Ambedkar – TheNewsHub

Who needs political thinkers?

Aseem — Tue, 03 Sep 2024 08:21:08 +0000

Mahatma Gandhi speaks with Jawaharlal Nehru in Bombay, in 1946. Both Gandhi and Nehru represented a tradition of “thinking-in-action” or “thinking-in-politics” that characterised Indian political thought during the anti-colonial movement.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Yogendra Yadav took a dig(Indian Express, August 26) at practitioners of modern political thought and theory in India by pronouncing an exaggerated judgement that political thinkers who, during the anticolonial movement, belonged to a tradition of thinking-in-action or thinking-in-politics have now disappeared from prominence. Despite conceding the existence of formidable names in the field of Indian political thought since Independence, Yadav’s complaint centres around the argument that political thinking has given way to a more academically constrained world and craft of political theory. This complaint is true to some extent, but the reason behind this shift has to be understood by certain key changes in our political history.

Figures like Gandhi, Nehru, and Ambedkar were produced by the anticolonial struggle where they did politics as well as put their thoughts on paper to be read by the public at large. These figures produced a reading public that contributed to the making of India’s politically conscious civil society. Since India’s political thought uniquely arose from the real field of politics, our trajectory was shaped by an emergent, contestable, and fluid set of ideas that had a corresponding relationship with the shaping of our politics during colonial and postcolonial times. This meant that ideas were always under contest and arguments got reshaped by the force of these contests. If we look at the Constituent Assembly Debates on citizenship in 1950 or the debates around minority rights, we get the idea of a vibrant and occasionally bitter struggle for a constitutional ratification of what comprises people’s rights.

Also Read | Theory as remedy

These debates have contributed to the strong foundations of our democracy; the wide level of political representation made it possible. Even though everyone participating in the debates was not a thinker, they were ideologues who could articulate their opinions coherently.

Unlike the West, our political ideas were shaped by thinkers who were not formally trained in the subject of philosophy or political thought. Though Ambedkar had a doctorate in Economics and practised Law, and Gandhi and Nehru earned degrees in law, much of their writing was a combination of their reading of Western thought and an imaginative engagement with their own historical, social, and political reality. Nehru’s attempt at writing a “living history” of India, Ambedkar’s theory of minority rights, and Gandhi’s non-violent politics of truth are unique proposals with universal resonance in the 20th century.

Indian political thought was never very Indian but was in deep affinity with modern trends of thought in Europe. Yet, the interpretation of secularism in India has been understood by theorists as more culture-inclusive than how it has been thought of in France and other nations. Tagore’s radical critique of the nation idea has no parallel in the intellectual thought of the 20th-century West. Indians have thought independently, and our theorists have explained it to the world.

In postcolonial India, the inheritance of political thought was bifurcated into two spheres, party politics and academia. Once institutionalised, politics was reduced to ideological polemics and the lack of imaginative leaders ensured the death of political thinking in India’s mainstream parties. It was during social movements and the Emergency that politics was transformed into a battle for ideas. In academia, the theory took over thinking. I have often complained in amusement that my own subject, political science, has been reduced to “rethinking” in every other seminar.

The theory is an important means to engage both with radical and normative values and the principles of politics, as well as a critique of existing structures of thought in the world and within a nation. But theory is highly jargonised, which limits it to a set of aspirational “experts” who argue in a language that often does not speak adequately to a larger audience. The language of theory is the chief culprit in limiting its sphere of influence and understanding.

In fact, overtly Westernised academia has successfully managed to replace thinking with theory. It, however, cannot be said of scholars such as Ashis Nandy, Gopal Guru, Faisal Devji, and Sharmila Rege, among others, who have written in accessible language without compromising on rigour. There are younger scholars following in their footsteps today who write on political issues in public.

Also Read | Politics of history

I would now like to reverse the question raised by Yadav: Do political parties and activists, or the larger world of politics, need political thinking or theory? There is enough literature to read and engage with for political leaders and ideologues. But what we mostly see is an interest in political biographies (often hagiographies, or ideologically-motivated criticisms) and not political thought. The intellectual lethargy and lack of imagination in India’s political class and the (often) rigid ideological frameworks of political activists cannot be exempted from the ebbing interest in political thinkers in the country. Public engagement with thinkers should be part of a creative necessity for vibrant politics. Currently, Rahul Gandhi’s “Mohabbat ki dukaan” (the love store) is an exception in the way it is trying to reinvent Gandhi’s politics of love in the face of communal and hate politics.

There are enough public intellectuals in India who can be taken seriously. But does the political class pay heed to their concerns and warnings? Do they consider and discuss these ideas in their internal meetings? Do Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Suhas Palshikar share their incisive political opinions for a reading public sans people doing politics? The “poverty” of theory lies in the reception. Yadav must ask the question to the world he belongs to. India’s political thinkers are very much around. It is a political engagement with them that is missing.

Manash Firaq Bhattacharjee is the author of Nehru and the Spirit of India.

A.G. Noorani (1930-2024): Remembering the eminent constitutional expert and prolific writer

Aseem — Thu, 29 Aug 2024 12:14:13 +0000

A.G. Noorani is remembered as an intellectual who upheld the principles of democracy and constitutionalism throughout his long and distinguished career.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu Archives

Renowned lawyer, constitutional expert, and prolific author who made significant contributions to legal scholarship and political discourse in India for over six decades, A.G. Noorani is no more. A long-term contributor to Frontline, Noorani was widely respected for his insightful analysis on constitutional and human rights issues.

Born in Bombay (now Mumbai) in 1930, Abdul Ghafoor Abdul Majeed Noorani began his career as a lawyer in the Bombay High Court in 1953. Though he practised law, Noorani devoted much of his time to writing on legal, political, and historical topics. His sharp intellect and deep knowledge of constitutional matters made him a sought-after commentator on Indian politics and jurisprudence.

Noorani was a regular contributor to leading publications like Economic & Political Weekly, The Hindustan Times, and The Statesman. However, it was his association with Frontline magazine, which began in the 1980s, that brought his incisive writing to a wide audience. His column “Constitutional Questions” ran for over three decades and was known for its meticulous research and balanced analysis of complex legal issues.

As an author, Noorani penned over a dozen books on various aspects of Indian constitutional law, politics, and history. Some of his notable works include The Kashmir Question (1964), Ministers’ Misconduct (1973), Constitutional Questions and Citizens’ Rights (2006), and The RSS: A Menace to India (2019). His writings often took a critical look at government overreach and erosion of democratic norms.

Noorani was known for his strong advocacy of civil liberties and secularism. He was a vocal critic of laws that he believed infringed on fundamental rights, such as preventive detention laws and restrictions on freedom of expression. His legal expertise made him a respected voice in debates on judicial reforms and accountability.

Though he never held any official position, Noorani’s opinions carried weight in legal and political circles. He was often consulted on constitutional matters and his writings were cited in academic works and even Supreme Court judgments.

Noorani leaves behind a rich legacy of constitutional scholarship and political commentary. He is remembered as an intellectual who upheld the principles of democracy and constitutionalism throughout his long and distinguished career.

While revered in progressive and liberal circles, Noorani was not without his critics. Some felt his views were too idealistic or out of step with changing political realities. Nonetheless, his commitment to constitutional values and rigorous analysis earned him respect across the political spectrum.

Here’s a curated list of articles Noorani wrote for Frontline. We have kept them outside the paywall to honour the genius that he was. Please read them and share your comments.

Every one of us is a minority in this country: Yogendra Yadav

Aseem — Tue, 27 Aug 2024 08:45:13 +0000

Yogendra Yadav, the political analyst, both comments on and analyses political processes. He is also a participant in politics as an activist and political worker. In 2024, he was a phenomenal predictor of electoral outcome. “Indian society is a pyramid. The top of the pyramid has been captured by the BJP in terms of caste, class, and gender. The bottom of the pyramid is the biggest social force to defend the Constitution, republic, and democracy in the country. So future politics has to be politics of the bottom of the pyramid. BJP’s political strategy has been to capture the top of the pyramid and walk away with a few slices from the bottom,” he tells Frontline.

It has been a process in academics and sociology. And you are both sides.

Frankly, I am just a political worker, political activist, and yes, political activists should think as well. There was a time in our country when political activists used to write and think. That time has gone. And we are much the worse as a country for that. Because unlike the West, where most political thinkers and writers have been in academia, in our country, much of the political thinking has been done by activists, those who are involved in politics. That distinguishes India from the West. And with the decline of that tradition, I think our country has lost something of political imagination, understanding, judgement.

The shifting of political thinking from the world of political leaders to the world of academia has been a bit of a disaster. It is a serious cost for India because our political judgement is shockingly poor today. Politics is bereft of political vision. So while we all comment on the loss of morals in politics, which is of course true, we do not sufficiently comment on lack of imagination, thoughts, ideas. And this is not just ideas of my liking, ideas that I dislike, say, even in the RSS, which I stoutly stand against. If you look at the RSS, there is a very serious loss of imagination and vision within the RSS. So look at the right, look at the left. There is a very serious decline of political imagination.

What vision do you think we should have in India?

I call it India’s swadharma. I am trying to develop that further. Now most of us balk at the idea of dharma. The word tends to suggest religions, Hinduism; because we know so little about that universe that we have simply turned our back to it. My argument is this that the Indian Constitution is sacred because it happens to have inscribed the values from our freedom struggle, which were not accidental. Values of our freedom struggle are values that are drawn from our civilization of the last 3,000 years. So the Indian Constitution’s preamble in many ways is a condensed version of the civilizational values. For me, those three critical civilizational values are karuna, maitri and shila. What we today call ‘equality’ and ‘socialism’ is actually based on karuna. Maitri is friendship, fraternity.

Something that Ambedkar really brought into discussion is the basis of what we call secularism. And shila is virtuous conduct that underlies what we today call democracy. So democracy, socialism, secularism, the three pillars of our Constitution actually draw upon three absolutely central values of our civilization. That is the idea of India. I think we are criminally guilty because we took our Constitution for granted. An ordinary Hindu, educated Hindu thinks that secularism is an unnecessary concession made for Muslims.

We never managed to explain to an ordinary Indian that every one of us is a minority in this country, either in terms of religion, caste, ethnicity, language, at the State level, national level, or in your mohalla. Every single Indian is a minority. You want to crush minorities? Be prepared. That is your turn. Most educated Indians harbour such deep, deep resentment about it, which only reflects our lack of compassion. Today we are politically free. Culturally we are much less free than we were 70 years ago. A certain culture of imitation, of not being aware of our values, has created a vacuum. And BJP has walked into that vacuum. It is a vacuum that people like you and me have created. A cultural vacuum of a modern Indian.

Also Read | A vote for constitutional values

You have taken a clear position on the controversial subject of the Supreme Court’s recent judgment allowing subcategorisation of quotas. You have provided reasons and data, showing that groups such as Musahars in Bihar are getting nothing. You have discussed categories within the Dalit community. However, there are opposing views. Given these recent developments, have you had any rethink on your position, or do you fully stand by it?

I am and have been an ardent supporter of social justice and caste-sensitive affirmative action policies, including reservations. As someone who has supported these, I see absolutely no reason why we should not take this one step forward. We have reached a point where we have to advance the politics and policies of social justice. There are many components to that, and sub-quota happens to be one such thing. It is not just the SC/ST sub-quota that I support. I also believe that within the OBC category, at the national level, there is no sub-quota.

Bihar has it.

At the State level they have quotas for State government jobs. But for Central government jobs, there is no sub-quota. I have been arguing for quite some time that we need a sub-quota within that as well. Within the OBC, you have dominant OBC communities, landed OBC communities. And then there are artisanal and service communities that get nothing. Similarly, in the case of Scheduled Castes, there is a very clear difference. In terms of educational opportunities, there is a huge gap between some communities that could take advantage and others who have not been able to. The reason is not that these communities of the first category were edging someone out. When the doors of reservation were opened, some happened to be standing there, they walked in. They have not pushed anyone out, they are not oppressors of the others. It is just a differential access which has done so.

And Punjab has a 32 per cent Dalit population.

Yes, a large Dalit population with such huge disparities. How do you address it? One way of addressing it is to say, okay, let us make two slices within that. If it is 30 per cent, let us say we make it 15-15. In the top 15 per cent, you put this half of the population, who have benefited a little more, and in the bottom, you have the other half. The reason I support the basic decision of the Supreme Court is that the order simply says the States can subcategorise. The order does not say you must sub-classify.

And then you should have a caste census.

Yes, you would need a caste census for these things. You already have some information. I can understand why some people oppose it because, in the case of at least some political leaders, unfortunately, it is directly linked to their vote base.

“I can understand why some people oppose a caste census because, in the case of at least some political leaders it is directly linked to their vote base.”

And Mayawati is a Jatav Dalit.

That makes me sad because Mayawati has been a Dalit icon, not just a Jatav icon. But when on such a critical issue, she comes out appearing to defend the interest of one subsection within Dalits, it is disappointing.

What about Anand Teltumbde?

Anand’s case is completely different. It would be completely wrong to say someone like him is reflecting the interest of an upper crust of the Dalits. I take Anand very seriously. He is a reflective person. Anand is not closing his eyes to real and serious issues. Instead of subclassification of Jatis, we should actually identify every family. Families should be subdivided based on their access to education and jobs. Anyone who acknowledges it is an issue and proposes a way to address it, I am willing to speak to. Sub-classification is one way of doing it, but there can be other ways we can discuss. Having said that, there is one aspect of the Supreme Court judgment that I have opposed from the beginning the creamy layer application.

Also Read | Bihar’s caste survey can spark a new political consciousness

But that is not in the judgment, that is an opinion of the judges.

The trouble is, if four judges out of seven give an opinion, then high courts all over the country will cite that opinion and it will become de facto law. I think it is time that somebody went to the Supreme Court and asked for clarification is that your order or not? It should not become a legal precedent. And honestly, this is not the stage to talk about creamy layer within Dalits.

The government is committed to outsourcing anything possible.

This began with the previous government and has been practised by non-BJP governments at the State level as well. These are serious systemic issues. It also relates to the question of the private sector. Why should not affirmative action apply to the private sector? You need not turn it into reservation; use other instruments. There are multiple instruments available to the state.

The Bharat Jodo Yatra was a transformative moment for Rahul Gandhi, says Yadav.
| Photo Credit:
SANDEEP SAXENA

But BJP has suggested it might do it in this budget, right? Well, they have given some hints.

I would welcome any government that takes steps towards extending the ambit of affirmative action beyond the public sector. Then there is this artificial constitutional cap at 50 per cent that the Supreme Court is willing to relax for EWS but not for anyone else.

So that has to be removed. I am thinking of a long-term future, and from that perspective, sub-quota within SC is a legitimate demand. It is necessary, though for me, that is not the centrepiece of my future vision. The centrepiece has to be expanded.

What is the centrepiece of your future vision, and how are you functioning?

Two different things. First, the bigger question of what the centrepiece is. To me, sociologically, the centerpiece is the bottom of the pyramid. Indian society is a pyramid. The top of the pyramid has been captured by the BJP in terms of caste, class, and gender. The bottom of the pyramid is the biggest social force to defend the Constitution, republic, and democracy in the country. So future politics has to be politics of the bottom of the pyramid. BJP’s political strategy has been to capture the top of the pyramid and walk away with a few slices from the bottom. The challenge for the opposition, or anyone who wants to defend democracy and republic in this country, is to consolidate the bottom of the pyramid. While from the top of the pyramid, there would be ideological dissenters who should always be welcomed—there were whites who opposed apartheid, so yes, they should be welcomed—but sociologically, which is the social force that would defend this republic? That is my real concern.

So we have seen a transformation of Rahul Gandhi. You agree with that, right?

Yes, and this is a welcome transformation.

It is a complete transformation because earlier, many of the so-called baba lok that were around him, they are all sitting in the BJP now.

The transformation may not be as big as it appears because I knew Rahul Gandhi 15 years ago, and I know him now. For the last two years, he has remained a very sincere person, connected and aware of the fact that he has privileges and that he needs to be sensitive about that fact. The transformation is he seems to have understood, he has travelled, he has walked, he has met people. The Bharat Jodo Yatra was a transformative moment.

It was also a change in the positions of the Congress on caste. They missed the whole Mandal moment.

Remember, the first big caste upsurge in this country was in the late 60s. Mandal bypassed Congress. The Congress is in the driver’s seat, trying to be so. On the caste question, Congress’s position is principally driven by Rahul Gandhi. I do not think the Congress as a party was so prepared for this. He has personally, with determination and resolve, taken the party in that direction, which is welcome because this actually connects to the politics of the bottom of the pyramid. For me, the real interest is not so much in a political party connecting to and improving or expanding its vote bank. My larger question is how do we defend this republic, which is close to being shut down?

Can the Congress be a vehicle to defend the republic?

You need ideological positions, you need a social base. At the moment, I would say the INDIA coalition in general and the Congress in particular, is a political vehicle. The bottom of the pyramid is the social base. And swadharma of Bharat is the ideology that can defend this republic.

Saba Naqvi is a Delhi-based journalist and author of four books who writes on politics and identity issues.