The role of public intellectuals is to constantly question the establishment; to question clichéd narratives from the past; to question political chicanery and even social lethargy. Nay, public intellectuals should be so non-partisan that they can even question judicial rulings and also statements that undermine the judiciary. Take for instance the National Herald case for which Rahul Gandhi and his mother Sonia Gandhi and Motilal Vohra have been summoned to Delhi High Court because there is a prima facie wrongdoing which warrants that they be present for questioning based on a case filed by Subramanian Swamy in 2012. Rahul Gandhi made a public statement that the National Herald case reeks of political vendetta. Many lawyers aver that this is a fit case for contempt of court. Rahul Gandhi is casting aspersions on the high court judge who ruled that the Gandhis and Vohra are to appear in court for questioning. Normally, judges are sensitive to such allegations and would have slapped a contempt of court case on Rahul Gandhi but this particular judge let it pass. We wonder why!
While Rahul can accuse Swamy of political vendetta, he has undermined the integrity of the judiciary by suggesting that the court has acted at the behest of a rival political party. Pointing this out for the sake of the general public, many of whom do not have the legal acumen to understand the nuances of legal jurisprudence, is the remit of public intellectuals. Curiously none of them, including those that have been in the forefront of accusing the Modi government of intolerance, thought it fit to question Rahul Gandhi's assault on the judiciary.
Role play
Sometimes, you wonder whether the role of the public intellectual is merely to write and do research, both of which undoubtedly require a critical, thinking mind, but which of itself is too weak a venture to change the mindset of the hoi-polloi. How much of a dent can public intellectuals make in the voting behaviour of the masses? How much can they influence the voting pattern? From watching the political scene for decades one realises that what is common sense to the intellectual class makes no sense to the ordinary voter.
This brings me to the situation in Assam. The state is headed for the Assembly elections this year and the slanging matches between the different political parties have become acrimonious. The Congress led by veteran chief minister Tarun Gogoi is trying to defend its fiefdom. After all the Congress has had everything going for it for 15 long years! That's not what an intelligent electorate does! No one in their right minds would give any political party or a coalition of parties a repeated stint because the party/parties will develop a lethargy and will tend to take the electorate for granted. If we notice the tone and tenor of the election campaign of the Congress in Assam, the focus is not on "development" because that would immediately raise many uncomfortable questions about the huge development vacuum in the state. Hence, the Congress is raising the bogey of communalism and religious divide. Tarun Gogoi is himself leading this bandwagon and creating a fear psychosis that if the Congress is rejected in Assam then the state will experience communal conflicts and largescale immigration from Bangladesh. As if that has not happened in the past 15 years! Now, the role of public intellectuals is to unmask that lie and bring before the public a reasoned debate on the political realities of Assam as they prevail today. But that has not happened. We don't hear of non-political persons, associations and individuals getting together to thrash out which way they should vote and on what issues. It is the public that should set the agenda for politicians and not the other way round. That is yet to happen despite Assam having some of the best minds, which include political scientists, litterateurs, historians and scholars of repute.
Double standards
The current stock of politicians in the two major political parties (Congress and BJP) leaves much to be desired. The BJP has admitted all those who have had their ambitions thwarted by Tarun Gogoi. The dregs that have chosen to remain with the Congress have little or no political brain. One of them, Nilamani Sen Deka, a former minister, made an abhorrent statement against a woman Union minister. His statement is sexist and goes against the gender norms of a civilised society. It is hard to believe that politicians would stoop so low and throw all caution to the winds while making defamatory statements in public. I am appalled that the women's organisations of Assam have let such an ugly statement pass and are seeing it only from the political prism. What about the Assam State Commission for Women? Should this body not be defending the character and dignity of a woman who is a victim of slander just because she is in politics? But the problem again is that all the members of the commission are handpicked Congress workers, so they can never take an impartial view of issues. Nilamani Sen Deka has not apologised for his remarks. This just goes to show that underneath the veneer of modernity most male politicians are chauvinists and continue to believe that women make it into politics by sleeping with some powerful male politicians, which is disgusting to say the least.
Some of the female leading lights of the Congress have used social media to clamour for the arrest of Himanta Biswa Sarma, a former minister in the Tarun Gogoi government who ran foul of the octogenarian and has now become a leading member of the BJP. They have accused Biswa Sarma of instigating violence and attacking Congress workers after Sen Deka's obnoxious remarks. Tarun Gogoi had threatened that Biswa Sarma would be arrested for inciting violence but according to the police, there is not enough evidence to nail down Biswa Sarma. The man ended up getting a hero's welcome from his supporters.
We have not heard any public discussion on the issue of Smriti Irani nor a public condemnation by women's organisations. And what about public intellectuals? Aren't there quite a few women writers and feminists in Assam? Will they let this incident pass merely because they do not agree with Irani's views on HRD or because she belongs to a party they despise? In that case they would have forfeited their right to speak on any other issue hereafter. Public intellectuals cannot be selective. They cannot accuse government or political parties of intolerance when their views are suppressed and remain silent at a time when their views are important to be heard. This reeks of double standards.
Responsibility
One of our leading historians, Romila Thapar, speaking about public intellectuals says, "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." Going by this argument, should Nilamani Sen Deka, the self-proclaimed bulwark of society, not be reined in by his party?
(The writer can be contacted at patricia.mukhim@gmail.com)
