Column

In the hullabaloo over the taunting of Andrew Symonds last week, another important and connected bit of news got somewhat lost. We read about the shocking remarks made by Dr James Watson about black people being less intelligent and were suitably outraged, but it all seemed much more distant compared to what was happening in our own backyard. The media went into overdrive about the Symonds story and Watson found himself relegated to the inside pages.

There have been many developments after his remarks made it to print. There was an outcry in Britain, where he was headed, Watson apologised and one of his hosts cancelled the lecture they had invited him for.

What exactly did he say that got everyone so hot and bothered? Well, among other things, he said he felt concern for the future of Africa because: “All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours — whereas all the testing says not really.” He then went on to say that “people who have to deal with black employees” find that we are not all equal.This would be offensive anywhere, but in the racially charged West, the remarks become positively incendiary.

The media unearthed some of his earlier gems: Women should have the right to abort their child if they find it could turn out to be gay; black people have higher libidos; thin people are unhappy and therefore more ambitious and this priceless one — “Whenever you interview fat people, you feel bad because you know you’re not going to hire them.”

Some of you reading this may chuckle atthese apparent witticisms and may wonder what the fuss is about. After all, there are several jokes predicated on these very notions — slim models, superstud blacks and the countless ‘Fattys’ we have read about are all part of the general stereotyping that goes on around us. Is everyone just being overly sensitive and politically correct? Have people lost the ability to laugh at themselves?

Those who are angry at the good doctor’s strange prescriptions will point out that such stereotyping is offensive. Moreover, these are not some silly schoolboy jokes but come from a respected scientist. He was the man who cracked the DNA code which unraveled the secret of life. Which means that he ought to be a bit careful, because people would take him seriously.

But consider, just consider, that this apparent lunatic is saying something based on his own knowledge and research of the human race. That would take us into dangerous territory; any suggestion of linking ‘differences’ with genetic make-up or race immediately touches off a raw nerve, invoking memories of Nazi experiments, apartheid and worse. These are no-go areas at the moment and no one will even gingerly suggest that perhaps there is a case for investigation.

This, to my mind, restricts the expansion of human endeavour and limits our capacity to discuss, probe and research. Not for a moment am I suggesting that Watson should not be criticised for his indiscretions (In his memoirs, where he talked about his DNA research, he had written — “A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull but also just stupid.”) Nor do I subscribe to his appalling remarks about black people being less intelligent — anyone who has been to Africa will know this is untrue.

Should we not separate stereotyping from plain, cruel racism? Racism can be of various kinds — talking slowly to a man from the Indian subcontinent (which I have experienced in Britain) is as much racist as discreetly shutting out blacks or women from prestigious institutions. In extreme cases, it can be like apartheid or the laws in America’s south; or it can take the form of singling out brown men with beards at airports. There is always some kind of warped logic offered for all these actions — the fathers of South Africa’s apartheid invoked God to justify their immoral behaviour —but racist attitudes usually form the basis.

Yet, who among us does not indulge in stereotyping? Brainy Southies, loud Punjabis, crazy Parsis, accented Keralites — all these are the stereotypes that form the mosaic of our vast land. Hindi movies would disappear without these clichés. Occasionally there is a weak voice of protest, but it gets drowned out. Jokes about Sikhs were in short supply after the Punjab agitation, but slowly came back. Not only that, we can be racists too — just ask an African how he is treated in India.

Without buying Watson’s message, it is important to ask if some lines of enquiry and debate will forever remain shut. Is any kind of comment on homosexuals wrong? Should all debate on gender be done in dry, carefully constructed jargon? Is genetic predisposition an area of research never to be touched? What about medical research that could benefit people of a particular community, race or ethnicity — will that always be controversial? If the answer to all these is yes, then humanity will be that much poorer, because path-breaking ideas come only if we have an open mind, even if it sometimes hurts. The world needs some heretics too.

Email: sidharth01@dnaindia.net