By MOSES MANOHARAN
Prominent sociologist Ashish Nandy’s charge, ironically on the very anniversary of the founding of the Indian republic, that its people at the lowest end of the traditional Hindu social structure were the fount of corruption in the country, reflects a shamefully deep caste divide.
Even more than half a century of affirmative governmental action in education and jobs has done little to narrow this divide, rising from centuries of oppression of the lower castes, as well as the Dalits and indigenous or tribespeople, who were outside the caste system codified by the lawgiver Manu.
The division has, in fact, widened alarmingly in urban India, again ironically, caused in great part by populist movements claiming to end injustice and cleanse public life.
From the student-led violent protests against affirmative action in 1990 to cleanse public life to the demonstrations that flared 30 years later against corruption, the outcome has been to some extent a diversion of attention from or efforts to marginalize those outside the upper end of the caste system.
The demonstrators claim nationwide support, but they have been clearly dominated by urban, upper caste motivations; and this facade is upheld by large sections of the media. The unbecoming haste with which national TV news channels rushed to “clarify” Nandy’s comment after being threatened with arrest under strict laws against caste slurs underlined this division between the top and bottom end of the social structure.
The media, overwhelmingly controlled by the upper castes, in reporting the slur, highlighted Nandy justifying his comment by saying it was taken out of context and that he was merely trying to emphasise that those at the lowest end of the social structure were the most vulnerable for prosecution.
Nandy’s clarification, eagerly put out by the media, was at sharp variance with what he said at the Jaipur Literary Festival in Jaipur, which was, unfortunately for him, broadcast on television. He also made the astonishing statement that West Bengal was corruption-free because lower castes as well as ‘outcaste’ and tribespeople were never rulers there. He also did his bit for improving India’s external relations by saying eliminating corruption would make India a despotic state, like Singapore.
Besides being a democratically governed country in an excellent relationship with India, Singapore is also a secure, relatively uncorrupt society that this nation would do well to emulate. If Nandy could not explain properly what he wanted to say in a language in which he writes so prolifically, then what on earth was he doing at a literary festival?
The festival itself has in recent times become a sounding board for causes, stoking anger among communities, embarrassing the nation and compromising with national interest. Mainly financed by a group whose business interests are abroad, the festival is run by, among others, foreign nationals.
After all these years of independence from British raj, some things apparently never change, particularly insensitivity to traditional culture and modern aspirations. The festival, it appears is consistent in creating controversies that challenge India’s past, present and future.
Like the Rajasthan Royals in the Indian Premier League of 20/20 cricket, the festival is linked to the state only in name. Scant attention is paid to integrate it with the local ethos, just as the Rajasthan Royals have neither local players nor even practice sessions in Jaipur.
The Rajasthan government could do well to limit the damage of a literary festival, which has more of festival and less of literary concern. Even its public relations machinery concentrates on the controversies, which have very little literary merit. Defining it as a pure tamasha would help the authorities defend themselves better from charges of curtailing freedom of expression. A festival and its participants, from Salman Rushdie to Nandy, cannot use it to tarnish India’s image, especially not one which has in recent times been known only for unliterary controversies.
(The author, formerly of Reuters, is CEO, TV 99)
