Today’s intellectuals have much to learn from the past

Bhartrihari, a medieval scholar of repute, said every word is a lamp. It possesses the power to ignite minds if used in the right context for a righteous objective. Does the contemporary discourse in India resemble Bhartrihari’s observation or reflects conversely to it? It is not difficult to answer the aforesaid question. The language of discourse in the present era has significantly declined and it includes both political parties and independent intellectuals.

This is not unobvious as television debates, which preoccupy leisure hours (known as prime time), end with rhetoric and allegations and counter-allegations. Even unsavoury language is shockingly used but users remain unperturbed and come out of debates as winners and get congratulatory responses on social media. Anchors and producers enjoy the debate when it enters a new low. This is not an isolated case. It is part of a cycle of the intellectual-political trajectory of modern times. In the past it was intellectualism which defined the contours of politics, now conversely, it is politics which determines intellectualism.

Not long ago, India’s political and intellectual life competed and complemented each other. Even in extreme adversity, intellectuals and leaders’ appetite for knowledge and discourse remained unhampered. Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak wrote ‘Gita Rahasya’ while in prison. Gandhi and Vinoba Bhabe, too, produced interpretations of Gita from their prison life. There had been a healthy and happy combination of intellectualism and activism.

Therefore, literary and philosophical output impacted both the present and posterity. They understood the importance of ideas in the making of a nation and rationalising the human mind. Contributions of Bipin Chandra Pal, Maharshi Aurobindo contested European supremacist intellectualism by producing an alternative paradigm of culture, nationalism and dharma. There is an interesting episode which needs to be mentioned. After the death of BC Pal, ‘The Statesman’ wrote an editorial on May 15, 1932, which unravels the poverty of concern for intellectuals in our society. It mocked nationalist newspapers for shedding tears as Pal lacked resources to survive and the editorial claimed that he was given a column by ‘The Statesman’, which was owned and edited by Europeans who knew that he was fighting against their fraternity and British imperialism. It wrote, “There are several letters in our file which show no alternative means was available to the ablest pen of India.” The letters of Swami Vivekananda to his friend Raja Ajit Singh is more than disturbing. He wrote that he earned lakhs by delivering lectures in America and Europe and sent all the money for the welfare of the poor people of India. He requested him to make a small house for his widow mother so that she could live a graceful life as she had been not in the condition to save for herself. In the monsoon, she was living in an old, dilapidated house.

In post-independent India, unfortunate developments marked the decline of intellectualism. Jawaharlal Nehru started a new trend of coopting intellectuals. Dominant Marxist intellectuals became attached to the Communist parties from the very beginning. They created an atmosphere in which independent and critical intellectuals faced coercion. Intellectuals are independent voices and their critical interpretation entails evolution of ideas and contemplation in society on issues effecting its dynamics. Even party intellectuals in the past had not surrendered their independence and this helped the parties to correct its course. Two things are prerequisite for remaining independent. One, the constructive ego which prevents intellectuals to compromise and second, a spiritual bent of mind to sustain isolation, scarcity and renouncements. There is an example which seems unbelievable. Jay Prakash Narayan was one of the top intellectuals of the country. Prime Minister Nehru proposed a meeting with him with urgency and JP responded he could meet only after eight months since he had a tight schedule. His meeting with Nehru was news due to his own intellectual and social stature. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat once aptly said one has to be a saint to become an intellectual. And this makes a distinction between the Indian and Western traditions. Panini, the unparalleled grammarian, was teaching his pupils while a tiger was approaching him. The pupils fled but Panini was so engrossed that while interpreting the origin of tiger word in Sanskrit, he was swallowed by the tiger. Our intellectual legacies which give us primacy in the world community is not an output of professional intellectuals who live for glory and strive for power and position but those who identified themselves with the quest for an idea as life’s mission.

Does it not panic us when we find shallow debates on television and polemical academic works? It’s time for national debate on the role and status of intellectuals and society’s contribution in resurrecting traditions and sustaining them. A healthy and vibrant society cannot be deaf and dumb on vital issues which impact the conscience of the nation. The decline in political discourse is reflective of the end of active intellectualism.

The author is founding Honorary Director of India Policy Foundation, a Delhi-based think tank. Views expressed are personal.