It's
more a clash of lifestyles than a battle of ideas
In 1961, in a monograph woefully difficult to locate
today, the Chicago sociologist Edward Shils studied the predicament of the
Indian intellectual in the high noon of the Nehruvian era. His approach was
sympathetic but his larger conclusions were not terribly flattering to a
community that saw itself as the vanguard of India’s journey to
modernity.
Despite its near-uninterrupted Brahmanical tradition
of scholarship and sustained exposure to the West, India, Shils felt, “has not
yet developed the traditions which are essential to intellectual life.” Despite
possessing a significant intelligentsia, the orientation of the Indian
intellectual, he felt, was “provincial.” Part of this was due to the drudgery
of economic survival, the depressing environment of the universities and media,
the prevailing anti-business ethos and the diversion of talent into the
bureaucracy. But at the heart of the “insulted and injured” self-image of the
Indian intellectual was the confusion over where he stood in relation to India.
At one level, he observed, nearly “all of what certain Indian intellectuals
refer to as ‘modern thought’ comes to them through England and the medium of
English.” At the same time, there was the reality of life in a traditional—and
largely—Hindu milieu. “It would not be an outlandish exaggeration to say that
it is impossible for a Indian of Hindu descent to cease to be a Hindu.”
To Shils, this mirrored Jawaharlal Nehru’s admission
in his Autobiography: “I have become a queer mixture of the East
and West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere… (In) my own country… I have
an exile’s feeling.”
Shils penned his observations 54 years ago. Since
then, India has undergone a massive transformation: the economic plight of the
middle classes isn’t so dire; England has been replaced by USA as the new
modernist Mecca; business is no longer an object of disdain; and the
“Hinduistic traditionalist revival” that Shils so feared would occur after
Nehru has become a reality. At the same time, in sheer numbers, the Indian
intelligentsia has grown exponentially—with some intellectuals having acquired
the prefix “public.” It has benefited from more centres of learning, the
growth of media and publishing, and, most important, to unhindered access to
global currents. The Indian rendered inadequate by the shortage economy has
evolved into a self-confident, if slightly cocky, citizen of a country that
looks expectantly to a glorious Asian future.
Yet, Shils’ study isn’t entirely dated: the intellectual
neurosis that he detected is still visible but it has acquired new and
interesting—but not always palatable—dimensions.
In his study, Shils elaborated on the Indian
intellectuals’ sense of disconnect from the wider environment and his attempt to
overcome it through identification with an association with the broad Left.
However, he also encountered an “excellent young historian, trained at Oxford,
productive as a scholar… and himself head of a division in an important
Ministry.” The gentleman told him: “I don’t feel out of touch with the people,
they might feel out of touch with me but that is their concern, not
mine.”
The identity of the historian is very thinly veiled.
But what is interesting is that what seemed like the outburst of a poseur in
1961 has persisted and become a fashion statement in 2015. Five decades ago,
and despite the fond England-gazing, intellectuals were mindful of the larger
society in which they lived. Their intellectual individualism was invariably
circumscribed by the prevailing ethos of the joint family or the community
whose ethos demanded an exceptional measure of self-restraint. True, there were
the odd group of bohemians (like the 19th century Young Bengal
movement) for whom creativity and self-indulgence were happy partners but, by
and large, these were exceptions. Most intellectuals respected society, even
when they were inclined towards the avant garde.
The desire to break out of provinciality and embrace
cosmopolitanism has, today, led to intellectual freedom being equated with
iconoclasm, disregard for existing social mores and a show of intellectual
insolence—bordering on snobbery—directed at those unable to appreciate the
delights of permissiveness. Nothing is sacred—and certainly not the cow.
There is a culture war raging in India today. Alas, it
is only nominally a clash of ideas and more about conflicting lifestyles.
Sunday Times of India, October 18, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment