘thought-phobia’ as Sri Aurobindo called it—a fear of thinking? A fear that a fixed image of a leader or a dogma might not be shattered? If that happens, what becomes of the beliefs nurtured for decades? Must it then be admitted that so much time was wasted on barren ideas and falsehood? And if so, what is left to do?
Also read: Russian-style socialism dominated Nehru’s imagination. It was disastrous
Complainant, advocate & judge
Is it this fear that keeps even well-meaning intellectuals in mental inertia? A bird long kept in a cage, when set free, instead of flying away into freedom, returns after a while to sit back inside the cage. It does not know what to do with its freedom.
Today, most Indian intellectuals are in this condition. They abhor independent thought. As writer Nirmal Verma said, “They easily make a good relation with a writer of the opposing ideological camp, but feel awkward with a writer of independent persuasion.” Why is it so? Perhaps the same ailment, ‘thought-phobia’, with which they feel set. Shying away from uncomfortable truths; from the challenge of separating myth from reality, and of acknowledging the demands of common justice applicable to all..
That is why they ignore the advice of not only Gautam Buddha but of contemporary figures, such as Annie Besant, Sri Aurobindo, Rabindranath Tagore, BR Ambedkar, C Rajagopalachari, Ram Manohar Lohia, and others. These personalities directly and long observed Gandhi’s words, actions, and their consequences. Rajgopalachari and Lohia worked with Gandhi and understood him much better than the present intellectuals. But the devotee would proclaim: ‘I disagree’.
These devotee-intellectuals act as a complainant, advocate, and judge all at once, and deem the case decided in their favour.
A great number of these intellectuals—even those with ability and goodwill—are found doing the same. Their acquired knowledge and assumptions are never tested on any touchstone, year after year. They regard their ideological faith or party loyalty as a treasure. Their intellect is spent in seeking persons, arguments, quotations, or appropriate Sanskrit shlokas to defend it. This is a common scenario in India today. Its forms may be Gandhian, Nehruvian, Lohiaite, Leftist, or RSSanghi. But the said tendencies are affecting, more or less, all of them. In the name of intellectual life: mere devotion, and thought-phobia.
Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. Views are personal.
(Edited by Saptak Datta)