Opinion » Lead

Updated: January 31, 2013 01:04 IST

Death of irony in the age of media

Sankaran Krishna
Comment (8)   ·   print   ·   T  T  

Although Ashis Nandy has explained the context in which he made his corruption remark, the furious pace of TV and Internet does not allow space for a re-evaluation

As I watched the clip of Ashis Nandy, at the Jaipur Literature Festival, belligerently asserting that most of the corruption in India was the work of the Scheduled Castes (SC), the Scheduled Tribes (ST) and the Other Backward Classes (OBCs), I thought to myself: “Okay, what is the sly old fox up to this time?” It was obvious to me that the statement was not meant to be taken literally but rather to make some other point. And sure enough, a few minutes of trawling the web furnished me with an adequate context. Having first pointed out that middle and upper class India’s exclusionary and nepotistic practices have been thoroughly normalised through a discourse of merit and just desserts, Mr. Nandy was asserting that the “corruption” stick was now wielded exclusively when lower castes and other marginalised groups engaged in practices similar to what the twice-born had been doing for centuries. He welcomed such corruption as to him, in a highly unequal and deeply hierarchical society, corruption may be a form of upward mobility for the disadvantaged. With characteristic flourish, Mr. Nandy declared that lower caste corruption gave him faith in Indian democracy and its future.

Irritating reminder

Over the last two years, as much of middle class India awoke to our corrupt ways under Anna Hazare, Arvind Kejriwal and others, Mr. Nandy has been an irritating reminder that (a) the middle class is itself one of the primary beneficiaries of said corruption, (b) that so much of the anti-corruption discourse and punishment are reserved for the lower castes whereas upper caste beneficiaries escape unscathed, and (c) middle class attention to corruption is a direct consequence of its marginalisation as electoral politics based on universal franchise has put it in its place.

As the media circus increased in hysteria, Mr. Nandy has been branded by some as casteist and elitist; still others are demanding his arrest and some have suggested he be tried for sedition. This rush to judging Mr. Nandy has a familiar ring. For a long time now, he has been an insightful critic of India’s much-vaunted secularism. His position is distinct from the critique of pseudo-secularism made by the BJP or the critique of the inadequacies of Congress secularism made by left-liberals. In fact he noted that both communalists and secularists in Indian politics shared a certain instrumental view of mobilising religion to win votes: if the BJP campaigned on the threat to India’s Hindu identity because of minorities, the Congress campaigned on its allegedly singular ability to defend the minorities. In either case, a bit of religious violence was a good thing to garner votes.

Mr. Nandy’s critique of the limits of secularism is best exemplified in a marvellous essay he once wrote on Kochi (then Cochin) and its record of hardly having any communal violence despite comprising sizeable fractions of Hindus, Muslims and Christians. After some fieldwork in Kochi, Mr. Nandy discovered that its communal harmony was not a result of the belief in secularism amongst its residents. Far from it, as most seemed quite unaware of its definition or content. Nearly every Hindu he met “lovingly nurtured” the usual nasty stereotypes about Muslims and vice versa, and people of all faiths heartily detested others of a different faith. What then explained the harmony of the town? Mr. Nandy’s explanation was typical: their tolerance for other faiths came not from an ingestion of Nehruvian secularism (or what Mr. Nandy has often called Indian modernity) but rather from their own lives as practising believers. As Hindus, Muslims and Christians, each of them entertained stereotypes of the other; but as believers, each of them also understood and respected why and how the other could be religious in their own way. It was this tolerance emanating from religious belief that Mr. Nandy considered India’s salvation, not the thin and aseptic secularism of the faithless that her western moderns professed.

Mr. Nandy often illustrated this insight with two observations: first, the three great historical figures that Indians always point to as paragons of tolerance — Ashoka, Akbar and Mohandas Gandhi — did not draw upon secularism; rather they were deeply religious and unlikely to argue for a strict separation of state and religion, or the divorce of ethics from politics. And second, it was in cities, filled as they were with the so-called moderns, that so much of India’s religious violence was concentrated — not in villages, where people were deeply religious and therefore naturally tolerant. Yet, these village Indians were hardly acquainted with the letter and content of secularism. Mr. Nandy’s position on secularism has been an unusual and insightful one — shared with others such as T.N. Madan — but it has often led him to being branded a closet Hindu fundamentalist (which is richly ironic as Mr. Nandy is a Christian, a Brahmo, by birth).

The ‘sati’ controversy

Mr. Nandy has been labelled an anti-feminist/ male chauvinist as well. Many years ago, after a spate of modern day ‘satis’— including the highly visible one of Roop Kanwar in Rajasthan — there was a huge debate and lines were drawn along secular versus communal, traditional versus modern, and superstition versus rational. Mr. Nandy waded in with typical counter-intuition. He pointed out that many latter-day instances of ‘sati’ occurred not amongst traditional rural families but among those moving up a ladder of modernisation and urban employment. He noted that both the so-called secular and communal parties sought to make political capital out of the event, and indeed both were quite comfortable in the deification of Roop Kanwar if they thought it could bring in votes. In that context, Mr. Nandy remarked there was a time in the mythical past when ‘sati’ as an institution said something about honour and valour, and used that to contrast the instrumental and highly modern ways in which ‘sati’ had come to be commodified in post-colonial India. Outrage followed. Mr. Nandy was seen by some feminists as justifying the practice of ‘sati’ and calling for a return to the purity of feudal times.

For those of us who understand Mr. Nandy to be a constant gadfly there is a method in his seeming madness. By exposing the conceits of the moderns he revalorises the traditional and the village. By showing the complicity of the seculars and the communalists in religious violence, he shows how religion has been instrumentalised by all. Both the secularist and the communalist share a deep contempt for the believer (whom Mr. Nandy often describes as both poor and rural in most instances). Many of us also have serious reservations about some of his pet beliefs. Mr. Nandy’s village is closer to the idyllic idealisation of Gandhi and far from the cesspool of superstition and intrigue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. He can often seem romantic in his idealisation of the pre- or non-modern, and some of his broad-brush generalisations can be wonderfully free of any empirical specifics. His distinction between pre-modern ‘religion-as-faith’ and a modern ‘religion-as-ideology’ seems too simplistic. And on and on. But which social commentator or scientist, especially one who writes on such large and explosive issues, is free from such critique?

Vastly different mediascape

What is going on with the current brouhaha, however, seems a bit distinctive. Firstly, it occurred on live TV and in a mediascape vastly different from the ones that surrounded ‘sati’ or the debate over secularism. In this era of the sound-bite playing on an endless loop, and a public saturated by electronic media that pervades the remotest village, the time and space for nuance and distinction seems breathlessly short. Mr. Nandy has explained, as have others, the context in which he made the comment about the SCs, the STs and the OBCs being the most corrupt.

But for those who have rushed to either make political capital out of this ‘insult,’ or just cannot see the irony in the comment, there has been literally neither the time nor the space to conduct a re-evaluation. Positions are instantaneously taken, expressed in public, and then spread like wildfire — making it all the harder to retract. And so the spectacle goes on.

As I ponder over my inability to convince others to see it my way, and they struggle to understand how I could be so obtuse as to miss (to them) Mr. Nandy’s obvious casteism, one thing becomes very clear: it is precisely because neither of us can convince the other of the truth that it is so important to let both of us speak our minds freely. The last word, as always, has to be left to our premier pundit of provocation: Mr. Nandy avers that having been for so long a defender of the lower castes, it would be entirely apt if he were to go to jail for a comment he made on their behalf. While that may appeal to Mr. Nandy’s always over-developed sense of the tragic-comic, it would also represent the descent of our politics into the ludicrous.

(Sankaran Krishna is professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, USA. Email:

More In: Lead | Opinion

"...himself and Richard Sorabji, that if they “arranged” to get fellowships for their children at Harvard or Oxford, as part of a trade in mutual and selective favours, none will comment about that, as if it is axiomatic that the fellowship was awarded on the basis of merit". I do not understand as to why no objection has come from Harvard or Oxford for this for it means very directly that the fellowship at these Universities are by way of nepotism. Or is it a fact that those who are high in the list of Transparency International are those who are good at the art of camouflaged corruption. Sankaran Krishna should have seen this irony in the response of the media. I think Ashis Nandy is trying to hint at something big that is not easy to understand in one go. He in fact has initiated a debate that will not happen otherwise by stirring this hornets nest!

The same regards our Universities here are a open secret as well!!

from:  Prof Vijayalakshmi Sailapathi
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 08:46 IST

''communal and caste factors have been among the politics all along especially more so during elections. Now the arts area is giving more and more place for this among writers and film personalities.Since we have more commoners like the Fans and the readers madly following their iKONS this trend is posing more danger to society.The press and other media including the social speakers should better avoid these topics in total and leave to the politicians who are handling much better since all the parties are trying to satisfy the minorities and religious people

from:  T.S.Gopalakrishnan
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 08:05 IST

It is a wonderful article. Thanks to Prof Sankaran Krishna for
explaining the irony. when I used to listen to him on TV I was
impressed but I now only realised the underlying theme. That for ages,
the educated elite and the upper classes have continued to flourish
under a ring fence they constructed for themselves. When the Dalits
and others are clambering up the ladder of advancement in the modern
sense, if they ape the elite in indulging in corruption or nepotism
they get caught more easily and frequently than the entrenched upper
classes. Very true. Empirical evidence if collected on the class/caste
composition of those who were punished for acts of corruption will I
am sure bear Nandy out. However, he is too much of an intellectual to
make an impact in awakening the society to this malaise.

from:  R.Sundaram
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 07:22 IST

The primary issue in this case is the so called freedom of expression.In the name of SC/ST atrocities all sorts of corrupt despotic leaders like, Mayavati, Ram Vilas etc have started to teach him a lesson using such obnoxious clause.I understand how our law maintenance organisations and corrupt legal systems deal with such cases getting illegal gratifications through courts where such cases are dealt.On the contrary in this information age under the obnoxious clause of OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT, corruption is happily sustained in defence and security establishments away from public glare!

from:  atis
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 06:56 IST

After Ashis Nandy gave the explanation and even apologised for his so-called casteist remarks if they hurt the feelings , we should let the matter rest there. We Indians are used to straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. What is the use of discussions and debates if we cannot say what we want to say.

from:  Hema
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 05:57 IST

I had not heard of any of Ashis Nandy's previous comments on Secularism
and Sati. I however watched in wonder the various news trying to
understand the meaning of corruption being an instrument of justice for
backward castes. But now I get it. True only a newspaper like this can
provide that time and space for nuance. Thanks Prof Sankaran Krishna &
The Hindu.

from:  Raghu
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 05:25 IST

Why is that the people like Ashish Nandy who thrive by separating people in terms of minorities and well-to-do are termed as secular and people who advocate for one India, one Law are termed as non-secular/fundamentalist.
Shouldn't it be reverse?

from:  maverick
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 04:19 IST

Dissent and debate are the signs of a healthy and mature democracy!

from:  umesh bhagwat
Posted on: Jan 31, 2013 at 02:48 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor



Recent Article in Lead

V.R. Raghavan

No frisson in talks over fission

The 2015 Review of the Non Proliferation Treaty is a process expected to be stormy and contentious due to a new set of geopolitical drivers. Yet again, it could leave the dream of nuclear disarmament unattained and the purpose of preventing proliferation defeated »