Two opposed ideas of India

The Idea of India is the title of a well-known book by political scientist Sunil Khilnani published in 1999, but I hope the expression is generic enough to be used as part of the heading for this piece, though this piece has nothing to do with the contents of the book. This piece is occasioned by two pieces published in The Indian Express, one  by Tavleen Singh (The visit, the arrival, October 2, 2014), and the other by Suhas Palshikar (Cleansing Gandhi of Radicalism, October 7, 2014). Read together, these two pieces frame the idea of India from two different perspectives. 

Since Tavleen Singh’s piece was published first, I will begin with that. Claiming “the advantage of being a veteran in journalism (and the) perspective” that it provides, she goes on “to examine for (the readers) Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States against the backdrop of visits by other Indian prime ministers to foreign lands.”

With this enlightened perspective, she says, “So with the perspective of a veteran journalist, what I can say is that I cannot remember a prime minister who has succeeded in changing India’s image for the better in so short a time.”

In keeping with her usual sarcasm, she also refers to the “class of educated, westernised Indian who believed that India’s honour was safest in the hands of Indians educated in Oxford and Cambridge” and the “genre of Indian proud of speaking English perfectly while being unable to speak their own mother tongue” in apparent contrast to “India’s least educated, most provincial prime minister.”

The last sentence of Tavleen Singh’s piece “Modi succeeded on this visit in changing not just India’s image, but his own” raises a question: In whose eyes has the image of India been changed? The answer to this question is provided earlier in the piece in the paragraph which refers to those “investors”, “politicians”, and “friends” who asked her the question.

The paragraph reads: “Can Modi change India? That is the question everyone I have met has asked me. Investors have asked it for reasons of investment and because the prime minister has emphasised so often during this visit that he believes in “minimum government”. They know from having tried to make investments how often they have been defeated by maximum government. Politicians have asked the question in the hope that India will play the role it should be playing internationally and friends have asked the question in the hope that one day when they return to India, they will see clean cities and modern infrastructure.”

This paragraph seems unequivocal that India’s image has been changed “for the better in so short a time” in the eyes of American “investors”, “politicians”, and Tavleen Singh’s “friends” who “hope” to visit India “one day”.

How about India’s image in the eyes of people who actually live in India? This is the question that Suhas Palshikar confronts head on. Beginning with the provocative title “Cleansing Gandhi of Radicalism”, Palshikar begins with the observation that “the (current) government too seems to have taken seriously the mandate that it has to change the face of India’s intellectual personality.”

The “puzzle” and “symbolism” that Palshikar attempts to unravel is how the government decided to invoke Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for the Swachh Bharat Abhiyaan launched by the Prime Minister on October 02, Gandhi’s date of birth, “with whom the Hindu nationalists always remained in an adversarial conversation even after his death. Palshikar believes this “could happen only by redefining Gandhi.” As proof, Palshikar says“In the rhetoric that emanated from the prime minister, there was no hint of any of the radical moves Gandhi made. His penchant for toilet-cleaning had far too radical social implications.”

Palshikar refers to this as “the marketing of the new Gandhi.” He also says that the plans for celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Gandhi are likely “to denude Gandhi of the substantive ideas he was associated with.” He is apprehensive that “if this effort goes on for five years, the next generation would remember Gandhi for cleanliness (only). Already, there are many, even today, who are convinced that Gandhi (only) meant cleanliness.”

After this, Palshikar moves almost directly to address the same issues that were raised by Tavleen Singh, “As Modi mentioned in his address to adoring audiences of NRIs at the Madison Square Garden, we need to build an India that “they” (Indians staying/ working in the US) dream of.”

Gandhi comes into the discourse again, “In direct contrast to Gandhi, who always reminded us that public life and politics need to be anchored to the dreams and expectations of the “last man”, we are striving to make an India that would be liveable for the upper classes, lest they run away to cleaner environs!”

The idea of India that Gandhi articulated seems to have been pushed almost completely out of the picture. “On October 2, our collective consciousness seems to have willingly chosen to ignore the other equally radical ideas and practices of Gandhi. Religious harmony, equality of all religious communities and acceptance of diversity as the basis of our nationhood were integral to Gandhi’s way of approaching collective identity. A hundred years ago, Gandhi began to move Indian society in the direction of a nationhood that was non-competitive, non-combative and non-exclusionary. Nowhere in the world was there a precedent for such nationhood…It was at that point that Gandhi…conceptualised and shaped a very different nationhood. It is that nationhood that forms the central pillar of India’s present.”

Palshikar feels that “the net intended effect of the abhiyaan to equate Gandhi with cleanliness” is to cleanse “Gandhi of radicalism.”  The first sentence of the last paragraph frames the issue: “Clearly, going much beyond the good governance pledge and the development promise, the new regime seems set to open a battlefront on ideas."

Jagdeep S. Chhokar is a former professor, Dean, and Director In-charge of the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. The views expressed are personal.

Such articles are only possible because of your support. Help the Hoot. The Hoot is an independent initiative of the Media Foundation and requires funds for independent media monitoring. Please support us. Every rupee helps.