Deccan Chronicle - 04th Feb 2013
Dear Ashis Nandy,
On the question of corruption — how to deploy that concept, and which section of the Indian society (not of the state) deserves to be deployed — it seems you displayed a deep diabolism at the Jaipur Literature Festival. With your statement the debate on corruption shifted from individuals to communities/castes. This is in a way good.
The recent countrywide debate on corruption was confined to individuals, most of them coming from the higher echelons of the Indian civil society and state. Now you have, however, labelled the OBCs, SCs and STs as communities that are most corrupt without saying anything about the corruption of the upper castes, except a cursory reference to upper-caste nepotism. In any case, none of the upper-caste intellectuals in the realm of social science have accepted, so far, that the upper castes are corrupt as a community. Your presumption on that count is also wrong. In fact, there is no debate on castes and communities vis-a-vis corruption.
Using a concept like corruption, which is a hated concept in the public realm, for castes and communities of India that produced all our wealth for centuries but never got anything back is dangerous. The British colonists labe-lled the tribes as “criminal” but the upper castes as “pundits, Desh-mukhs, Sir Desais, Deshpandes” and so on. You seem to have followed them in labelling the most oppressed communities as “most corrupt.” Is it not dangerous to do so while claiming to be their supporter? Does not this harm even the social science discourse?
This is a time when some amount of intellectual intercourse is taking place between the upper-caste subaltern scholars, who denied the existence of caste, and Dalit-Bahujan scholars, who harp upon only caste.
What would happen to a white intellectual who says that “most black Americans are becoming corrupt” without stating that all whites are racist?
What if someone were to say that “most women who are entering the state administration are corrupt and that women labourers are becoming increasingly corrupt,” (just like the tribals who figured in your statement) — would that be acceptable to women activists of India? Would women intellectuals support it?
Take, for example, the very Bengal experiment that you cited. If I use your own analogy, the Bengal OBC/SC/STs are not corrupt because they have not yet come into the state sector.
In other words, the Bengali Bhadralok were/are one of the most corrupt communities of India who pretend to have kept their system “clean”. If I presume that you are using the notion of corruption to the Bengali Bhadralok as a community (made up of three castes: Brahmins, Kayastas and Vaidyas), would they tolerate it? How much intellectual energy has gone into exposing the Bengal Bhadralok manoeuvring? Did they not misuse the law of the land to keep the SC/ST/OBCs out of the educational system?
If we invoke Tarun Tejpal’s epithet that “corruption is an equaliser” then Bengal Communists who ruled that state for 37 years must be treated as the most corrupt group in the world. They subverted the reservation system to ensure that the SC/ST/OBCs do not come anywhere near their Bhadralok Brahminic state. What did the Bengal intellectuals do to fight that corrupt Bhadralok community? The course has not changed during the Mamata Banerjee regime too. What will you do now?
When the Ambedkarites were almost ready to deploy caste in the Indian intellectual discourse, undercutting the class and nation discourse, some of our upper-caste scholars came out with a soft, unidentifiable, Western concept called “subaltern.”
For those of us who realised that there was a deep notion of casteism operating in the whole nationalist and class movements, we also knew that the deployment of the category “subaltern” subverted our agenda. Somehow, the Mandal movement, with the support of the erstwhile Raja — V.P. Singh — the anti-caste ideology began to acquire a foothold in the academic circles. There is a feeling that only to divert the discourse on corruption of upper castes you labelled the SC/ST/OBCs as corrupt by misusing a platform like the Jaipur Literary Festival.
Otherwise how should one understand your theory of corruption that walked on its head?
As the British had done earlier, criminality is now being attributed to the victims of criminals themselves. This is one of the main attributes of colonial intellectualism and it now is seeping into upper-caste intellectual discourse. The tragedy is that such friendly surrogation of casteism was sought to be played out at a place where the women from Jaipur’s Maharaja family were selling tea, whereas the maharajas were hardly around. This shows that there is a change. But the change is more visible among upper-caste women and not so much among upper-caste men.
Yes, the Dalit-Bahujan movements should keep track of such surrogations without losing sight of who is a friend and who is a foe. It should draw lines carefully. Earlier we faced intellectuals who described Ambedkar as a “False God.” There is that word “God” in it. But what is more important is “False.” You labelled the SC/ST/OBCs as corrupt to equalise them with upper castes who are not merely corrupt but exploit also. We, therefore, not only need to debate caste and corruption but caste and exploitation, too.
The game is not yet being played in a levelled field. The men and women in that vastly unlevelled ground are unequal. The very sight of unequal bodies in the ground, which is unlevelled, the fear of losing the game is deep among the short and lean standing there. While pretending to be a friend of the new entrants, do not hint to the umpire that the new entrants are likely to win by using deceptive means. No… no, that is being a deceptive friend.
|
Showing posts with label Ashis Nandy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ashis Nandy. Show all posts
February 07, 2013
February 04, 2013
The Ashis Nandy Affair | "Without doubt, a casteist slur" says K. Satyanarayana
The Hindu, February 5, 2013
Without doubt, a casteist slur
by K. Satyanarayana
Contrary to what Nandy’s defenders would have us believe, his corruption remark reinforces negative stereotypes about Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
The controversy around Ashis Nandy’s casual remarks at the Jaipur Literature Festival did not address a number of important questions of public concern. The frenzied ‘Save Nandy’ campaign that followed has actually foreclosed any productive discussion. His supporters have been trying to explain and contextualise Professor Nandy’s flippant remarks through references to his scholarship and eminent status.
Sankaran Krishna seeks to locate Mr. Nandy’s words in the wake of his earlier scholarship and criticisms (The Hindu, January 31). Such an approach is irrelevant to what Mr. Nandy said at the JLF. Harsh Sethi (The Hindu, January 28), Yogendra Yadav (Indian Express, January 28), Lawrence Liang (Economic Times, January 30) and several others have argued that Mr. Nandy’s statements should not be read as casteist. What is pertinent is that both Mr. Nandy and his defenders invoke ‘SC, ST and OBCs’ in a manner that reinforces a stereotypical image of these communities as “intolerant” and “undemocratic.” Shiv Visvanathan writes, “Dalits and OBCs are treated as sacred cows” (Firspost, Jan. 28).
One-sided
The other standard mode of response has been to combine the banning of Kamal Haasan’s film Vishwaroopam, the Rushdie affair and other state censorship issues with Mr. Nandy’s “freedom of speech” to conclude that Indian society is becoming intolerant and undemocratic. Manu Joseph writes in the New York Times ( Jan. 30) that India is “a paradise for those who take offence.” That Mr. Nandy named the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, a large population of the marginalised protected by special laws, as the most corrupt, is totally ignored.
There has been absolutely no attempt to seriously examine the significance of the SC/ST Act and its provisions given that we live in a society with rampant caste discrimination. Madhu Kishwar tweeted on January 28: “Wonder why no one discussing the draconian provisions in SC/ST Act under which Ashis Nandy being booked. Only focusing on Nandy, not the law.” It was no less than a call for the scrapping of this important 1989 Act, which was a result of decades of lobbying by the Dalit movement. Its repeal has been, for long, the demand of the Shiv Sena, the Pattali Makkal Katchi, the Samajawadi Party and such like. Swapan Dasgupta echoes this view saying the Act is “absurd, inflexible, draconian” (The Pioneer, Feb. 3). Antara Dev Sen says that “the more socially disadvantaged you are as an identity group, the more laws you may have at your disposal to attack” (Asian Age, Feb. 2). Liang argues that filing a case is “a lumpen strategy of the right” that all minorities have adopted.
Even if it is not the only option, is it so wrong for Dalits to file a case? No one thought it necessary to examine the validity of Mr. Nandy’s “provocative” claims. The irony is that in the name of freedom of expression, liberal and rightwing intellectuals have come together in actually suppressing all debate on Mr. Nandy’s objectionable comment that the OBC, SC and ST people are “the most corrupt.”
The effect has been to deflect all attention from his bizarre statements (dubbed as “nuanced utterances”). The question of whether Mr. Nandy’s remarks in fact constitute casteist speech was never given serious attention. Mr. Nandy himself clarified his position many times but never unconditionally withdrew his comments. He reiterated the view that the SC, ST and OBCs are indeed most corrupt (in the sense of they forming a majority of the population) in very clear terms on an NDTV show ( Jan. 28 interview to Barkha Dutt).
In the case of the socially stigmatised and marginalised people, references of any broad-brush kind only reinforce stereotypes of these people. Imagine a white intellectual in the United States, irrespective of the nature and stature of his previous body of work, saying that Blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. are the most corrupt. What would be the repercussions?
What is more, by a clever displacement it was argued that Mr. Nandy actually was the victim of an intolerant culture and authoritarian politics. He is seen as ‘hounded’ and ‘harassed’. It has been argued that the response to Mr. Nandy is ‘intolerant outrage’ and ‘competitive outrage’. From whom? Clearly, the Dalit-Bahujans. When Shuddhabrata Sengupta (Kafila.org, January 30) wickedly refers to “the foot soldiers of identity politics” and “brokers of victimhood,” he is referring not just to one or two individuals, but tarnishing entire communities. These are sweeping statements that depict the SCs, STs, OBCs as people who have no ‘commitment’ to careful listening, who, unlike the ‘upper castes,’ are easily offended, crave for false publicity and organise stage-managed protests.
An editorial in The Hindu (“From Footnote to FIR,” Jan. 30) notes that “in a country where there is a flourishing outrage industry — helped by a slew of laws that takes the feelings of easily offended individuals very seriously — there is a great deal of publicity and even political capital to be acquired in claiming that sentiments are hurt.” The rhetorical strategy is to refer to Indians in general but the specific context is the protest by certain SC, ST and OBC groups. The running theme of the Nandy defence team is that the public (especially the marginalised) has neither skills of reasoning nor a sense of humour to appreciate Mr. Nandy’s words in context. In fact, the campaign to produce Mr. Nandy as a victim as well as a great man constructs SC, ST and OBCs as fools and criminals.
‘Lumpen strategy’
Mr. Nandy’s defenders may have the right to be delusional and believe that his comments are pro-Dalit, pro-Adivasi and pro-OBC, and that such comments should not therefore attract the SC/ST Act. But to call taking recourse to a legal remedy ‘a lumpen strategy’ and to term the SC/ST Act ‘draconian’ — as some have done — is to casually undermine what is in fact an extremely important legislation. This is a special law designed to protect the dignity, life and property of the SC/ST people.
The dispute between the SC/STs and Ashis Nandy is one about dignity and respect. The state is not directly in the picture. A section of the marginalised, and the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes, invoked the SC/ST Act. Many others have objected to Mr. Nandy’s views on other grounds. But how does asking for the application of a special law amount to censorship and violation of freedom of expression? True, this Act imposes limits on speech that humiliates and discriminates against the Dalits and Adivasis. The new scholarship on humiliation and caste, by the likes of Gopal Guru, elaborates on and illustrates this point.
Mr. Nandy first clarified that the view that the SC, ST and OBCs are the most corrupt is a normative view, and not an empirical one. Despite this, he later claimed on NDTV that ticketless travellers in trains and black-ticket sellers in cinema halls would inevitably be SC, ST, and OBC, and they are in a majority.
Not pro-Dalit
This theory of false agency and emulation of the upper castes (in matters of corruption) is highly objectionable and offensive and it cannot be passed off as a ‘pro-Dalit’ statement. Madhu Koda, for all his skills at corruption, is not the role model of the marginalised. The corruption of some of the elite among the disadvantaged is as dangerous and oppressive as that of the upper caste elites. In fact, Mr. Nandy’s theory reinforces the commonsensical view of the oppressed castes as corrupt. The assumption that only physical violence and atrocities attract the SC/ST Act is wrong. Any generalisation that produces a stereotype could be objected to both on moral and legal grounds. There are divergent views among SC, ST, and OBC commentators on how to deal with Mr. Nandy’s remarks and theory of corruption (such loose talk is turned into a theory). But no one claimed that Mr. Nandy’s speech is excellent and ironic. No Dalits have come out to support him.
The public intellectual, Chandra Bhan Prasad, asked Dalits to forgive Mr. Nandy hoping he would unconditionally withdraw his statements. Some activists and politicians filed cases under the SC/ST Act. What is wrong with this? How can anyone take objection to one’s right to seek legal remedy under an Act that provides minimum protection to the deprived in this country? How can anyone prescribe only ‘a verbal or intellectual redress’ for these offensive and derogatory remarks?
In this vitiated context, one can only take some solace in the words of the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, which said on February 1: “He [Nandy] can’t continue making statements like this. Whatever may be your intent, you can’t go on making statements.” When staying his arrest, the bench noted, “We are not at all happy”. Nor are SCs, STs and OBCs.
(The author teaches at the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, and is the author of No Alphabet in Sight: New Dalit Writing from South India)
Without doubt, a casteist slur
by K. Satyanarayana
Contrary to what Nandy’s defenders would have us believe, his corruption remark reinforces negative stereotypes about Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
The controversy around Ashis Nandy’s casual remarks at the Jaipur Literature Festival did not address a number of important questions of public concern. The frenzied ‘Save Nandy’ campaign that followed has actually foreclosed any productive discussion. His supporters have been trying to explain and contextualise Professor Nandy’s flippant remarks through references to his scholarship and eminent status.
Sankaran Krishna seeks to locate Mr. Nandy’s words in the wake of his earlier scholarship and criticisms (The Hindu, January 31). Such an approach is irrelevant to what Mr. Nandy said at the JLF. Harsh Sethi (The Hindu, January 28), Yogendra Yadav (Indian Express, January 28), Lawrence Liang (Economic Times, January 30) and several others have argued that Mr. Nandy’s statements should not be read as casteist. What is pertinent is that both Mr. Nandy and his defenders invoke ‘SC, ST and OBCs’ in a manner that reinforces a stereotypical image of these communities as “intolerant” and “undemocratic.” Shiv Visvanathan writes, “Dalits and OBCs are treated as sacred cows” (Firspost, Jan. 28).
One-sided
The other standard mode of response has been to combine the banning of Kamal Haasan’s film Vishwaroopam, the Rushdie affair and other state censorship issues with Mr. Nandy’s “freedom of speech” to conclude that Indian society is becoming intolerant and undemocratic. Manu Joseph writes in the New York Times ( Jan. 30) that India is “a paradise for those who take offence.” That Mr. Nandy named the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, a large population of the marginalised protected by special laws, as the most corrupt, is totally ignored.
There has been absolutely no attempt to seriously examine the significance of the SC/ST Act and its provisions given that we live in a society with rampant caste discrimination. Madhu Kishwar tweeted on January 28: “Wonder why no one discussing the draconian provisions in SC/ST Act under which Ashis Nandy being booked. Only focusing on Nandy, not the law.” It was no less than a call for the scrapping of this important 1989 Act, which was a result of decades of lobbying by the Dalit movement. Its repeal has been, for long, the demand of the Shiv Sena, the Pattali Makkal Katchi, the Samajawadi Party and such like. Swapan Dasgupta echoes this view saying the Act is “absurd, inflexible, draconian” (The Pioneer, Feb. 3). Antara Dev Sen says that “the more socially disadvantaged you are as an identity group, the more laws you may have at your disposal to attack” (Asian Age, Feb. 2). Liang argues that filing a case is “a lumpen strategy of the right” that all minorities have adopted.
Even if it is not the only option, is it so wrong for Dalits to file a case? No one thought it necessary to examine the validity of Mr. Nandy’s “provocative” claims. The irony is that in the name of freedom of expression, liberal and rightwing intellectuals have come together in actually suppressing all debate on Mr. Nandy’s objectionable comment that the OBC, SC and ST people are “the most corrupt.”
The effect has been to deflect all attention from his bizarre statements (dubbed as “nuanced utterances”). The question of whether Mr. Nandy’s remarks in fact constitute casteist speech was never given serious attention. Mr. Nandy himself clarified his position many times but never unconditionally withdrew his comments. He reiterated the view that the SC, ST and OBCs are indeed most corrupt (in the sense of they forming a majority of the population) in very clear terms on an NDTV show ( Jan. 28 interview to Barkha Dutt).
In the case of the socially stigmatised and marginalised people, references of any broad-brush kind only reinforce stereotypes of these people. Imagine a white intellectual in the United States, irrespective of the nature and stature of his previous body of work, saying that Blacks and Hispanics in the U.S. are the most corrupt. What would be the repercussions?
What is more, by a clever displacement it was argued that Mr. Nandy actually was the victim of an intolerant culture and authoritarian politics. He is seen as ‘hounded’ and ‘harassed’. It has been argued that the response to Mr. Nandy is ‘intolerant outrage’ and ‘competitive outrage’. From whom? Clearly, the Dalit-Bahujans. When Shuddhabrata Sengupta (Kafila.org, January 30) wickedly refers to “the foot soldiers of identity politics” and “brokers of victimhood,” he is referring not just to one or two individuals, but tarnishing entire communities. These are sweeping statements that depict the SCs, STs, OBCs as people who have no ‘commitment’ to careful listening, who, unlike the ‘upper castes,’ are easily offended, crave for false publicity and organise stage-managed protests.
An editorial in The Hindu (“From Footnote to FIR,” Jan. 30) notes that “in a country where there is a flourishing outrage industry — helped by a slew of laws that takes the feelings of easily offended individuals very seriously — there is a great deal of publicity and even political capital to be acquired in claiming that sentiments are hurt.” The rhetorical strategy is to refer to Indians in general but the specific context is the protest by certain SC, ST and OBC groups. The running theme of the Nandy defence team is that the public (especially the marginalised) has neither skills of reasoning nor a sense of humour to appreciate Mr. Nandy’s words in context. In fact, the campaign to produce Mr. Nandy as a victim as well as a great man constructs SC, ST and OBCs as fools and criminals.
‘Lumpen strategy’
Mr. Nandy’s defenders may have the right to be delusional and believe that his comments are pro-Dalit, pro-Adivasi and pro-OBC, and that such comments should not therefore attract the SC/ST Act. But to call taking recourse to a legal remedy ‘a lumpen strategy’ and to term the SC/ST Act ‘draconian’ — as some have done — is to casually undermine what is in fact an extremely important legislation. This is a special law designed to protect the dignity, life and property of the SC/ST people.
The dispute between the SC/STs and Ashis Nandy is one about dignity and respect. The state is not directly in the picture. A section of the marginalised, and the National Commission for the Scheduled Castes, invoked the SC/ST Act. Many others have objected to Mr. Nandy’s views on other grounds. But how does asking for the application of a special law amount to censorship and violation of freedom of expression? True, this Act imposes limits on speech that humiliates and discriminates against the Dalits and Adivasis. The new scholarship on humiliation and caste, by the likes of Gopal Guru, elaborates on and illustrates this point.
Mr. Nandy first clarified that the view that the SC, ST and OBCs are the most corrupt is a normative view, and not an empirical one. Despite this, he later claimed on NDTV that ticketless travellers in trains and black-ticket sellers in cinema halls would inevitably be SC, ST, and OBC, and they are in a majority.
Not pro-Dalit
This theory of false agency and emulation of the upper castes (in matters of corruption) is highly objectionable and offensive and it cannot be passed off as a ‘pro-Dalit’ statement. Madhu Koda, for all his skills at corruption, is not the role model of the marginalised. The corruption of some of the elite among the disadvantaged is as dangerous and oppressive as that of the upper caste elites. In fact, Mr. Nandy’s theory reinforces the commonsensical view of the oppressed castes as corrupt. The assumption that only physical violence and atrocities attract the SC/ST Act is wrong. Any generalisation that produces a stereotype could be objected to both on moral and legal grounds. There are divergent views among SC, ST, and OBC commentators on how to deal with Mr. Nandy’s remarks and theory of corruption (such loose talk is turned into a theory). But no one claimed that Mr. Nandy’s speech is excellent and ironic. No Dalits have come out to support him.
The public intellectual, Chandra Bhan Prasad, asked Dalits to forgive Mr. Nandy hoping he would unconditionally withdraw his statements. Some activists and politicians filed cases under the SC/ST Act. What is wrong with this? How can anyone take objection to one’s right to seek legal remedy under an Act that provides minimum protection to the deprived in this country? How can anyone prescribe only ‘a verbal or intellectual redress’ for these offensive and derogatory remarks?
In this vitiated context, one can only take some solace in the words of the Supreme Court bench headed by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, which said on February 1: “He [Nandy] can’t continue making statements like this. Whatever may be your intent, you can’t go on making statements.” When staying his arrest, the bench noted, “We are not at all happy”. Nor are SCs, STs and OBCs.
(The author teaches at the English and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad, and is the author of No Alphabet in Sight: New Dalit Writing from South India)
February 02, 2013
Here’s the real reason why sociologist Ashis Nandy should be in the dock of public criticism
Firstpost India
Ashis Nandy’s corruption theory is a load of bull
by R Jagannathan Feb 1, 2013
Here’s the real reason why sociologist Ashis Nandy should be in the dock of public criticism. There is almost no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his observation that the backward classes and Dalits are seen as more corrupt because they are less good at hiding it than their upper class compatriots.
Nandy is facing police investigations for saying at the Jaipur Literary Festival (JLF) last week that “most of the corrupt come from the OBCs and the scheduled castes and now, increasingly, scheduled tribes, and as long as this is the case, the Indian republic will survive.” (Read the full text here)
It is obviously the first half of the sentence that got everyone’s goat, not the second. In fact, if at all India has more corrupt people from the OBCs and SC/STs, it can only be because they constitute a much larger share of the population. The upper castes don’t exceed 15 percent of the population, while OBCs/SCs/STs constitute more than 70 percent.
The convoluted logic Nandy used to make his observation was not intended to show Dalits or OBCs as more corrupt, but merely as being more inept. He is effectively saying that the upper castes are more sophisticated in their corruption while the backwards are really backward in their ability to hide the stuff.
PTI
The convoluted logic Nandy used to make his observation was not intended to show Dalits or OBCs as more corrupt, but merely as being more inept. PTI
Is this really so?
This morning’s Indian Express investigates Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati’s alleged corruption. The story reveals a level of sophistication comparable to those practiced by the so-called upper classes or castes. Says the Express story: “During Mayawati’s third term as CM…the real estate business of one of her younger brothers, Anand Kumar, expanded like never before… Kumar’s companies constitute a key link in an elaborate network of business associations that involve builders in Noida and Greater Noida, national real estate giants Jaypee, Unitech and DLF, and a company linked to the son of Mayawati’s aide and Rajya Sabha member Satish Chandra Misra.”
Anybody who can create a web starting not with oneself, but a relative is hardly unsophisticated. In contrast, we have upper class YS Jagan Mohan Reddy currently cooling his heels in jail for his own property and related deals.
Let’s also not forget, Mayawati has paid no political price whatsoever for any of her land deals, but BS Yeddyurappa, a Lingayat from Karnataka, had to sacrifice his chief ministership for his inability to hide them well. A Dalit has got the better of someone who’s not so backward.
Consider what Nandy said about poor Mayawati’s inability to hide potential corruption compared to the upper classes. “If I do a good turn to Richard Sorabji, he can return the favour by accommodating my nephew at Oxford; if it were in the United States, it would be a substantial fellowship. Ms Mayawati doesn’t have that privilege. She probably has only relatives whose ambition was to be a nurse or run a petrol pump. If she has to oblige somebody or have somebody in the family absorb the money, she will probably have to take the bribe of having 100 petrol pumps, and that is very conspicuous, very corrupt indeed. Our corruption doesn’t look that corrupt, their corruption does.”
Even when it comes to petrol pumps, Nandy has proved himself wrong.
It is worth recalling that it was the sophisticated upper class ministers of the BJP-led NDA who were caught in a petrol pump allotment scam in 2002.
Not only did a Mayawati not get embroiled in any petrol pump scam, but one should contrast the sophisticated web of firms created around her younger brother with the unsophistication of a Sukh Ram, a Brahmin former Telecom Minister in Narasimha Rao’s cabinet, who was caught (and later convicted) for hiding crores in currency under his bed.
Next, let’s hear what Nandy had to say about the inept corruption of tribals. “To the best of my knowledge, the only unrecognised billionaire in India today, in dollar terms, is Madhu Koda. He’s a tribal and I can assure you that Mr Koda must have been a very insecure, unhappy, tense person. And in this kind of situation, the only people you can trust are your own relatives… And if you fit your experiences within this model, you will recognise why this insecurity is there, because politics looks a very impersonal, contractual work to a large part of Indians. They are new to politics. And your family members do not have the capacity to absorb the additional money in a more clever, intelligent way.”
Koda must surely have messed up, but one swallow does not prove Nandy’s theory about guileless tribals. Test this claim against reality – one involving Brahmins and tribals in the same web of corruption.
Brahmin PM Narasimha Rao was convicted for trying to bribe tribal-based Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs during a trust vote in the early 1990s. As for the JMM MPs themselves, they were not only all acquitted, but have even been able to keep the bribe money as a tax-free “political donation” (read here).
So much for upper caste brilliance in corruption, and tribal underachievement in the same department.
Next, consider Nitin Gadkari, a Brahmin supported by those ultra-Brahmins of the Sangh Parivar. So messily has he organised his Purti Group, that he became an object of ridicule for doing stupid things like making his driver a director. He is having to be rescued by the Pawars of the world.
Contrast this with Andimuthu Raja, a Dalit. You may say that he has got caught, but consider the sheer sophistication of his arguments and behaviour. While his arbitrary change in cutoff dates for allotting spectrum may still get him jail, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has not got anywhere with the money trail. If Raja has made money, he has hidden it well. Not only that, Raja managed his scam brilliantly by keeping P Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh in the loop, and this is the main reason why these gentlemen are facing a diminution in their reputations. They were saved only by the skins of their teeth and shown to be overlooking Raja’s scams.
And let’s not forget. If Raja did end up in jail, a whole lot of super-sophisticated businessmen – who should know every trick in the book and outside it – also went to jail with him. The Dalit, if anything, did not fare any worse than businessmen with platoons of high-powered lawyers to aid their misdeeds.
It does not matter if Raja actually gets convicted or not, but the fact that he managed to pull a fast one with two Congress politicians from the upper classes tells us that the so-called lower classes are not backward when it comes to corruption.
About corruption of the OBC type, Nandy had this to say: “In the case of Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh, and people like them, exactly…there is a sense of desperation, utter desperation and insecurity. Even if you make through corruption millions of rupees, you suspect that you will not be able to get away using the machinery of law or cleverly manipulating your investments in the right way with the right connections because you have none…”.
Can this statement be even remotely true of Mulayam Singh, who is even now sitting pretty and could be a potential PM candidate in a third or federal front in 2014? As for Lalu, when made an accused in the fodder scam, he smartly manoeuvred to make his wife CM of Bihar, and never paid any kind of price for the fodder scam. As far as the national media is concerned, he is still good copy. And he himself has said he does not rule himself out as a future PM.
When it comes to corruption, the truth is no one is backward.
Ashis Nandy’s corruption theory is a load of bull
by R Jagannathan Feb 1, 2013
Here’s the real reason why sociologist Ashis Nandy should be in the dock of public criticism. There is almost no evidence whatsoever to substantiate his observation that the backward classes and Dalits are seen as more corrupt because they are less good at hiding it than their upper class compatriots.
Nandy is facing police investigations for saying at the Jaipur Literary Festival (JLF) last week that “most of the corrupt come from the OBCs and the scheduled castes and now, increasingly, scheduled tribes, and as long as this is the case, the Indian republic will survive.” (Read the full text here)
It is obviously the first half of the sentence that got everyone’s goat, not the second. In fact, if at all India has more corrupt people from the OBCs and SC/STs, it can only be because they constitute a much larger share of the population. The upper castes don’t exceed 15 percent of the population, while OBCs/SCs/STs constitute more than 70 percent.
The convoluted logic Nandy used to make his observation was not intended to show Dalits or OBCs as more corrupt, but merely as being more inept. He is effectively saying that the upper castes are more sophisticated in their corruption while the backwards are really backward in their ability to hide the stuff.
PTI
The convoluted logic Nandy used to make his observation was not intended to show Dalits or OBCs as more corrupt, but merely as being more inept. PTI
Is this really so?
This morning’s Indian Express investigates Bahujan Samaj Party leader Mayawati’s alleged corruption. The story reveals a level of sophistication comparable to those practiced by the so-called upper classes or castes. Says the Express story: “During Mayawati’s third term as CM…the real estate business of one of her younger brothers, Anand Kumar, expanded like never before… Kumar’s companies constitute a key link in an elaborate network of business associations that involve builders in Noida and Greater Noida, national real estate giants Jaypee, Unitech and DLF, and a company linked to the son of Mayawati’s aide and Rajya Sabha member Satish Chandra Misra.”
Anybody who can create a web starting not with oneself, but a relative is hardly unsophisticated. In contrast, we have upper class YS Jagan Mohan Reddy currently cooling his heels in jail for his own property and related deals.
Let’s also not forget, Mayawati has paid no political price whatsoever for any of her land deals, but BS Yeddyurappa, a Lingayat from Karnataka, had to sacrifice his chief ministership for his inability to hide them well. A Dalit has got the better of someone who’s not so backward.
Consider what Nandy said about poor Mayawati’s inability to hide potential corruption compared to the upper classes. “If I do a good turn to Richard Sorabji, he can return the favour by accommodating my nephew at Oxford; if it were in the United States, it would be a substantial fellowship. Ms Mayawati doesn’t have that privilege. She probably has only relatives whose ambition was to be a nurse or run a petrol pump. If she has to oblige somebody or have somebody in the family absorb the money, she will probably have to take the bribe of having 100 petrol pumps, and that is very conspicuous, very corrupt indeed. Our corruption doesn’t look that corrupt, their corruption does.”
Even when it comes to petrol pumps, Nandy has proved himself wrong.
It is worth recalling that it was the sophisticated upper class ministers of the BJP-led NDA who were caught in a petrol pump allotment scam in 2002.
Not only did a Mayawati not get embroiled in any petrol pump scam, but one should contrast the sophisticated web of firms created around her younger brother with the unsophistication of a Sukh Ram, a Brahmin former Telecom Minister in Narasimha Rao’s cabinet, who was caught (and later convicted) for hiding crores in currency under his bed.
Next, let’s hear what Nandy had to say about the inept corruption of tribals. “To the best of my knowledge, the only unrecognised billionaire in India today, in dollar terms, is Madhu Koda. He’s a tribal and I can assure you that Mr Koda must have been a very insecure, unhappy, tense person. And in this kind of situation, the only people you can trust are your own relatives… And if you fit your experiences within this model, you will recognise why this insecurity is there, because politics looks a very impersonal, contractual work to a large part of Indians. They are new to politics. And your family members do not have the capacity to absorb the additional money in a more clever, intelligent way.”
Koda must surely have messed up, but one swallow does not prove Nandy’s theory about guileless tribals. Test this claim against reality – one involving Brahmins and tribals in the same web of corruption.
Brahmin PM Narasimha Rao was convicted for trying to bribe tribal-based Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs during a trust vote in the early 1990s. As for the JMM MPs themselves, they were not only all acquitted, but have even been able to keep the bribe money as a tax-free “political donation” (read here).
So much for upper caste brilliance in corruption, and tribal underachievement in the same department.
Next, consider Nitin Gadkari, a Brahmin supported by those ultra-Brahmins of the Sangh Parivar. So messily has he organised his Purti Group, that he became an object of ridicule for doing stupid things like making his driver a director. He is having to be rescued by the Pawars of the world.
Contrast this with Andimuthu Raja, a Dalit. You may say that he has got caught, but consider the sheer sophistication of his arguments and behaviour. While his arbitrary change in cutoff dates for allotting spectrum may still get him jail, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has not got anywhere with the money trail. If Raja has made money, he has hidden it well. Not only that, Raja managed his scam brilliantly by keeping P Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh in the loop, and this is the main reason why these gentlemen are facing a diminution in their reputations. They were saved only by the skins of their teeth and shown to be overlooking Raja’s scams.
And let’s not forget. If Raja did end up in jail, a whole lot of super-sophisticated businessmen – who should know every trick in the book and outside it – also went to jail with him. The Dalit, if anything, did not fare any worse than businessmen with platoons of high-powered lawyers to aid their misdeeds.
It does not matter if Raja actually gets convicted or not, but the fact that he managed to pull a fast one with two Congress politicians from the upper classes tells us that the so-called lower classes are not backward when it comes to corruption.
About corruption of the OBC type, Nandy had this to say: “In the case of Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Singh, and people like them, exactly…there is a sense of desperation, utter desperation and insecurity. Even if you make through corruption millions of rupees, you suspect that you will not be able to get away using the machinery of law or cleverly manipulating your investments in the right way with the right connections because you have none…”.
Can this statement be even remotely true of Mulayam Singh, who is even now sitting pretty and could be a potential PM candidate in a third or federal front in 2014? As for Lalu, when made an accused in the fodder scam, he smartly manoeuvred to make his wife CM of Bihar, and never paid any kind of price for the fodder scam. As far as the national media is concerned, he is still good copy. And he himself has said he does not rule himself out as a future PM.
When it comes to corruption, the truth is no one is backward.
Ashis Nandy's views on caste and corruption must be debated and challenged
From: Outlook Magazine, 11 February 2013
The Nandy Bully
The sorts of corruption that matter are a purview of privileged
S. Anand
“An intellectual man can be a good man but he may easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity, or it may easily be a gang of crooks or a body of advocates of narrow clique from which it draws its support.”
—B.R. Ambedkar
“[The] racism of the intelligence...is specific to a dominant class whose reproduction depends, in part, on the transmission of cultural capital, an inherited capital that has the property of being an embodied capital and thus apparently natural and innate.”
—Pierre Bourdieu
Ashis Nandy is a reason-buster. That is his e-mail id, his raison d’etre. And when he makes totally unreasonable comments, his friends expect us to stand and applaud. His acolytes—who have predictably and unimaginatively started an online petition to save his right to free speech and have created a blog dedicated to him—tell us that the political psychologist (a term he uses to describe himself) likes to “illuminate through anecdote, aphorism and irony”. But apparently Dalits, adivasis and OBCs—he lumps together 70 per cent of the population—and those of us non-Dalits whose work requires us to actually know something about caste, cannot understand such nuances.
At the outset, let me state that I am not for Nandy’s arrest—though an absolute right to free speech should make us defend the Thackerays and Akbaruddin Owaisi as well—under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, for that would trivialise the realities of caste violence. Like my friends Chandra Bhan Prasad and Kancha Ilaiah have said with such grace and maturity, let us forgive Nandy and not drag him to court.
But first let us look at what exactly Nandy said in Jaipur. Here is a faithful, unedited transcript based on a YouTube video via ABP News. My comments figure in parenthesis, and these are necessary, for what transpired on stage was a performance with gestures, pauses and interruptions adding to the overall effect.
Nandy: How should I put it? Almost a vulgar statement on my part. [Raises his voice and speaks slowly, with deliberate emphasis on each word.] It is a fact that most of the corrupt come from the OBCs, and the Scheduled Castes and now increasingly Scheduled Tribes. And as long as this is the case, [the] Indian Republic will survive... [some interruption, with moderator Urvashi Butalia saying “Alright” as if sensing the tension and wanting to move on; TV journalist Ashutosh is raising his hand in protest, but Nandy soldiers on]. Also, I’ll give an example. One of the states with the least amount of corruption is the state of West Bengal, that is when the CPI(M) was there. And I want to propose to you, draw your attention to the fact that in the last hundred years [pause] nobody from the opp... [opposition? oppressed?], nobody from the OBCs, the Backward Classes, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have come anywhere near power in West Bengal. It is an absolutely clean state. [Point made, Nandy wants to pass the mike.]
Ashutosh: Urvashi, sorry...
Urvashi Butalia: Wait...
Ashutosh: I know, I know...I have to respond to this.... I think, I think...this is the classical [sic] case of...
Butalia [again butts in]: Ashutosh, please, please, please...
Ashutosh: This is a classical case of how the elite in India...they perceive the downtrodden, the Dalits, the OBCs, and all...[huge, heartening round of loud applause from the audience]. I think this is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard in this country [more continuous applause].
It’s not just the dirty outsiders who failed to grasp what Nandy later assures us was the case: that he was being pro-Dalit. It was also the presumably elite audience at the ‘DSC’ Jaipur Literary Festival who clapped for Ashutosh. And all this was well before the CSDS/twice-born spin machine cranked into action.
The transcript is of words spoken in just 80 seconds. This is a rushed, media-driven world where people seem to first speak, and then think, if at all. Just when we are to hear Ashutosh say something about the ruling castes, the video feed is cut, and ABP decides to typically amplify only Nandy’s words. The media will do what they are paid to do. (A corporatised media that a 2006 CSDS statistical survey—irony, again!—proved had near-zero representation of Dalits, adivasis and OBCs. And by the way, why can’t CSDS—the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, which is apparently running as a jobs programme for politically connected academicians who failed to get tenure in the US—ever implement reservation?)
Nandy did not stop with this. He persisted with his efforts at reason-busting in an interview to NDTV’s Barkha Dutt (January 28), where he claimed: “Even in this particular presentation [in Jaipur], I was [being] aggressively pro-Dalit, pro-OBC and pro-adivasi...unless and until you tease out that one sentence, and say ‘you are factually wrong, because this has not been empirically demonstrated’, though I have a feeling that probably I’ll not be shown wrong if you count the number of ticketless travellers and so on and so forth who get away [here Barkha smiles mischievously, a finger on her lips] in the second-class compartments of trains or on the terraces [sic] of railway trains and so on and so forth. There are many such cases. If you take the young urchins who sell tickets in the black outside cinema halls....” When Dutt interjects, Nandy says of his Jaipur utterances: “It is not an accidental slip, it is a Freudian slip.”
The more Nandy tries to explain, the more he sounds rabidly casteist. Ticketless travellers, black-ticket marketers, rickshawwallahs and thelawallahs who have to bribe the police—all these are presumed by Nandy to belong to once-born communities, simply because they are preponderant in India’s population. According to Nandyian logic, then, whoever is in the majority must necessarily be the most corrupt. What he claims as a ‘fact’—that most petty lawbreakers are from the bloc BSP founder Kanshi Ram called ‘bahujan’—is not a fact at all but a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. Even the elite anti-corruption campaigns of Anna Hazare/Arvind Kejriwal had bigger fish in mind. Surely, the corruption that drains India is concentrated in fields like real estate development, arms deals, concessions to rural landowners and SEZs, preferential bids for government contracts, and yes, lit-fests (some of which I’m ashamed to say I’ve attended). The sorts of corruption that matter most are the purview of the privileged, and Dalits do not make up even one per cent of these lucrative fields. They are the victims of corruption, not its beneficiaries. Corruption is not a democratising force, but most fundamentally an extra-legal form of rent-seeking behaviour by elites, that systematically sucks wealth upward. And until Nandy grasps this most basic reality, he should consider refraining from speaking publicly on the topics he knows nothing about.
And yes, the man who triggered this all, Tarun Tejpal, creator of the ‘Essar Thinkfest’, has gotten away with arguing that corruption is a “levelling force” in society, an “equaliser”—why then did Tehelka con Bangaru Laxman, a Dalit, into accepting a paltry Rs 1 lakh “for the party fund” and ensure prison for him? This vulgar understanding of democracy was further turned into a joke by Nandy, who blustered along as if he were sharing a drink with buddy Tejpal in the IIC lawns. Later, Nandy clarified to Barkha: “As long as the poor can be corrupt, it will be like a safety valve for society...it will be better for the republic.... Corruption is about equality and redistributive justice.” Is this all India’s “finest intellect” has to offer?
Whatever the explanations, clarifications and defences, it is quite transparent what Nandy said and meant. Section 3.1.(x) of the PoA Act—invoked when someone “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”—was meant to challenge the impunity with which the privileged castes routinely and habitually insult Dalits and adivasis. More than as a matter of freedom of expression, the twice-born have considered it their birthright—janma-siddha adhikaar—to be disparaging of all once-born folk. And Nandy’s words wound as much as the actions of khap panchayats and Ranvir Sena do.
However, it would be a sick irony if police who routinely refuse to file atrocities firs on even the most grossly violent attacks on Dalits were to file one against this completely non-violent pontiff of unreason. That Nandy has been threatened with arrest under this law is a red herring and a gift to him, which serves only to make him a martyr and a cause celebre for the Mandal-hating privileged-caste intellectual establishment. Worse, his arrest could bolster demands for the repeal of this important and seldom implemented law.
Nandy’s views on caste and corruption—quite like his qualified endorsement of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement that rapes happen in India, not Bharat (Tehelka, Jan 4, 2013)—must be debated and challenged. Nandy is a master at repackaging elite prejudice as counter-intuitive insight and paradoxical wisdom. But the best cure for these intellectual parlour games is simply to expose his ignorance to light of day.
Thus we should welcome Nandy’s comments as a brazen public expression of the “common sense” racism that the privileged in urban India routinely articulate in private conversations. The privileged who casually dismiss the policy of reservation in education and jobs (rarely implemented in earnest), and who refuse to acknowledge that they have availed of unstated reservation for millennia owing to their exclusive monopoly in various fields, including corruption (even if understood, according to Nandy’s reductive definition, as petty bribe-taking). The privileged who refuse to see caste itself as corruption, as moral depredation.
Before going further, let me pick some nits in what Nandy exactly said, especially since some of his most resourceful and powerful friends in the intellectual establishment—Nandy has at his disposal a large cache of what Bourdieu calls social and cultural capital—have rushed to his defence. These include the feminist publisher Urvashi Butalia, who helpfully parroted out his clarificatory statement (she moderated the Jaipur panel), and three of his former CSDS colleagues—Harsh Sethi (The Hindu, Jan 28, 2013), Yogendra Yadav (Indian Express, Jan 28, 2013) and Shiv Visvanathan (Firstpost, Jan 28, 2013)—who similarly constructed elaborate and contorted explanations to help the unnuanced masses understand that the emperor does have clothes after all.
His choice of words is surely not a result of any momentary lapse of reason. It is clear to anyone who cares to listen what Nandy in fact said and meant. Though it is fascinating to watch a man who scorns empiricism as vulgar western ideology gradually backtrack in a series of interviews, in which ‘a fact’ becomes ‘a hypothesis’, and finally an ‘expectation’. Equally fascinating is the spectacle of a man who has always resisted the idea of state-mandated bureaucratic rationality diligently sticking to state parlance when it comes to referring to Dalits or adivasis—steadfastly using ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and ‘OBC’ as if he were a babu in a sarkari department.
When he offers an illustration to corroborate his conclusion (mind you, Nandy’s authority comes not from any actual research, but the certainty of his intuitions), he says West Bengal under the Communists was an “absolutely clean state” because the once-born never had a share in power there. Such a man is marketed as an intellectual “maverick”, but the views he endlessly espouses are just cleverly repackaged versions of the ones most privileged-caste Indians anyway hold. For we, after all, live in Kaliyug, a fallen era when people have moved away from varna-ordained stations in life and have wrested some power.
Much of this narrative fits snugly with—in fact, follows from—Nandy’s larger body of work that valorises pre-modern approaches to community and thought. Which is why his foundational work, The Intimate Enemy (1983), revolves around Gandhi and Tagore, but does not once mention figures like E.V. Ramasamy Periyar, Tarabai Shinde, Jyotirao Phule, Pandita Ramabai, Narayana Guru, the Aulchand-led Kartabhaja movement in early 19th century Bengal or B.R. Ambedkar. Even when writing controversially about Sati in 1987, Nandy invoked Tagore’s poem on Sati as an ideal, but did not engage with Ambedkar’s brilliant essay ‘Castes in India’ (1916) where he argues how Sati (besides child marriage and enforced widowhood) was among the building blocks of the caste system. This non-engagement is actually an estrangement; because Ambedkar’s project of fusing European Enlightenment thought with anti-metaphysical Buddhism does not suit Nandy’s indigenist longing for Gandhi’s revanchist Ram Rajya envisioned in the 1908 tract Hind Swaraj, whose critique of modernity, the West and industrialism comes with an abiding love for varnashrama and women’s enslavement. Nandy would happily cite Aime Cesaire, Frantz Fanon and Albert Memmi, but never Ambedkar, Periyar or Phule who challenge his very hypotheses.
It is such a trajectory that leads Nandy to utter the ultimate racist slur when he condemns entire population groups, not just individuals like A. Raja or Madhu Koda who happen to be Dalit or adivasi. Such views are baked in the crucible of prejudice and ignorance. In the US today, even Republicans would not say something so derogatory of all Hispanics, Blacks or First Nation peoples. When they do, they pay a penalty (not necessarily legal) and are excoriated, not hailed as mavericks. Two examples given by two friends will suffice: from the world of entertainment and from the world of science (just to pique Nandy). In 2011, when America’s highest-paid TV actor Charlie Sheen made anti-Semitic remarks against producer Chuck Lorre, CBS dumped him and discontinued the production of Two and a Half Men, a hit show that had been running for a decade. In 2007, when Nobel-winning biologist James D. Watson, who worked on the Human Genome Project, was quoted in The Times as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent, the outcry led to the cancellation of his lectures and his eventually being sidelined at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island.
Nandy’s tendency to make gross generalisations stems from his penchant to essentialise. For him, the coloniser has necessarily been white British power. Internal colonialisms hardly matter. Nandy’s binaristic understanding of coloniser-colonised does not enable him to recognise the colonialism that is played out in almost every village in India where blatant caste-based segregation is practised. Last year, Nandy delivered the Ambedkar University Delhi’s annual lecture on April 14, Ambedkar’s birth anniversary (published in EPW, July 28, 2012). The topic was ‘Theories of Oppression and Another Dialogue of Cultures’. I had hoped the very topic would give Nandy an opportunity to engage with radical anti-caste thought in India. But he disappointingly stuck to familiar ground.
Nandy’s disengagement with issues of caste and anti-caste thought is symptomatic of the apathy of India’s intellectual classes to these issues. Which is why we see feckless intellectuals eager to be complicit in his crime—the slew of luminous signatories to the petition is a virtual who-is-who. One does not have to be a Dalit, adivasi or OBC to be outraged by Nandy’s pronouncements just like one need not be black to see why Watson was so very wrong. In being ashamed of Nandy, we merely have to reach out to our own humanity. But I suppose that would be an unnuanced, anomic, banal and secular expectation.
(Anand is the publisher of Navayana.)
The Nandy Bully
The sorts of corruption that matter are a purview of privileged
S. Anand
“An intellectual man can be a good man but he may easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity, or it may easily be a gang of crooks or a body of advocates of narrow clique from which it draws its support.”
—B.R. Ambedkar
“[The] racism of the intelligence...is specific to a dominant class whose reproduction depends, in part, on the transmission of cultural capital, an inherited capital that has the property of being an embodied capital and thus apparently natural and innate.”
—Pierre Bourdieu
Ashis Nandy is a reason-buster. That is his e-mail id, his raison d’etre. And when he makes totally unreasonable comments, his friends expect us to stand and applaud. His acolytes—who have predictably and unimaginatively started an online petition to save his right to free speech and have created a blog dedicated to him—tell us that the political psychologist (a term he uses to describe himself) likes to “illuminate through anecdote, aphorism and irony”. But apparently Dalits, adivasis and OBCs—he lumps together 70 per cent of the population—and those of us non-Dalits whose work requires us to actually know something about caste, cannot understand such nuances.
At the outset, let me state that I am not for Nandy’s arrest—though an absolute right to free speech should make us defend the Thackerays and Akbaruddin Owaisi as well—under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, for that would trivialise the realities of caste violence. Like my friends Chandra Bhan Prasad and Kancha Ilaiah have said with such grace and maturity, let us forgive Nandy and not drag him to court.
But first let us look at what exactly Nandy said in Jaipur. Here is a faithful, unedited transcript based on a YouTube video via ABP News. My comments figure in parenthesis, and these are necessary, for what transpired on stage was a performance with gestures, pauses and interruptions adding to the overall effect.
Nandy: How should I put it? Almost a vulgar statement on my part. [Raises his voice and speaks slowly, with deliberate emphasis on each word.] It is a fact that most of the corrupt come from the OBCs, and the Scheduled Castes and now increasingly Scheduled Tribes. And as long as this is the case, [the] Indian Republic will survive... [some interruption, with moderator Urvashi Butalia saying “Alright” as if sensing the tension and wanting to move on; TV journalist Ashutosh is raising his hand in protest, but Nandy soldiers on]. Also, I’ll give an example. One of the states with the least amount of corruption is the state of West Bengal, that is when the CPI(M) was there. And I want to propose to you, draw your attention to the fact that in the last hundred years [pause] nobody from the opp... [opposition? oppressed?], nobody from the OBCs, the Backward Classes, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes have come anywhere near power in West Bengal. It is an absolutely clean state. [Point made, Nandy wants to pass the mike.]
Ashutosh: Urvashi, sorry...
Urvashi Butalia: Wait...
Ashutosh: I know, I know...I have to respond to this.... I think, I think...this is the classical [sic] case of...
Butalia [again butts in]: Ashutosh, please, please, please...
Ashutosh: This is a classical case of how the elite in India...they perceive the downtrodden, the Dalits, the OBCs, and all...[huge, heartening round of loud applause from the audience]. I think this is the most bizarre statement I have ever heard in this country [more continuous applause].
It’s not just the dirty outsiders who failed to grasp what Nandy later assures us was the case: that he was being pro-Dalit. It was also the presumably elite audience at the ‘DSC’ Jaipur Literary Festival who clapped for Ashutosh. And all this was well before the CSDS/twice-born spin machine cranked into action.
The transcript is of words spoken in just 80 seconds. This is a rushed, media-driven world where people seem to first speak, and then think, if at all. Just when we are to hear Ashutosh say something about the ruling castes, the video feed is cut, and ABP decides to typically amplify only Nandy’s words. The media will do what they are paid to do. (A corporatised media that a 2006 CSDS statistical survey—irony, again!—proved had near-zero representation of Dalits, adivasis and OBCs. And by the way, why can’t CSDS—the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, which is apparently running as a jobs programme for politically connected academicians who failed to get tenure in the US—ever implement reservation?)
Nandy did not stop with this. He persisted with his efforts at reason-busting in an interview to NDTV’s Barkha Dutt (January 28), where he claimed: “Even in this particular presentation [in Jaipur], I was [being] aggressively pro-Dalit, pro-OBC and pro-adivasi...unless and until you tease out that one sentence, and say ‘you are factually wrong, because this has not been empirically demonstrated’, though I have a feeling that probably I’ll not be shown wrong if you count the number of ticketless travellers and so on and so forth who get away [here Barkha smiles mischievously, a finger on her lips] in the second-class compartments of trains or on the terraces [sic] of railway trains and so on and so forth. There are many such cases. If you take the young urchins who sell tickets in the black outside cinema halls....” When Dutt interjects, Nandy says of his Jaipur utterances: “It is not an accidental slip, it is a Freudian slip.”
The more Nandy tries to explain, the more he sounds rabidly casteist. Ticketless travellers, black-ticket marketers, rickshawwallahs and thelawallahs who have to bribe the police—all these are presumed by Nandy to belong to once-born communities, simply because they are preponderant in India’s population. According to Nandyian logic, then, whoever is in the majority must necessarily be the most corrupt. What he claims as a ‘fact’—that most petty lawbreakers are from the bloc BSP founder Kanshi Ram called ‘bahujan’—is not a fact at all but a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. Even the elite anti-corruption campaigns of Anna Hazare/Arvind Kejriwal had bigger fish in mind. Surely, the corruption that drains India is concentrated in fields like real estate development, arms deals, concessions to rural landowners and SEZs, preferential bids for government contracts, and yes, lit-fests (some of which I’m ashamed to say I’ve attended). The sorts of corruption that matter most are the purview of the privileged, and Dalits do not make up even one per cent of these lucrative fields. They are the victims of corruption, not its beneficiaries. Corruption is not a democratising force, but most fundamentally an extra-legal form of rent-seeking behaviour by elites, that systematically sucks wealth upward. And until Nandy grasps this most basic reality, he should consider refraining from speaking publicly on the topics he knows nothing about.
And yes, the man who triggered this all, Tarun Tejpal, creator of the ‘Essar Thinkfest’, has gotten away with arguing that corruption is a “levelling force” in society, an “equaliser”—why then did Tehelka con Bangaru Laxman, a Dalit, into accepting a paltry Rs 1 lakh “for the party fund” and ensure prison for him? This vulgar understanding of democracy was further turned into a joke by Nandy, who blustered along as if he were sharing a drink with buddy Tejpal in the IIC lawns. Later, Nandy clarified to Barkha: “As long as the poor can be corrupt, it will be like a safety valve for society...it will be better for the republic.... Corruption is about equality and redistributive justice.” Is this all India’s “finest intellect” has to offer?
Whatever the explanations, clarifications and defences, it is quite transparent what Nandy said and meant. Section 3.1.(x) of the PoA Act—invoked when someone “intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”—was meant to challenge the impunity with which the privileged castes routinely and habitually insult Dalits and adivasis. More than as a matter of freedom of expression, the twice-born have considered it their birthright—janma-siddha adhikaar—to be disparaging of all once-born folk. And Nandy’s words wound as much as the actions of khap panchayats and Ranvir Sena do.
However, it would be a sick irony if police who routinely refuse to file atrocities firs on even the most grossly violent attacks on Dalits were to file one against this completely non-violent pontiff of unreason. That Nandy has been threatened with arrest under this law is a red herring and a gift to him, which serves only to make him a martyr and a cause celebre for the Mandal-hating privileged-caste intellectual establishment. Worse, his arrest could bolster demands for the repeal of this important and seldom implemented law.
Nandy’s views on caste and corruption—quite like his qualified endorsement of RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement that rapes happen in India, not Bharat (Tehelka, Jan 4, 2013)—must be debated and challenged. Nandy is a master at repackaging elite prejudice as counter-intuitive insight and paradoxical wisdom. But the best cure for these intellectual parlour games is simply to expose his ignorance to light of day.
Thus we should welcome Nandy’s comments as a brazen public expression of the “common sense” racism that the privileged in urban India routinely articulate in private conversations. The privileged who casually dismiss the policy of reservation in education and jobs (rarely implemented in earnest), and who refuse to acknowledge that they have availed of unstated reservation for millennia owing to their exclusive monopoly in various fields, including corruption (even if understood, according to Nandy’s reductive definition, as petty bribe-taking). The privileged who refuse to see caste itself as corruption, as moral depredation.
Before going further, let me pick some nits in what Nandy exactly said, especially since some of his most resourceful and powerful friends in the intellectual establishment—Nandy has at his disposal a large cache of what Bourdieu calls social and cultural capital—have rushed to his defence. These include the feminist publisher Urvashi Butalia, who helpfully parroted out his clarificatory statement (she moderated the Jaipur panel), and three of his former CSDS colleagues—Harsh Sethi (The Hindu, Jan 28, 2013), Yogendra Yadav (Indian Express, Jan 28, 2013) and Shiv Visvanathan (Firstpost, Jan 28, 2013)—who similarly constructed elaborate and contorted explanations to help the unnuanced masses understand that the emperor does have clothes after all.
His choice of words is surely not a result of any momentary lapse of reason. It is clear to anyone who cares to listen what Nandy in fact said and meant. Though it is fascinating to watch a man who scorns empiricism as vulgar western ideology gradually backtrack in a series of interviews, in which ‘a fact’ becomes ‘a hypothesis’, and finally an ‘expectation’. Equally fascinating is the spectacle of a man who has always resisted the idea of state-mandated bureaucratic rationality diligently sticking to state parlance when it comes to referring to Dalits or adivasis—steadfastly using ‘Scheduled Castes’ and ‘Scheduled Tribes’ and ‘OBC’ as if he were a babu in a sarkari department.
When he offers an illustration to corroborate his conclusion (mind you, Nandy’s authority comes not from any actual research, but the certainty of his intuitions), he says West Bengal under the Communists was an “absolutely clean state” because the once-born never had a share in power there. Such a man is marketed as an intellectual “maverick”, but the views he endlessly espouses are just cleverly repackaged versions of the ones most privileged-caste Indians anyway hold. For we, after all, live in Kaliyug, a fallen era when people have moved away from varna-ordained stations in life and have wrested some power.
Much of this narrative fits snugly with—in fact, follows from—Nandy’s larger body of work that valorises pre-modern approaches to community and thought. Which is why his foundational work, The Intimate Enemy (1983), revolves around Gandhi and Tagore, but does not once mention figures like E.V. Ramasamy Periyar, Tarabai Shinde, Jyotirao Phule, Pandita Ramabai, Narayana Guru, the Aulchand-led Kartabhaja movement in early 19th century Bengal or B.R. Ambedkar. Even when writing controversially about Sati in 1987, Nandy invoked Tagore’s poem on Sati as an ideal, but did not engage with Ambedkar’s brilliant essay ‘Castes in India’ (1916) where he argues how Sati (besides child marriage and enforced widowhood) was among the building blocks of the caste system. This non-engagement is actually an estrangement; because Ambedkar’s project of fusing European Enlightenment thought with anti-metaphysical Buddhism does not suit Nandy’s indigenist longing for Gandhi’s revanchist Ram Rajya envisioned in the 1908 tract Hind Swaraj, whose critique of modernity, the West and industrialism comes with an abiding love for varnashrama and women’s enslavement. Nandy would happily cite Aime Cesaire, Frantz Fanon and Albert Memmi, but never Ambedkar, Periyar or Phule who challenge his very hypotheses.
It is such a trajectory that leads Nandy to utter the ultimate racist slur when he condemns entire population groups, not just individuals like A. Raja or Madhu Koda who happen to be Dalit or adivasi. Such views are baked in the crucible of prejudice and ignorance. In the US today, even Republicans would not say something so derogatory of all Hispanics, Blacks or First Nation peoples. When they do, they pay a penalty (not necessarily legal) and are excoriated, not hailed as mavericks. Two examples given by two friends will suffice: from the world of entertainment and from the world of science (just to pique Nandy). In 2011, when America’s highest-paid TV actor Charlie Sheen made anti-Semitic remarks against producer Chuck Lorre, CBS dumped him and discontinued the production of Two and a Half Men, a hit show that had been running for a decade. In 2007, when Nobel-winning biologist James D. Watson, who worked on the Human Genome Project, was quoted in The Times as suggesting that, overall, people of African descent are not as intelligent as people of European descent, the outcry led to the cancellation of his lectures and his eventually being sidelined at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in Long Island.
Nandy’s tendency to make gross generalisations stems from his penchant to essentialise. For him, the coloniser has necessarily been white British power. Internal colonialisms hardly matter. Nandy’s binaristic understanding of coloniser-colonised does not enable him to recognise the colonialism that is played out in almost every village in India where blatant caste-based segregation is practised. Last year, Nandy delivered the Ambedkar University Delhi’s annual lecture on April 14, Ambedkar’s birth anniversary (published in EPW, July 28, 2012). The topic was ‘Theories of Oppression and Another Dialogue of Cultures’. I had hoped the very topic would give Nandy an opportunity to engage with radical anti-caste thought in India. But he disappointingly stuck to familiar ground.
Nandy’s disengagement with issues of caste and anti-caste thought is symptomatic of the apathy of India’s intellectual classes to these issues. Which is why we see feckless intellectuals eager to be complicit in his crime—the slew of luminous signatories to the petition is a virtual who-is-who. One does not have to be a Dalit, adivasi or OBC to be outraged by Nandy’s pronouncements just like one need not be black to see why Watson was so very wrong. In being ashamed of Nandy, we merely have to reach out to our own humanity. But I suppose that would be an unnuanced, anomic, banal and secular expectation.
(Anand is the publisher of Navayana.)
February 01, 2013
Ania Loomba: Let us defend everybody’s right to free speech, even Ashis Nandy’s
Akeel Bilgrami is outraged at the way Nandy was portrayed on the Communalism Watch [a SACW sister site] but his own remarks betray a clubbiness that is the hallmark of many of Nandy’s defenders.
http://www.sacw.net/article3627.html
http://www.sacw.net/article3627.html
January 31, 2013
Nandy’s Nadir - Editorial, The Telegraph (29 Jan 2013)
The Telegraph, January 29 , 2013
Editorial
NANDY’S NADIR
An ageing enfant terrible is not only a contradiction in terms but also someone who is somewhat ridiculous. Ashis Nandy, unfortunately, has cut himself out to be such a figure. His penchant to say something original and shocking got the better of him in Jaipur and has landed him in an unnecessary controversy. Mr Nandy’s statement about corruption among the Dalits and the other backward classes does not appear to be based on any empirical study. If it indeed is then Mr Nandy would have done well to have first presented his findings and conclusions to his academic peer group. Instead, he chose to air his views at a literary carnival. Mr Nandy is an experienced hand and he cannot be oblivious of the fact that a literary festival, where he can speak only for a few minutes, is not the best forum to put forward a nuanced argument. Not surprisingly, he now claims that he has been misunderstood. If this is truly the case, Mr Nandy has only himself to blame because he has behaved irresponsibly. Mr Nandy has exercised his right of free speech. But as he knows every right carries with it a responsibility. Liberty is not licence. Mr Nandy should have been aware that his statement would have hurt the sentiments of sections of the population. Mr Nandy has courted controversy in the wrong place and on the wrong subject. There is a distinction between an academic seminar and a public gathering.
If Mr Nandy behaved irresponsibly and rather exaggerated his propensity to shock and startle, the reactions to his pronouncements have also been overblown and out of proportion. His views deserve a strong rebuttal at the level of ideas and Mr Nandy’s prejudices should be exposed. There is no need at all to clamour for his arrest and for the filing of a first information report. Irresponsibility cannot be countered by intolerance for the simple reason that two wrongs do not make a right. Mr Nandy, to do him credit, once he realized that he had hurt the sentiments of some people, tendered an unqualified apology even though he believes that the grievances against him are the results of a misunderstanding of what he actually meant. Such an apology should bring the curtain down on the matter. The episode reveals how even one of the best minds in India is liable to misuse his freedom, and also how fast intolerance is breeding in India.
Editorial
NANDY’S NADIR
An ageing enfant terrible is not only a contradiction in terms but also someone who is somewhat ridiculous. Ashis Nandy, unfortunately, has cut himself out to be such a figure. His penchant to say something original and shocking got the better of him in Jaipur and has landed him in an unnecessary controversy. Mr Nandy’s statement about corruption among the Dalits and the other backward classes does not appear to be based on any empirical study. If it indeed is then Mr Nandy would have done well to have first presented his findings and conclusions to his academic peer group. Instead, he chose to air his views at a literary carnival. Mr Nandy is an experienced hand and he cannot be oblivious of the fact that a literary festival, where he can speak only for a few minutes, is not the best forum to put forward a nuanced argument. Not surprisingly, he now claims that he has been misunderstood. If this is truly the case, Mr Nandy has only himself to blame because he has behaved irresponsibly. Mr Nandy has exercised his right of free speech. But as he knows every right carries with it a responsibility. Liberty is not licence. Mr Nandy should have been aware that his statement would have hurt the sentiments of sections of the population. Mr Nandy has courted controversy in the wrong place and on the wrong subject. There is a distinction between an academic seminar and a public gathering.
If Mr Nandy behaved irresponsibly and rather exaggerated his propensity to shock and startle, the reactions to his pronouncements have also been overblown and out of proportion. His views deserve a strong rebuttal at the level of ideas and Mr Nandy’s prejudices should be exposed. There is no need at all to clamour for his arrest and for the filing of a first information report. Irresponsibility cannot be countered by intolerance for the simple reason that two wrongs do not make a right. Mr Nandy, to do him credit, once he realized that he had hurt the sentiments of some people, tendered an unqualified apology even though he believes that the grievances against him are the results of a misunderstanding of what he actually meant. Such an apology should bring the curtain down on the matter. The episode reveals how even one of the best minds in India is liable to misuse his freedom, and also how fast intolerance is breeding in India.
January 28, 2013
A thoroughly biased report [on Ashis Nandy controversy at Jaipur Literary Festival] - Letter to Communalism Watch
[27 January 2013 - via email]
harsh,
i am sorry to have to say that i think your report (which i paste below this note) on ashis nandy is written with a brazen bias, a form of unfair reporting that i find repugnant.
it should be absolutely clear to anybody who knows nandy and has read his work, that he was being misinterpreted in this controversy around his remarks at the jaipur festival. your report first presents the (in my and every fair minded person's view) misinterpretation, then mentions his statement in a press conference repudiating that interpretation of him in such a way as to suggest that he was trying to wriggle out of a charge that, in your view, was justified. i am not even saying that you should have presented the interpretation as a misinterpretation. that is merely my view and no doubt the view of others who know nandy's work. but i am saying that it would have been perfectly possible to write a report that mentions the interpretation in neutral terms and then his repudiation in neutral terms, and let people who were there or who know nandy from his other writings on caste, decide for themselves, what he meant. your report was very far indeed from such a model of fairness.
you also say that he produced no statistical evidence for the fact that corruption charges are more frequently made against obc and scst persons than others. this is a comically pedantic demand. if i were to say in public in new york that far more criminal charges are made against african-americans than whites with a view to suggesting that this was due to a bias of perception that ignores entrenched criminal activity by whites (think of the fact that no wall street person responsible for the financial crash has yet had criminal charges brought against him), just as nandy was doing when he made his claim at the jaipur festival, i would feel no great scruple to present statistical evidence. it is something that all people aware of the injustices of the societies they live in (here in new york on the matter of race, there in india in the matter of caste) would take for granted. no one would demand statistics of me here in new york were i to have made that remark in public, except those who were racialist and defensive about these distorted perceptions of african-americans that make them the constant target of criminal charges in this racist society. and nandy was assuming that others who were aware of the injustices of a casteist society and not defensive about such distorted perception of obc and scst persons in such a society, would allow him that latitude in reporting the facts, without having to produce statistics. and i think you should worry, therefore, if my analogy is a good one, that your sort of demand for statistics is only be made in new york by racists who are defensive. i am not for a moment insinuating that you are a casteist who is defensive about the distorted perception of obcs and scst in a casteist society. that would be to adopt your sort of tactics in the way you made that report of nandy. i am only telling you that your demand for statistics is going to come off as either being made by such a defensive person or someone who is reporting on a controversy in a thoroughly biased way. i have no doubt that it is not the former. i have no doubt that it is the latter.
as for your opening remark about nandy being overrated, it is fine to have your opinion on this matter (my opinion is that he is one of the most creative intellectuals in india in the last few decades, even though i have sometimes disagreed strongly with him in the past), but it clearly sets the tone for the kind of snarky, unfair reporting in the words that follow. i realise that you set out to do no favours to nandy in this report. the fact is that you went very measurably beyond that. you were gratuitously unfair in your reporting of what happened, and ended up doing no favours to yourself.
since i have long admired 'communalism watch', i was most upset and disappointed to read your report in its pages. i am copying some friends of mine who want to watch and oppose communalism as much as you do. i would like to submit this letter to 'communalism watch' for publication and i would like you to submit it to you to circulate it via your excellent south asians citizens wire. i think fairness to nandy requires that you do so.
Akeel Bilgrami
Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy,
and
Committee on Global Thought,
719 Philosophy Hall,
Columbia University,
New York, NY 10027
Tel: 212 854 6971
Fax 212 854 4986
----------
Communalism Watch - January 26, 2013
India: Ashis Nandy in shit for making clumsy casteist claims at the Jaipur literature festival 2013
According to reports the overrated Indian intellectual Ashis Nandy made a statement
"Most corrupt people come from OBC, SC and ST communities"
Full Text at: http://communalism.blogspot.in/2013/01/ashis-nandy-in-shit-for-making-clumsy.html
harsh,
i am sorry to have to say that i think your report (which i paste below this note) on ashis nandy is written with a brazen bias, a form of unfair reporting that i find repugnant.
it should be absolutely clear to anybody who knows nandy and has read his work, that he was being misinterpreted in this controversy around his remarks at the jaipur festival. your report first presents the (in my and every fair minded person's view) misinterpretation, then mentions his statement in a press conference repudiating that interpretation of him in such a way as to suggest that he was trying to wriggle out of a charge that, in your view, was justified. i am not even saying that you should have presented the interpretation as a misinterpretation. that is merely my view and no doubt the view of others who know nandy's work. but i am saying that it would have been perfectly possible to write a report that mentions the interpretation in neutral terms and then his repudiation in neutral terms, and let people who were there or who know nandy from his other writings on caste, decide for themselves, what he meant. your report was very far indeed from such a model of fairness.
you also say that he produced no statistical evidence for the fact that corruption charges are more frequently made against obc and scst persons than others. this is a comically pedantic demand. if i were to say in public in new york that far more criminal charges are made against african-americans than whites with a view to suggesting that this was due to a bias of perception that ignores entrenched criminal activity by whites (think of the fact that no wall street person responsible for the financial crash has yet had criminal charges brought against him), just as nandy was doing when he made his claim at the jaipur festival, i would feel no great scruple to present statistical evidence. it is something that all people aware of the injustices of the societies they live in (here in new york on the matter of race, there in india in the matter of caste) would take for granted. no one would demand statistics of me here in new york were i to have made that remark in public, except those who were racialist and defensive about these distorted perceptions of african-americans that make them the constant target of criminal charges in this racist society. and nandy was assuming that others who were aware of the injustices of a casteist society and not defensive about such distorted perception of obc and scst persons in such a society, would allow him that latitude in reporting the facts, without having to produce statistics. and i think you should worry, therefore, if my analogy is a good one, that your sort of demand for statistics is only be made in new york by racists who are defensive. i am not for a moment insinuating that you are a casteist who is defensive about the distorted perception of obcs and scst in a casteist society. that would be to adopt your sort of tactics in the way you made that report of nandy. i am only telling you that your demand for statistics is going to come off as either being made by such a defensive person or someone who is reporting on a controversy in a thoroughly biased way. i have no doubt that it is not the former. i have no doubt that it is the latter.
as for your opening remark about nandy being overrated, it is fine to have your opinion on this matter (my opinion is that he is one of the most creative intellectuals in india in the last few decades, even though i have sometimes disagreed strongly with him in the past), but it clearly sets the tone for the kind of snarky, unfair reporting in the words that follow. i realise that you set out to do no favours to nandy in this report. the fact is that you went very measurably beyond that. you were gratuitously unfair in your reporting of what happened, and ended up doing no favours to yourself.
since i have long admired 'communalism watch', i was most upset and disappointed to read your report in its pages. i am copying some friends of mine who want to watch and oppose communalism as much as you do. i would like to submit this letter to 'communalism watch' for publication and i would like you to submit it to you to circulate it via your excellent south asians citizens wire. i think fairness to nandy requires that you do so.
Akeel Bilgrami
Johnsonian Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy,
and
Committee on Global Thought,
719 Philosophy Hall,
Columbia University,
New York, NY 10027
Tel: 212 854 6971
Fax 212 854 4986
----------
Communalism Watch - January 26, 2013
India: Ashis Nandy in shit for making clumsy casteist claims at the Jaipur literature festival 2013
According to reports the overrated Indian intellectual Ashis Nandy made a statement
"Most corrupt people come from OBC, SC and ST communities"
Full Text at: http://communalism.blogspot.in/2013/01/ashis-nandy-in-shit-for-making-clumsy.html
January 26, 2013
India: Ashis Nandy in shit for making clumsy casteist claims at the Jaipur literature festival 2013
According to reports the overrated Indian intellectual Ashis Nandy made a statement
"Most corrupt people come from OBC, SC and ST communities"
OBCs, SCs, STs to blame for corruption, Ashis Nandy says at Jaipur lit fest (The Times of India)
Ashis Nandy booked under SC/ST Act for remark on dalits
IANS | Jan 26, 2013,
The major questions that most comes to mind in wake of Mr Nandy's claim are:
Are there ethnic or caste statistics available in the National Crimes records bureau in India, so that we can identify the people convicted along caste, ethic or religious lines? If this is true then it is a very dangerous situation in India.
Does Mr. Nandy have access to statistical data and information to back his claims on the convictions of SC, ST, OBC as opposed to others? Can he produce these figures for wider public scrutiny? If he cant produce these figures then there is solid grounds for him to be a charged for slander.
The man seems to be now qualifying his claim by suggesting that he meant most people charged happen to be SC, ST and OBC since they dont have the influence and power of the upper castes. He has issued a statement, that was read at a press conference.
Whatever it is, and whichever way he should produce statistics and figures to back his claims now. Mr Nandy has been booked under the SC/ST Act, but he too may get away because he has considerable influence and connections.
-Harsh Kapoor (for Communalism Watch)
PS:
Video of the damage control press conference with Ashis Nandy after the controversy broke
"Most corrupt people come from OBC, SC and ST communities"
OBCs, SCs, STs to blame for corruption, Ashis Nandy says at Jaipur lit fest (The Times of India)
Ashis Nandy booked under SC/ST Act for remark on dalits
IANS | Jan 26, 2013,
The major questions that most comes to mind in wake of Mr Nandy's claim are:
Are there ethnic or caste statistics available in the National Crimes records bureau in India, so that we can identify the people convicted along caste, ethic or religious lines? If this is true then it is a very dangerous situation in India.
Does Mr. Nandy have access to statistical data and information to back his claims on the convictions of SC, ST, OBC as opposed to others? Can he produce these figures for wider public scrutiny? If he cant produce these figures then there is solid grounds for him to be a charged for slander.
The man seems to be now qualifying his claim by suggesting that he meant most people charged happen to be SC, ST and OBC since they dont have the influence and power of the upper castes. He has issued a statement, that was read at a press conference.
Whatever it is, and whichever way he should produce statistics and figures to back his claims now. Mr Nandy has been booked under the SC/ST Act, but he too may get away because he has considerable influence and connections.
-Harsh Kapoor (for Communalism Watch)
PS:
Video of the damage control press conference with Ashis Nandy after the controversy broke
November 06, 2011
The pursuit of anti secularism is happiness for Ashis Nandi
Tehelka Magazine, Vol 8, Issue 45, Dated 12 Nov 2011
The pursuit of happiness and other absurd ideas
By Ashis Nandy
http://tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ne121111Pursuit.asp
The pursuit of happiness and other absurd ideas
By Ashis Nandy
http://tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ne121111Pursuit.asp
January 04, 2011
Supreme court stays HC verdict against Ashish Nandy
Hindustan Times
SC stays HC verdict against Ashish Nandy
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, January 04, 2011
Email print
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave relief to political analyst Ashish Nandy by staying the verdict of the Delhi High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by Gujarat Police for his article in a national daily allegedly portraying the state in a bad light.
A bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph also issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the petition filed by Nandy challenging the High Court order, which had directed him to submit his grievances before a court in Ahmedabad.
Advocates Dhyan Krishnan and Gaurang Kanth, appearing for the academician, submitted that the High Court dismissed his petition on the assumption that he had challenged the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate court which ordered registration of FIR on the basis of a private complaint.
"We had only submitted that a prima facie case is not made out," the counsel submitted.
The High Court on September 1 had dismissed the petition filed by Nandy seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him under section 153A (promoting communal disharmony) and 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of Indian Penal Code.
The state government initiated the proceedings against him on a complaint filed by V K Saxena, President of the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties, alleging that the article written after the last assembly elections had projected the state in a bad light and promoted communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims.
Nandy contended that the FIR was registered out of malafide intention and was aimed at penalising him for expressing his bonafide views.
His counsel had in the High Court argued that the state government has picked up a line from the article published in the daily and accused him of promoting communal disharmony.
Gujarat government, however, had justified the criminal prosecution and pleaded with the High Court not to interfere in the ongoing investigation.
The state government had maintained that the FIR in this case prima facie discloses the offence under the Criminal Procedure Code and the court should not interfere and allow the investigation to be completed.
"It has been held time and again by courts that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases," it had said adding the government had allowed the prosecution of Nandy after perusing the article.
SC stays HC verdict against Ashish Nandy
Press Trust Of India
New Delhi, January 04, 2011
Email print
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave relief to political analyst Ashish Nandy by staying the verdict of the Delhi High Court which had refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by Gujarat Police for his article in a national daily allegedly portraying the state in a bad light.
A bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph also issued notice to the Gujarat Government on the petition filed by Nandy challenging the High Court order, which had directed him to submit his grievances before a court in Ahmedabad.
Advocates Dhyan Krishnan and Gaurang Kanth, appearing for the academician, submitted that the High Court dismissed his petition on the assumption that he had challenged the power of the Metropolitan Magistrate court which ordered registration of FIR on the basis of a private complaint.
"We had only submitted that a prima facie case is not made out," the counsel submitted.
The High Court on September 1 had dismissed the petition filed by Nandy seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him under section 153A (promoting communal disharmony) and 153B (imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) of Indian Penal Code.
The state government initiated the proceedings against him on a complaint filed by V K Saxena, President of the Ahmedabad-based NGO National Council for Civil Liberties, alleging that the article written after the last assembly elections had projected the state in a bad light and promoted communal disharmony between Hindus and Muslims.
Nandy contended that the FIR was registered out of malafide intention and was aimed at penalising him for expressing his bonafide views.
His counsel had in the High Court argued that the state government has picked up a line from the article published in the daily and accused him of promoting communal disharmony.
Gujarat government, however, had justified the criminal prosecution and pleaded with the High Court not to interfere in the ongoing investigation.
The state government had maintained that the FIR in this case prima facie discloses the offence under the Criminal Procedure Code and the court should not interfere and allow the investigation to be completed.
"It has been held time and again by courts that the power of quashing criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases," it had said adding the government had allowed the prosecution of Nandy after perusing the article.
July 18, 2008
Freedom of Speech: Supreme Court stays the summons to Ashis Nandy
(Frontline, July 19 - Aug. 01, 2008)
LEGAL ISSUES
Hate and abuse
V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi
The Supreme Court stays the summons issued to Ashis Nandy for writing an article critical of Gujarat’s middle class.
S. RAMESHKURUP
ASHIS NANDY, POLITICAL psychologist. A file photograph.
On July 1, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and G.S. Singhvi expressed its anguish at the growing intolerance over free expression of one’s views. The occasion was the hearing of the plea of the political psychologist Professor Ashis Nandy of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, for protection against arrest or detention by the Gujarat Police. Nandy feared that a first information report (FIR) registered against him at the Satellite Police Station in Ahmedabad in May would enable the Gujarat Police to arrest him whenever he travelled out of Delhi, especially to a State ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party or its allies.
Nandy moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him anticipatory bail. Even as the Supreme Court was hearing his plea, the Gujarat Police issued a summons to Nandy, which only vindicated his fears. The Bench not only stayed the summons but expressed its serious concern over the State government’s handling of the issue. It observed that Nandy was harassed because he was a soft target. It found nothing objectionable in Nandy’s article, published in The Times of India, which became the cause of action against him by the Gujarat Police.
The stinging article, which appeared on the newspaper’s editorial page on January 8, deplored the culture of Gujarat’s urban middle class. Titled “Blame the Middle Class”, it analysed the political situation in Gujarat in the aftermath of the Assembly elections in December 2007. Arguing that development in the State justifies amorality, abridgement of freedom and collapse of social ethics, Nandy alleged that Gujarat’s cities and, particularly, educational institutions were turning into cultural deserts.
He suggested that the urban middle class in Gujarat had found in militant religious nationalism a new self-respect and a new virtual identity as a martial community, in the way in which Bengali babus, Maharashtrian Brahmins and Kashmiri Muslims at different times have sought salvation in violence. In Gujarat, he said, this class had smelt blood for it did not have to do the killings but could plan, finance and coordinate them with impunity. The middle class, he said, controlled the media and education, which had become hate factories in recent times.
Read as a whole, the article has to be considered as an appeal for introspection so that ultimately Gujarat’s traditions of peace and tolerance triumph over what he called the culture of the State’s urban middle class.
But the article’s reformist objective did not register on the State’s thought police. The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), Ahmedabad, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), which is apparently in pursuit of goals not in keeping with what its name proclaims, found the article objectionable under the law. In his complaint to the Satellite Police Station, NCCL president V.K. Saxena alleged that Nandy committed the offence that came under Section 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 153A deals with the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and so on, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Section 153B deals with imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
A sample of sentences in the article which Saxena mentioned in his complaint as constituting the above offences is as follows:
■ The Hindus and the Muslims of the State – once bonded so conspicuously by language, culture and commerce – have met the demands of both V.D. Savarkar and M.A. Jinnah. They now face each other as two hostile nations.
■ Gujarat has already disowned the Indian Constitution and the State apparatus has adjusted to the change.
■ The actual killers are the lowest of the low, mostly tribals and Dalits…. And they receive spirited support from most non-resident Indians who, at a safe distance from India, can afford to be more nationalist, bloodthirsty, and irresponsible.
Considering the gravity of these offences, the lawmakers have provided for certain safeguards against the misuse of the IPC provisions by individual complainants against well-intentioned citizens. Thus, Section 196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides that no court shall take cognisance of these offences except with the previous sanction of the Central government or of the State government. The Gujarat High Court had held in a case in 1981 that the government, being an independent party not connected with the dispute between a complainant and the accused, was expected to act fairly and to make an objective decision in the matter whenever it was called upon to grant sanction under Section 196(1).
On April 15, the State government accorded sanction under Section 196(1), which helped Saxena to file his complaint with the police.
To understand how the State government accorded sanction without application of mind to the facts of the case, the object of Section 196(1) CrPC must be first spelt out. This section aims to prevent unauthorised persons from intruding in matters of state by instituting prosecutions and to secure that such prosecutions, for reasons of policy, shall only be instituted under the authority of the government. It was envisaged that an article may deal with social reform without intending to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. In such a case, if the government is of the opinion that the author of the article has objectively attacked certain phenomenon or dogmas with a view to bringing about social reform, the government may refuse sanction, to avoid restricting the freedom of expression.
But neither the complainant nor the State government appears to have noted the following sentence in the article, which explains its whole thrust. Nandy wrote:
“Is there life after Modi? Is it possible to look beyond the 35 years of rioting that began in 1969 and ended in 2002? Prima facie, the answer is “no”. We can only wait for a new generation that will, out of sheer self-interest and tiredness, learn to live with each other. In the meanwhile, we have to wait patiently but not passively to keep values alive, hoping that at some point will come a modicum of remorse and a search for atonement and that ultimately Gujarati traditions will triumph over the culture of the State’s urban middle class.”
Neither the legal notice issued by Saxena to Nandy, nor the FIR registered by the Satellite Police Station, refer to this crucial paragraph in the article which only proves that Nandy’s intentions were impeccable.
In Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, a case dealing with the police action taken against the author (James Laine) and publishers of the book Shivaji under Section 153A IPC, the Supreme Court said on April 5, 2007, that for the purpose of Sec. 153A, “the matter complained of must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.”
In this case, the Supreme Court not only restrained the Maharashtra government from proceeding against Laine and the publishers of his book, but observed: “It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.”
It will be useful to understand the origins of Section 153A. The section was part of the IPC when it was originally enacted in 1860. Although it was enacted by the British during colonial rule, it was not inspired by any antipathy towards free speech. As Soli Sorabjee observes in an article, the rationale underlying this provision is the maintenance of public peace and tranquillity in a country where religious passions can be aroused easily.
In 1886, a Select Committee was appointed to submit a report in connection with the enactment of Section 295A in the IPC, which punishes insult to religion. A member of this committee, P. Ananda Charlu, described the enactment of Section 153A “as a dangerous piece of legislation and has been impolitic (among other reasons) by necessitating government to side with or to appear to side with one party as against another. In my humble judgment, it will only accentuate the evil which it is meant to remove. Far from healing the differences which still linger, or which now and then come to the surface, it would widen the gap by encouraging insidious men to do mischief in stealth….”
Charlu’s objection was not only perceptive but prophetic. Provisions such as Sections 153A and 153B IPC (which was inserted in 1972) prohibiting hate speech and expression have over the years led to a disturbing degree of intolerance and unreasonable interference with the freedom of expression. That is why powers given to a government under Section 196 of the CrPC to prevent their abuse must be objectively and transparently exercised. The Nandy case raises serious questions on whether the political executive, entrusted with this responsibility, can be trusted to ensure high standards of objectivity and transparency while exercising its powers.
LEGAL ISSUES
Hate and abuse
V. VENKATESAN
in New Delhi
The Supreme Court stays the summons issued to Ashis Nandy for writing an article critical of Gujarat’s middle class.
S. RAMESHKURUP
ASHIS NANDY, POLITICAL psychologist. A file photograph.
On July 1, a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and G.S. Singhvi expressed its anguish at the growing intolerance over free expression of one’s views. The occasion was the hearing of the plea of the political psychologist Professor Ashis Nandy of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, New Delhi, for protection against arrest or detention by the Gujarat Police. Nandy feared that a first information report (FIR) registered against him at the Satellite Police Station in Ahmedabad in May would enable the Gujarat Police to arrest him whenever he travelled out of Delhi, especially to a State ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party or its allies.
Nandy moved the Supreme Court after the Delhi High Court refused to grant him anticipatory bail. Even as the Supreme Court was hearing his plea, the Gujarat Police issued a summons to Nandy, which only vindicated his fears. The Bench not only stayed the summons but expressed its serious concern over the State government’s handling of the issue. It observed that Nandy was harassed because he was a soft target. It found nothing objectionable in Nandy’s article, published in The Times of India, which became the cause of action against him by the Gujarat Police.
The stinging article, which appeared on the newspaper’s editorial page on January 8, deplored the culture of Gujarat’s urban middle class. Titled “Blame the Middle Class”, it analysed the political situation in Gujarat in the aftermath of the Assembly elections in December 2007. Arguing that development in the State justifies amorality, abridgement of freedom and collapse of social ethics, Nandy alleged that Gujarat’s cities and, particularly, educational institutions were turning into cultural deserts.
He suggested that the urban middle class in Gujarat had found in militant religious nationalism a new self-respect and a new virtual identity as a martial community, in the way in which Bengali babus, Maharashtrian Brahmins and Kashmiri Muslims at different times have sought salvation in violence. In Gujarat, he said, this class had smelt blood for it did not have to do the killings but could plan, finance and coordinate them with impunity. The middle class, he said, controlled the media and education, which had become hate factories in recent times.
Read as a whole, the article has to be considered as an appeal for introspection so that ultimately Gujarat’s traditions of peace and tolerance triumph over what he called the culture of the State’s urban middle class.
But the article’s reformist objective did not register on the State’s thought police. The National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), Ahmedabad, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), which is apparently in pursuit of goals not in keeping with what its name proclaims, found the article objectionable under the law. In his complaint to the Satellite Police Station, NCCL president V.K. Saxena alleged that Nandy committed the offence that came under Section 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 153A deals with the offence of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, and so on, and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. Section 153B deals with imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
A sample of sentences in the article which Saxena mentioned in his complaint as constituting the above offences is as follows:
■ The Hindus and the Muslims of the State – once bonded so conspicuously by language, culture and commerce – have met the demands of both V.D. Savarkar and M.A. Jinnah. They now face each other as two hostile nations.
■ Gujarat has already disowned the Indian Constitution and the State apparatus has adjusted to the change.
■ The actual killers are the lowest of the low, mostly tribals and Dalits…. And they receive spirited support from most non-resident Indians who, at a safe distance from India, can afford to be more nationalist, bloodthirsty, and irresponsible.
Considering the gravity of these offences, the lawmakers have provided for certain safeguards against the misuse of the IPC provisions by individual complainants against well-intentioned citizens. Thus, Section 196(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides that no court shall take cognisance of these offences except with the previous sanction of the Central government or of the State government. The Gujarat High Court had held in a case in 1981 that the government, being an independent party not connected with the dispute between a complainant and the accused, was expected to act fairly and to make an objective decision in the matter whenever it was called upon to grant sanction under Section 196(1).
On April 15, the State government accorded sanction under Section 196(1), which helped Saxena to file his complaint with the police.
To understand how the State government accorded sanction without application of mind to the facts of the case, the object of Section 196(1) CrPC must be first spelt out. This section aims to prevent unauthorised persons from intruding in matters of state by instituting prosecutions and to secure that such prosecutions, for reasons of policy, shall only be instituted under the authority of the government. It was envisaged that an article may deal with social reform without intending to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. In such a case, if the government is of the opinion that the author of the article has objectively attacked certain phenomenon or dogmas with a view to bringing about social reform, the government may refuse sanction, to avoid restricting the freedom of expression.
But neither the complainant nor the State government appears to have noted the following sentence in the article, which explains its whole thrust. Nandy wrote:
“Is there life after Modi? Is it possible to look beyond the 35 years of rioting that began in 1969 and ended in 2002? Prima facie, the answer is “no”. We can only wait for a new generation that will, out of sheer self-interest and tiredness, learn to live with each other. In the meanwhile, we have to wait patiently but not passively to keep values alive, hoping that at some point will come a modicum of remorse and a search for atonement and that ultimately Gujarati traditions will triumph over the culture of the State’s urban middle class.”
Neither the legal notice issued by Saxena to Nandy, nor the FIR registered by the Satellite Police Station, refer to this crucial paragraph in the article which only proves that Nandy’s intentions were impeccable.
In Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra, a case dealing with the police action taken against the author (James Laine) and publishers of the book Shivaji under Section 153A IPC, the Supreme Court said on April 5, 2007, that for the purpose of Sec. 153A, “the matter complained of must be read as a whole. One cannot rely on strongly worded and isolated passages for proving the charge nor indeed can one take a sentence here and a sentence there and connect them by a meticulous process of inferential reasoning.”
In this case, the Supreme Court not only restrained the Maharashtra government from proceeding against Laine and the publishers of his book, but observed: “It is the sole responsibility of the State to make positive efforts to resolve every possible conflict between any of the communities, castes or religions within the State and try every possible way to establish peace and harmony within the State under every and all circumstances.”
It will be useful to understand the origins of Section 153A. The section was part of the IPC when it was originally enacted in 1860. Although it was enacted by the British during colonial rule, it was not inspired by any antipathy towards free speech. As Soli Sorabjee observes in an article, the rationale underlying this provision is the maintenance of public peace and tranquillity in a country where religious passions can be aroused easily.
In 1886, a Select Committee was appointed to submit a report in connection with the enactment of Section 295A in the IPC, which punishes insult to religion. A member of this committee, P. Ananda Charlu, described the enactment of Section 153A “as a dangerous piece of legislation and has been impolitic (among other reasons) by necessitating government to side with or to appear to side with one party as against another. In my humble judgment, it will only accentuate the evil which it is meant to remove. Far from healing the differences which still linger, or which now and then come to the surface, it would widen the gap by encouraging insidious men to do mischief in stealth….”
Charlu’s objection was not only perceptive but prophetic. Provisions such as Sections 153A and 153B IPC (which was inserted in 1972) prohibiting hate speech and expression have over the years led to a disturbing degree of intolerance and unreasonable interference with the freedom of expression. That is why powers given to a government under Section 196 of the CrPC to prevent their abuse must be objectively and transparently exercised. The Nandy case raises serious questions on whether the political executive, entrusted with this responsibility, can be trusted to ensure high standards of objectivity and transparency while exercising its powers.
June 28, 2008
The Deep Communal Polarisation in Gujarat
(Published in: The Tribune, 29 June 2008)
Communal divide
Modi has changed Gujarati mindset
by Kuldip Nayar
The Muslims, who were the target in the 2002 riots, have tried, gulping down their loss and pride, to normalise the situation-they are still doing so-but they continue to be barred by Hindus from every activity.
Many Muslims went back to their villages but returned because they found some others occupying their land and houses. The administration did not intervene. Nor does it want to do it now.
In some cases, even original village records had been fudged to transfer ownership. The uprooted Muslims took refuge in the already over-populated localities and some even in “kabristan” (graveyard).
A few have gone to courts but the cases are yet to be decided. The worst hit is the labourer who faces discrimination. He does not get any employment. Vendors find it hard to go back to their place from where they sold fruits, vegetables or such other things.
Even when some have braved hardships to go there, they have met with an economic boycott which the BJP stalwarts bless. They want the ethnic cleansing to stay as it is.
What is surprising is the freezing of division between the two communities as if something permanent has taken place. In every state, even in Delhi after the 1984 Hindu-Sikh riots, the ousted people have gone back to their home and business places to restart life.
Gujarat is the only state where the victims have not been allowed to return, the government probably proving that the line delineated between the two communities in 2002 will not change.
Six years ago, I saw the scenes which I had witnessed while leaving my home at Sialkot in August 1947-refugee camps, scared children, weeping widows and lots and lots of people, just sitting on the roadside staring at the future with little hopes.
The Muslims are no more in camps. But conditions in which they live are no different. The ravages of mini-partition in 2002 still hit you with all poignancy. Take the Bombay Hotel area at Ahmedabad. This is the place where the city’s waste is dumped. Children play in its midst. The government has no plans to shift it anywhere else.
As for facilities, there is no hospital in the vicinity. Some deliveries have taken place on scooters. The nearest school is a private one, and it is 3 km away. Heavy fee, rather the distance, keeps children at home.
Imagine the atmosphere in which they are growing up. They were five or six years old when they saw the fury of rioting. It is still etched on their minds. Now they are at the sensitive age of 11 and 12. Some parents told me that whenever a lady with a sari had come visiting the area, they whispered to each other: a Hindu.
When there is no mingling and when there are not even educational facilities, it may be a hostile community in the making.
Some Muslims were shifted to a place near the camp of the state reserve police. The force was aggressive and made the migrants feel unwanted by taunting the community and even beating up some children. The “aabadi” went back to the Muslim locality.
That there is no remorse in the Hindu society does not surprise because I have read about it in the Press and heard it from some activists who are doing a tremendous job despite unending difficulties and depleting funds.
A few Hindus who saved Muslims during the riots and some more — altogether 2 per cent of the population — are helping the activists courageously and going to courts to narrate what they witnessed.
But justice is slow to come and the Nanavati Commission appointed to go into the whole gamut of riots is nowhere near the completion of its assignment.
The disgusting part is the fear of Modi and his administration. None dares to speak out in public. Even at a closed-door meeting, where some 200 academicians, lawyers and others present, when I asked them if they felt suffocated in Gujarat, all of them nodded their head in assent. But only a few of them were willing to join issue with the Modi government.
Therefore, it does not come as a surprise to me that the Gujarat government has slapped sedition charges against Ashish Nandy, a political psychologist, for an article which Modi considers critical.
The article is factual and does not criticise the government for the carnage or non-rehabilitation of Muslims. Nandy only points out to the misuse of state machinery.
Nandy’s real attack is on the middle class, which he correctly denounces for not realising even after so many years that secularism and communalism are two different ideologies and cannot be mixed like water and fire.
That a phrase like “the media and education have become hate factories” may not be to the liking of the middle class. But Nandy is known for making understatements, not exaggerating things.
A Mexican philosopher had perceptively observed that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is that in the first, the top man changes the people and in the latter, the people change the top man.
Modi has changed the very thinking of Gujaratis. Even the Gujarati NRIs have sacrificed Indian-ism at the altar of communalism. There has been very little outcry against the government’s action on Nandy’s write-up.
But for a few academicians from India and abroad, none particularly from among the media hands, has spoken in his defence. At stake is the “freedom of expression.” Today, it is academician Nandy; tomorrow it could be a journalist.
We had imagined that we had learnt a lesson from the Emergency for not speaking out when we should have. I personally think that the day when one sees the truth being attacked and keeps quiet is the day when one begins to die.
Nandy will come out of the ordeal unscathed. But it will be yet another case of our insensitivity. The society seems to be losing in its battle against communalism.
June 24, 2008
In Defence of Ashis Nandy : A Statement of Protest
PRESS RELEASE
DATE: 24 JUNE 2008
[For more detail you can contact Dr. Ghanshyam Shah 079-26442053]
We protest in the strongest possible terms against the charges of criminal offence levied against Ashis Nandy, a political psychologist, sociologist and an internationally renowned public intellectual of the highest caliber. This is the latest case of harassment of intellectuals, journalists, artists, and public figures by antidemocratic forces that claim to speak on behalf of Hindu values sometimes and patriotism at other times, especially in Gujarat, but who have little understanding of either. What is pernicious in this case is that the charge of criminal offence against Nandy levied under Section 153 (A) and (B) for his newspaper article "Blame the Middle Classes" , was brought by the head of the Gujarat Branch of the National Council of Civil Liberties. The State Government of Gujarat by giving its permission for filing the case has shown its own complicity in the case.
It seems part of the strategy of the most intolerant sections of Indian society today to make a cynical use the language of civil liberties to achieve ends that are the opposite of what the aspirations to civil liberties and the struggles over them represent. The harassment of well-known intellectuals and artists hides we fear, the daily intimidation being faced by members of minorities and especially the Muslims in Gujarat. We demand that all the charges against Professor Nandy be immediately dropped.
We understand that there is a great deal of anxiety in Gujarat today about its lost honour. It might help to remind ourselves that this honour or "asmita" will not be gained by acts of violence and intimidation but by recovering or discovering the humanity of each other. Gujarat can and will regain its own destiny by remembering the politics of nonviolence, as Mahatma Gandhi once taught us- the Gujaratis, the nation and the world.
1. Ghanshyam Shah, ( Former Professor JNU). Ahmedabad
2. Prof. J.S. Bandukwala, President, PUCL, Gujarat, (Vadodara)
3. Prakash Shah, Editor, Nirikshak, (President Movement for Secular Democracy) Ahmedabad
4. Prof. Amita Varma, Vadodara (Former VC. M.S. University, Baroda)
5. Chunibhai vaidya, Ahmedabad (Chairperson, Lok Sangarsh samiti)
6. Prof. Heemanshi Shelat, Valsad
7. Prof. Anjana Desai, Surat
8. Prof. Upendra Baxi, Delhi (Former VC, South Gujarat University, Surat)
9. Prof. Rajni Kothari, Delhi
10. Prof. Lord Bhikhu Parekh, U.K (Former VC, M.S. University Baroda)
11. Prof. Lord Meghnad Desai UK
12. Girish Patel, Ahmedabad.
13. Prof. Ila Pathak, Ahmedabad
14. Prof. Gulam Shekh, Vadodara
15. Indukumar Jani, Ahmedabad
16. Mrinaliniben Sarabhai, Ahmedabad
17. Prof. D.L. Sheth, Simala
18. Joseph Mecwan, Anand
19. Achut Yagnik, Ahmedabad
20. Rajni Dave, (Editor, Bhumipiutra) Ahmedabad
21. Dwarkanath rath, Ahmedabad
22. Prof. Narayan Sheth, Ahmedabad (Former Director, IIM, Ahmedabad)
23. Prof. Pravin Sheth, Ahmedabad
24. Prof. Makarand Mehta, Ahmedabad
25. Prof. Sujata Patel, Pune
26. Prof. Vidyut Joshi Ahmedabad (Former VC, Bhavnagar University),
27. Prof. Darshini Mahadevia, Ahmedabad
28. Prof. Tridipt Shruhad, Ahmedabad
29. Prof. Nagin Sanghavi, Mumbai
30. Prof. B.A. Parikh, Surat (Former VC South Gujarat University)
31. Prof. Ila Patel, Anand
32. Ashok Cahudhari, Vedchhi
33. Prof. Neera desai, Mumbai
34. Prof. Udya Mehta, Mumbai
35. Mihir desai, Mumbai
36. Dr. Ramesh Parmar, Ahmedabad
37. Dr. Hanif Lakdawala, Ahmedabad
38. Malika Sarabhai
39. Digant Oza, Ahmedabad
40. Prof. Yashin Dalal Rajkot
41. Dr. Anil Patel, Mangol
42. Gautam Thakar, Ahmedabad
43. Rohit Prajapati, Vadodara
44. Dr. Trupti Shah , Vadodara
45. Prof. Jaimini Mehta, Vadodara
46. Prof. Shirish Panchal, Vadodara
47. Urvish Kothari, Mehmadbad
48. Prof. Kalpana Shah, Ahmedabad (Former Act, VC South Gujarat University)
49. Amit Dave, Ahmedabad
50. Prof. Rohit Shukla, Ahmedabad
51. Arun Thakore, Ahmedabad
52. Yashwant Mehta, Ahmedabad
53. Prof. Vibhuti Patel, Mumbai
54. Dr. jaydev Shukla, Savali
55. Ambarish Mehta, Vadodara
56. Prof. Punita Mehta
57. Fr Cedric Prakash, Ahmedabad
58. Manishi Jani, Ahmedabad
59. Dr. Archana Chokshi, U.K.
60. Prof. Yogendra Mankad, Ahmedabad
61. Dr. Sonal Shukla, Mumbai
62. Kabir Thakore, Ahmedabad
63. Janak Raval, Ahmedabad
64. Trupti Parekh, Vadodara
65. Prof. B.D. Desai, Surat
66. Dr. Esha Shah, U.K.
67. Dr. Kiran Desai, Surat
68. Rakeh Sharma, Mumbai
69. Hiren Gandhi, Ahmedabad
70. sanjay Bhave, Ahmedabad
71. Dr. Neha Shah Ahmedabad
72. Dr. Swarup Dhruv, Ahmedabad
73. Prof. Gaurang Jani, Ahmedabad
74. Prof. Sidharth Bhatt, Ahmedabad
75. Prof. Dinesh Shukla, Ahmedabad
76. Kiran Trivedi, Ahmedabad
77. Prof. Dandhukiya, Bhavnagar
78. Prof. Pramod Pancholi, Vadodara
79. Dr. Lyla Mehta, IDS, UK
80. Dr. Bhabani Nayak, University of Sussex, UK
81. Manjula Pradeep, Nani Dewali, Sanand
82. Arun Pathak, Ahmedabad
83. Kiran Nanvaty, Vijyawada, A.P.
84. Avinash, Ahmedabad
85. Anand Patwardhan, Mumbai
86. Vimal Trivedi, Surat
87. Subhas Gatade, Mumbai
88. Vinayak Jadhav, Mumbai
89. Waqar Qazi
90. Magan Desai, Vadodara
91. Barin Mehta
92. Persis Ginwalla, Ahmedabad
93. Ashok Gupta
94. Prof. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Vadodara
95. Prof. Jayshree Mehta, Vadodara
96. Prof. Sudarshan Iangar, Ahmedabad
97. Martin Mecwan, Nani Devati
98. Amita Bhide, Ahmedabad
99. Madhu Menon, Mumbai
100. Dr. Amar Jesani, Mumbai
101. Dr.Michael, Ahmedabad
102. Dr. Varsha Gnaguli, Ahmedabad
103. Uttam Parmar, Kim
104. Natubhai Shah, Navsari
105. Anand Cahudhari, Navsari, Mandvai
106. Bhimsingh Cahudhari, Mandvai
107. M.H. Gandhi, Ahmedabad
108. Mahennisha M. Desai, Ahmedabad
109. Krunshnkant. Ahmedabad
110. Kiran trivedi, Ahmedabad
111. Vishunbhai Dangar, Ahmedabad
112. Ranchhodbhai Shah, Anand
113. Brizlee, Ahmedabd
114. Kamlesh B. Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
115. Alpesh Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
116. Ramaben Vora, Ahmedabad]
117. Mukund Raval, Godhara
118. Damyanti Parekh, Ahmedabd
119. Naresh vachher, Ahmedabad
120. Dankesh Oza, Vadodara
121. Ibrahimbhai Vora, Nadiad
122. A.A. Maniya, Nadiad
123. Prof.Vishu Raval, Valsad
124. Girish Susira, Palanpur
125. Prof. Sirin Mehata, Ahmedabad
126. Prof. Rita Kothari, Ahmedabad
127. Prof. Dhaval Mehta, Ahmedabad
128. S.R. Ramol, Jaipur
129. Ugamraj, Jai[ur
130. Manjula, Ahmedabd
131. Nila Mahdev, Ahmedabd
132. P.K. Valera, Ahmedabd
133. B. K. Amin, Kalol
134. Abhijit Kothari
135. Chaturbhai Chuhan, Ahmedabd
136. Ambdul Husenbhai Vakani, Bharuch
137. Dr. Satyakam Joshi, Surat
138. Prof. Ashok Chetterjee, Ahmedabd
139. ishaq Arab, Ahmedabd
140. N. R. Malik Ahmedabd
141. A.A. Parekh, Ahmedabd
142. V. B. Rathawa, Chhotaudepur
143. Rajendra Aagar, Anand
144. Tulshibhai chauhan, Ahmedabd
145. Ramesh Borisa, Ahmedabad,
146. Jaysh Mistry, Ahmedabad
147. Dhrmendra jain, Ahmedabad
148. Prag Shah, Ahmedabad
149. Dharmendra Acharya, Ahmedabad
150. Kishor B. Gavit, Himatnagar
151. Arvindbhai Raout, Himatnagar
152. Smitesh A. Makawana, Himatnagar
153. Bachubhai Shah, Ahmedabad
154. kamlesh Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
155. Achutbhai Patel, Ahmedabad
156. Jethalal Kashyap, Sanad
157. Prof. Harshad Desai, Ahmedabad
158. Trupti Shukla, Vadhavan
159. Shrushti Shukla, Vadhavan
160. Lalubhai Chuhan, Gandhinagar
161. Kamlesh patel, Ahmedabad
162. Joly Kalhpplly. Ahmedabad
163. Bina Mecwan, Ahmedabad
164. Mustakali, Ahmedabad
165. Kishorbhai, Ahmedabad
166. Brijesh Parmar, Himatnagar
167. John Britoo, Hilnagar
168. Jose Jaman, Hilanagar
169. Meluni Dmeht, Hilanagar
170. Vinesh Gayakwad, Hilanagar
171. Rosal Rodigus, Hilanagar
172. Deepak Rawal, Hilanagar
173. Tanya D’Lama, Ahmedabad
174. Sheena D’Lama Ahmedabad
175. Dasharath Srimal, Ahmedabad
176. S.L. Patel, Ahmedabad
177. Joseph Dominik, Ahmedabad
178. Suvarna, Ahmedabad
179. Jagdish Dikshi, Ahmedabad
180. Kirit Shah. Ahmedabad
181. Ramit N. Rathod, Ahmedabad
182. Rajubhai parmar, Ahmedabad
183. Pranav Parmar, Ahmedabad
184. Shisu Solanki, Ahmedabad
185. Anil M. Majani, Ahmedabad
186. H.G. Betwai, Ahmedabad
187. R.R. Soman Ahmedabad
188. R.S. Parmar, Ahmedabad
189. Babubhai Nathabhai Parmar, Patan
190. Natwarbhai Khushalbhai Vasava, Dedipada
191. A.A. Anuya, Nadiad
192. Pravin M. Shah, AhmedabadG.B. Patham, Ahmedabad
193. Shantibhai Shah, Ahmedabad
194. Shamista Shah, Ahmedabad
195. D. M. Thakkar, Ahmedabad
196. Khjati Purohi, Ahmedabad
197. gaurang Divetiya, Ahmedabad
198. Suryakant Parikh, Ahmedabad
199. Niranjan Shah, Ahmedabad
200. Satish Shah, Ahmedabad
201. Prof. Dhannjay Pandya
202. Arvind Desai, Ahmedabad
203. Anirudhsinh Jadeja, Rajkot
204. Sagar Rabari, Ahmedabad
205. Prof. Smita Shah, Surat
206. Bakula, Valsad
207. Prof. Jayanti Patel, Ahmedabad
208. Prof. Kuntal Mehta, Ahmedabad
209. Prof. Mangal Mehta, Ahmedabad
210. Prof. Kanji Patel, Lunavada
DATE: 24 JUNE 2008
[For more detail you can contact Dr. Ghanshyam Shah 079-26442053]
We protest in the strongest possible terms against the charges of criminal offence levied against Ashis Nandy, a political psychologist, sociologist and an internationally renowned public intellectual of the highest caliber. This is the latest case of harassment of intellectuals, journalists, artists, and public figures by antidemocratic forces that claim to speak on behalf of Hindu values sometimes and patriotism at other times, especially in Gujarat, but who have little understanding of either. What is pernicious in this case is that the charge of criminal offence against Nandy levied under Section 153 (A) and (B) for his newspaper article "Blame the Middle Classes" , was brought by the head of the Gujarat Branch of the National Council of Civil Liberties. The State Government of Gujarat by giving its permission for filing the case has shown its own complicity in the case.
It seems part of the strategy of the most intolerant sections of Indian society today to make a cynical use the language of civil liberties to achieve ends that are the opposite of what the aspirations to civil liberties and the struggles over them represent. The harassment of well-known intellectuals and artists hides we fear, the daily intimidation being faced by members of minorities and especially the Muslims in Gujarat. We demand that all the charges against Professor Nandy be immediately dropped.
We understand that there is a great deal of anxiety in Gujarat today about its lost honour. It might help to remind ourselves that this honour or "asmita" will not be gained by acts of violence and intimidation but by recovering or discovering the humanity of each other. Gujarat can and will regain its own destiny by remembering the politics of nonviolence, as Mahatma Gandhi once taught us- the Gujaratis, the nation and the world.
1. Ghanshyam Shah, ( Former Professor JNU). Ahmedabad
2. Prof. J.S. Bandukwala, President, PUCL, Gujarat, (Vadodara)
3. Prakash Shah, Editor, Nirikshak, (President Movement for Secular Democracy) Ahmedabad
4. Prof. Amita Varma, Vadodara (Former VC. M.S. University, Baroda)
5. Chunibhai vaidya, Ahmedabad (Chairperson, Lok Sangarsh samiti)
6. Prof. Heemanshi Shelat, Valsad
7. Prof. Anjana Desai, Surat
8. Prof. Upendra Baxi, Delhi (Former VC, South Gujarat University, Surat)
9. Prof. Rajni Kothari, Delhi
10. Prof. Lord Bhikhu Parekh, U.K (Former VC, M.S. University Baroda)
11. Prof. Lord Meghnad Desai UK
12. Girish Patel, Ahmedabad.
13. Prof. Ila Pathak, Ahmedabad
14. Prof. Gulam Shekh, Vadodara
15. Indukumar Jani, Ahmedabad
16. Mrinaliniben Sarabhai, Ahmedabad
17. Prof. D.L. Sheth, Simala
18. Joseph Mecwan, Anand
19. Achut Yagnik, Ahmedabad
20. Rajni Dave, (Editor, Bhumipiutra) Ahmedabad
21. Dwarkanath rath, Ahmedabad
22. Prof. Narayan Sheth, Ahmedabad (Former Director, IIM, Ahmedabad)
23. Prof. Pravin Sheth, Ahmedabad
24. Prof. Makarand Mehta, Ahmedabad
25. Prof. Sujata Patel, Pune
26. Prof. Vidyut Joshi Ahmedabad (Former VC, Bhavnagar University),
27. Prof. Darshini Mahadevia, Ahmedabad
28. Prof. Tridipt Shruhad, Ahmedabad
29. Prof. Nagin Sanghavi, Mumbai
30. Prof. B.A. Parikh, Surat (Former VC South Gujarat University)
31. Prof. Ila Patel, Anand
32. Ashok Cahudhari, Vedchhi
33. Prof. Neera desai, Mumbai
34. Prof. Udya Mehta, Mumbai
35. Mihir desai, Mumbai
36. Dr. Ramesh Parmar, Ahmedabad
37. Dr. Hanif Lakdawala, Ahmedabad
38. Malika Sarabhai
39. Digant Oza, Ahmedabad
40. Prof. Yashin Dalal Rajkot
41. Dr. Anil Patel, Mangol
42. Gautam Thakar, Ahmedabad
43. Rohit Prajapati, Vadodara
44. Dr. Trupti Shah , Vadodara
45. Prof. Jaimini Mehta, Vadodara
46. Prof. Shirish Panchal, Vadodara
47. Urvish Kothari, Mehmadbad
48. Prof. Kalpana Shah, Ahmedabad (Former Act, VC South Gujarat University)
49. Amit Dave, Ahmedabad
50. Prof. Rohit Shukla, Ahmedabad
51. Arun Thakore, Ahmedabad
52. Yashwant Mehta, Ahmedabad
53. Prof. Vibhuti Patel, Mumbai
54. Dr. jaydev Shukla, Savali
55. Ambarish Mehta, Vadodara
56. Prof. Punita Mehta
57. Fr Cedric Prakash, Ahmedabad
58. Manishi Jani, Ahmedabad
59. Dr. Archana Chokshi, U.K.
60. Prof. Yogendra Mankad, Ahmedabad
61. Dr. Sonal Shukla, Mumbai
62. Kabir Thakore, Ahmedabad
63. Janak Raval, Ahmedabad
64. Trupti Parekh, Vadodara
65. Prof. B.D. Desai, Surat
66. Dr. Esha Shah, U.K.
67. Dr. Kiran Desai, Surat
68. Rakeh Sharma, Mumbai
69. Hiren Gandhi, Ahmedabad
70. sanjay Bhave, Ahmedabad
71. Dr. Neha Shah Ahmedabad
72. Dr. Swarup Dhruv, Ahmedabad
73. Prof. Gaurang Jani, Ahmedabad
74. Prof. Sidharth Bhatt, Ahmedabad
75. Prof. Dinesh Shukla, Ahmedabad
76. Kiran Trivedi, Ahmedabad
77. Prof. Dandhukiya, Bhavnagar
78. Prof. Pramod Pancholi, Vadodara
79. Dr. Lyla Mehta, IDS, UK
80. Dr. Bhabani Nayak, University of Sussex, UK
81. Manjula Pradeep, Nani Dewali, Sanand
82. Arun Pathak, Ahmedabad
83. Kiran Nanvaty, Vijyawada, A.P.
84. Avinash, Ahmedabad
85. Anand Patwardhan, Mumbai
86. Vimal Trivedi, Surat
87. Subhas Gatade, Mumbai
88. Vinayak Jadhav, Mumbai
89. Waqar Qazi
90. Magan Desai, Vadodara
91. Barin Mehta
92. Persis Ginwalla, Ahmedabad
93. Ashok Gupta
94. Prof. Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Vadodara
95. Prof. Jayshree Mehta, Vadodara
96. Prof. Sudarshan Iangar, Ahmedabad
97. Martin Mecwan, Nani Devati
98. Amita Bhide, Ahmedabad
99. Madhu Menon, Mumbai
100. Dr. Amar Jesani, Mumbai
101. Dr.Michael, Ahmedabad
102. Dr. Varsha Gnaguli, Ahmedabad
103. Uttam Parmar, Kim
104. Natubhai Shah, Navsari
105. Anand Cahudhari, Navsari, Mandvai
106. Bhimsingh Cahudhari, Mandvai
107. M.H. Gandhi, Ahmedabad
108. Mahennisha M. Desai, Ahmedabad
109. Krunshnkant. Ahmedabad
110. Kiran trivedi, Ahmedabad
111. Vishunbhai Dangar, Ahmedabad
112. Ranchhodbhai Shah, Anand
113. Brizlee, Ahmedabd
114. Kamlesh B. Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
115. Alpesh Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
116. Ramaben Vora, Ahmedabad]
117. Mukund Raval, Godhara
118. Damyanti Parekh, Ahmedabd
119. Naresh vachher, Ahmedabad
120. Dankesh Oza, Vadodara
121. Ibrahimbhai Vora, Nadiad
122. A.A. Maniya, Nadiad
123. Prof.Vishu Raval, Valsad
124. Girish Susira, Palanpur
125. Prof. Sirin Mehata, Ahmedabad
126. Prof. Rita Kothari, Ahmedabad
127. Prof. Dhaval Mehta, Ahmedabad
128. S.R. Ramol, Jaipur
129. Ugamraj, Jai[ur
130. Manjula, Ahmedabd
131. Nila Mahdev, Ahmedabd
132. P.K. Valera, Ahmedabd
133. B. K. Amin, Kalol
134. Abhijit Kothari
135. Chaturbhai Chuhan, Ahmedabd
136. Ambdul Husenbhai Vakani, Bharuch
137. Dr. Satyakam Joshi, Surat
138. Prof. Ashok Chetterjee, Ahmedabd
139. ishaq Arab, Ahmedabd
140. N. R. Malik Ahmedabd
141. A.A. Parekh, Ahmedabd
142. V. B. Rathawa, Chhotaudepur
143. Rajendra Aagar, Anand
144. Tulshibhai chauhan, Ahmedabd
145. Ramesh Borisa, Ahmedabad,
146. Jaysh Mistry, Ahmedabad
147. Dhrmendra jain, Ahmedabad
148. Prag Shah, Ahmedabad
149. Dharmendra Acharya, Ahmedabad
150. Kishor B. Gavit, Himatnagar
151. Arvindbhai Raout, Himatnagar
152. Smitesh A. Makawana, Himatnagar
153. Bachubhai Shah, Ahmedabad
154. kamlesh Bhavsar, Ahmedabad
155. Achutbhai Patel, Ahmedabad
156. Jethalal Kashyap, Sanad
157. Prof. Harshad Desai, Ahmedabad
158. Trupti Shukla, Vadhavan
159. Shrushti Shukla, Vadhavan
160. Lalubhai Chuhan, Gandhinagar
161. Kamlesh patel, Ahmedabad
162. Joly Kalhpplly. Ahmedabad
163. Bina Mecwan, Ahmedabad
164. Mustakali, Ahmedabad
165. Kishorbhai, Ahmedabad
166. Brijesh Parmar, Himatnagar
167. John Britoo, Hilnagar
168. Jose Jaman, Hilanagar
169. Meluni Dmeht, Hilanagar
170. Vinesh Gayakwad, Hilanagar
171. Rosal Rodigus, Hilanagar
172. Deepak Rawal, Hilanagar
173. Tanya D’Lama, Ahmedabad
174. Sheena D’Lama Ahmedabad
175. Dasharath Srimal, Ahmedabad
176. S.L. Patel, Ahmedabad
177. Joseph Dominik, Ahmedabad
178. Suvarna, Ahmedabad
179. Jagdish Dikshi, Ahmedabad
180. Kirit Shah. Ahmedabad
181. Ramit N. Rathod, Ahmedabad
182. Rajubhai parmar, Ahmedabad
183. Pranav Parmar, Ahmedabad
184. Shisu Solanki, Ahmedabad
185. Anil M. Majani, Ahmedabad
186. H.G. Betwai, Ahmedabad
187. R.R. Soman Ahmedabad
188. R.S. Parmar, Ahmedabad
189. Babubhai Nathabhai Parmar, Patan
190. Natwarbhai Khushalbhai Vasava, Dedipada
191. A.A. Anuya, Nadiad
192. Pravin M. Shah, AhmedabadG.B. Patham, Ahmedabad
193. Shantibhai Shah, Ahmedabad
194. Shamista Shah, Ahmedabad
195. D. M. Thakkar, Ahmedabad
196. Khjati Purohi, Ahmedabad
197. gaurang Divetiya, Ahmedabad
198. Suryakant Parikh, Ahmedabad
199. Niranjan Shah, Ahmedabad
200. Satish Shah, Ahmedabad
201. Prof. Dhannjay Pandya
202. Arvind Desai, Ahmedabad
203. Anirudhsinh Jadeja, Rajkot
204. Sagar Rabari, Ahmedabad
205. Prof. Smita Shah, Surat
206. Bakula, Valsad
207. Prof. Jayanti Patel, Ahmedabad
208. Prof. Kuntal Mehta, Ahmedabad
209. Prof. Mangal Mehta, Ahmedabad
210. Prof. Kanji Patel, Lunavada
June 16, 2008
Why is Prof Ashis Nandy under attack in Gujarat ?
Why Narendra Modi Is Afraid Of Prof. Ashish Nandy ?
by Subhash Gatade
( The Milli Gazette, 30 th June 2008)
Prof. Ashish Nandy, India's leading intellectual acknowledged as the founding fathers of postcolonial studies has recently got a new 'identity'. According to the Gujarat Police he is now an accused in a criminal case supposedly for 'promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth and language.' Definitely neither Prof Nandy nor many of his admirers would have ever imagined in their wildest dreams that a day would arrive when he will face prosecution for his writings. But as they rightly say it, in Gujarat things happen bit differently.
According to media reports the Ahmedabad police have admitted a petition filed by an advocate belonging to National Council for Civil Liberties over Professor Nandy's leader page article in the Times of India ( 8 th January) 'Blame The Middle Class'. It need be added that this is the same council which had filed a few petitions against social activist and leader of Naramda Bachao Aandolan Medha Patekar on some frivolous charges which were later dismissed by the court.
To put it straight, the particular article had tried to analyse the election results for the Gujarat assembly held in December 2007 which had once again given a mandate to Mr Narendra Modi. The article in question revolved around basically three points : One, it had tried to delineate the plight of the Muslims who were condemned to live a second class existence in the post 2002 phase. It had clearly stated that
Gujarati Muslims too are “adjusting” to their new station. Denied justice and proper compensation, and as second-class citizens in their home state, they have to depend on voluntary efforts and donor agencies. The state’s refusal to provide relief has been partly met by voluntary groups having fundamentalist sympathies. They supply aid but insist that the beneficiaries give up Gujarati and take to Urdu, adopt veil, and send their children to madrassas.
Secondly, apart from the plight of Muslims it had also explained the situation in which the political formations who espouse the cause of secularism find themselves today. And he was unsparing in his criticism of these formations/individuals.For him
The secularist dogma of many fighting the sangh parivar has not helped matters. Even those who have benefited from secular lawyers and activists relate to secular ideologies instrumentally. They neither understand them nor respect them. The victims still derive solace from their religions and, when under attack, they cling more passionately to faith. Indeed, shallow ideologies of secularism have simultaneously broken the back of Gandhism and discouraged the emergence of figures like Ali Shariatis, Desmond Tutus and the Dalai Lama — persons who can give suffering a new voice audible to the poor and the powerless and make a creative intervention possible from within worldviews accessible to the people.
Of course the focus of its attention was on the 'state's urbane middle class' which has remained 'mired in its inane versions of communalism and parochialism'.
The article had concluded with the observation that :
Recovering Gujarat from its urban middle class will not be easy. The class has found in militant religious nationalism a new self- respect and a new virtual identity as a martial community, the way Bengali babus, Maharashtrian Brahmins and Kashmiri Muslims at different times have sought salvation in violence. In Gujarat this class has smelt blood, for it does not have to do the killings but can plan, finance and coordinate them with impunity. The actual killers are the lowest of the low, mostly tribals and Dalits. The middle class controls the media and education, which have become hate factories in recent times. And they receive spirited support from most non-resident Indians who, at a safe distance from India, can afford to be more nationalist, bloodthirsty, and irresponsible.
While one may agree to differ with Professor Nandy's observations on various counts, still any concerned reader can see that it did not engage itself in any rhetoric and tried to delineate the challenges which lie ahead. Question naturally arises why did the state government felt pertrubed over this article and decided to give a green signal to its police department to admit the said petition by the council and file a a criminal case against him ?
At a general level one can say that targetting of individuals and stigmatising them in very many ways is part of the modus operandi of the Hindutva brigade. And this particular case does not seem to be different. In fact it is a politics that seeks to silence critique, and battles for a notion of the past that is homogeneously Hindu.
Last six year history of Gujarat is replete with many such examples where they tried to silence all those voices who did not fall in line with their agenda based on hate and exclusion. We have before us the examples of the dansescue Sarabhai or for that matter social activist Nafisa Ali or scholar-activist G.N. Devy who were targeted on different occasions.
In Prof Nandy's case perhaps the powers that be did not like the manner in which he tried to delineate the future prognosis of a movement like RSS.
Events like the desecration of Wali Gujarati’s grave have pushed one of India’s culturally richest, most diverse, vernacular Islamic traditions to the wall. Future generations will as gratefully acknowledge the sangh parivar’s contribution to the growth of radical Islam in India as this generation remembers with gratitude the handsome contribution of Rajiv Gandhi and his cohorts to Sikh militancy.
The criminal case filed against Prof Ashish Nandy reminds one of the villification campaigns which were organised during BJP led regime at centre.In fact with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) assumption of power at the centre in 1998 and its ongoing attempts to remake the educational curriculum in its own chauvinistic image gaining momentum, intellectuals and academic positions at odds with the Sangh Parivar’s view of history came under attack under various pretexts. The BJP has pursued a concerted effort to malign and delegitimise scholars and intellectuals at odds with its view of India’s past. After the stalling of the Indian Council of Historical Research-sponsored ‘Towards Freedom’ project edited by professors Sumit Sarkar of University of Delhi (DU) and KN Panikkar of JNU, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) went all-out to weed out the influence of, in the words of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief KS Sudarshan, “anti-Hindu Euro-Indians” from the curriculum. In 2001, when the moves by NCERT were underway to delete passages from school textbooks that allegedly ‘hurt’ the sentiments of this religious sect or the other, a delegation of Arya Samajis met Murli Manohar Joshi, the human resource development minister, and demanded that Romila Thapar, the legendary historian along with historians RS Sharma of DU and Arjun Dev of NCERT, be arrested. Not to be outdone, Joshi had also reiterated time and again his pet thesis that ‘academic terrorists’ are more dangerous than armed ones.
Stop Harassment of Ashis Nandy and a Withdraw Charges Against Him
Statement by Academics and Activists on the Harassment of Ashis Nandy and a Demand for Withdrawal of Spurious Charges Levied Against Him
We write to protest in the strongest possible terms against the charges of criminal offence levied against Ashis Nandy, a political psychologist, sociologist and an internationally renowned public intellectual of the highest caliber. This is the latest case of harassment of intellectuals, journalists, artists, and public figures by antidemocratic forces that claim to speak on behalf of Hindu values sometimes and patriotism at other times, especially in Gujarat, but who have little understanding of either. What is pernicious in this case is that the charge of criminal offence against Nandy levied under Section 153 (A) and (B) for his newspaper article "Blame the Middle Classes", was brought by the head of the Gujarat Branch of the National Council of Civil Liberties. The State Government of Gujarat by giving its permission for filing the case has shown its own complicity in the case.
It seems part of the strategy of the most intolerant sections of Indian society today to make a cynical use the language of civil liberties to achieve ends that are the opposite of what the aspirations to civil liberties and the struggles over them represent. The harassment of well-known intellectuals and artists hides we fear, the daily intimidation being faced by members of minorities and especially the Muslims in Gujarat. We demand that all the charges against Professor Nandy be immediately dropped. We understand that there is a great deal of anxiety in Gujarat today about its lost honour. It might help to remind ourselves that this honour or "asmita" will not be gained by acts of violence and intimidation but by recovering or discovering the humanity of each other. Gujarat can and will regain its own destiny by remembering the politics of nonviolence, as one of its sons by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi once taught the nation and the world.
1.Veena Das, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
2. Homi Bhabha, Harvard University, USA
3. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Center for Policy Research, Delhi, India
4. Gananath Obeyesekere, Princeton University, USA
5. Pratiksha Baxi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
6. Saurabh Dube, El Colegio de Mexico
7. Diana Eck, Harvard University, USA
8. Sanjay Subrahmaniam, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
9. Lawrence Cohen, University of California Berkeley, USA
10. Sasanka Perera, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
11. Jonathan Spencer, University of Edinburgh, UK
12. Flavia Agnes, Legal Center of Majlis, Mumbai, india
13. Harsh Mandar, Aman Biradari, Delhi, india
14. Uma Chakravarty, Independent Scholar, Delhi, India
15. Hent de Vries, Johns Hopkins University, USA
16. Ravinder Kaur, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
17. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, University of California Berkeley, USA
18. Akhil Gupta, University of California Los Angeles, USA
19. Ishita Bannerjee, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico
20. Nivedita Menon, University of Delhi, India
21. Deepak Mehta, University of Delhi, India
22. Nirja Gopal Jayal, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
23. Srimati Basu, University of Kentucky, USA
24. Pamela Reynolds, Johns Hopkins University, USA
25. Perveez Mody, University of Cambridge UK
26. Janaki Abraham, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
27. Rajni Palriwala, University of Delhi, India
28. Kalpana Kannabiran, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
29.Stewart Motha, Kent Law School, UK
30. Anand Pandian, Johns Hopkins University, USA
31.Vikram Vyas, St. Stephens College, University of Delhi
32. Maria Pia de Bella, CNRS-IRSI-EHESS, Paris
33. Gil Anidjar, Columbia University, USA
34. Lawrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
35 Ranendra K Das, Johns Hopkins University, USA
36. Stanley Samarsinghe, Tulane University, USA
37. Kavi Bhalla, Harvard Initiative for Global Health, USA
38. Naveeda Khan, Johns Hopkins University, USA
39 C K Raju, Center for Studies in Civilizations, Delhi, India
40. Asha Singh, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi, Delhi.
41 Sanjay Barbora, Panos Institute South Asia, Guwahati, India
42. K. Tudor Silva, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
43. Ashok Xavier, Loyola College, Chennai, India
44. Rada Ivekovic, College international de philosophie, Paris
45. Vasuki Nesiah, Brown University, USA
46. Nermeen Shaikh, Asia Society, New York, USA
47. Mani Shekhar Singh, Independent Scholar, Delhi
48. Kavita Misra, Columbia University, USA
49. Christopher Stone, Hunter College, New York, USA
50. Arjun Appadurai, New School University, USA
51. Fredrique-Appfel Marglin, Smith College, USA
52. Ailli Trip, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
53. Nayanika Mookherjee, Lancaster University, UK
54. Sanjay Reddy, University of Columbia, USA
55. Dipesh Chakrabarty, University of Chicago, USA
56. Sanmay Das, Ransellier Polytechnic Institute, USA
57. Mohan Trivedi, University of California, San Diego, USA
58. Kamala Visweswaran, University of Texas at Austin, USA
59. Banu Subramaniam, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
60. Geeta Patel, University of Virginia, USA
61. Ajay Sakaria, University of Minnesota, USA
62. Gloria Goodwin Raheja, University of Minnesota, USA
63. Farah Aziz, Journalist, Mumbai, India
64. Pankj Mishra, Writer, New York, USA
65. Uday Mehta, Amherst College, USA
66. Qadri Ismail, University of Minnesota, USA
67. Rachel Dwyer, University of London, UK
68. Michael Dwyer, Publisher, London, UK
69. Bhaskar Sarkar, UC Santa Barbara, USA
70. Ashok Dhareshwar, Washington, DC, USA
71. Mahdi Almandrja, University Mohammad V Rabat, Morocco
72. Richard Falk, Princeton University, USA
73. Piya Chatterjee, UC Riverside, USA
74 Ann Grodzins Gold, Syracuse University, New York
75. Sunil Bhavsar, San Diego, California, USA
76. Simone Sawhney, University of Minnesota, USA
77. Gyanendra Pandey, Emory University, USA
78. Sabina Sawhney, Hofstra University, New York, USA
79. Vivek Dhareshwar, Center for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, India
80. Adel Wessell, Southern Cross University, Australia
81. Baden Oxford, Southern Cross University, Australia
82. Indira Chowdhury, ARCH, Bangalore, India.
83. Jerry Pinto, Journalist, Mumbai, India.
84. Andrea Pinto, Librarian, Mumbai, India.
85. Sruti Chaganthi, Center for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, India
86. David Loy, Xavier University, Ohio, USA
87. Jan Obevg, Transnational Foundation, Sweden
88. Vrinda Grover, Marg, Delhi
89. Mahua Sarkar, Binghamton University, USA
90. Joseph Borocz, Rutgers University, USA
91. Megha Subramanian, University of Southern California, LA, USA
92. Nayanika Mookherjee, Lancaster University, UK
93. Pradeep Jeganathan, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka
94. Malathi de Alwis, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka
95. Ein Lal, Independent Film Maker, Delhi, India
96. Shastri Ramachandran, Journalist, the Tribune, Chandigarh, India
97. Rita Brara, University of Delhi, India.
98. V.Venkatesan, Journalist, Frontline, Delhi
99. Debamitra Kar, Pearson Education, Delhi, India
100. Maitreyi Krishnan, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
101. Ponni Arasu, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
102. Manoranjani Thomas, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
103. Mayur Suresh, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
104. Prashant Iyengar, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
105. Namita Malhotra, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
106. Clifton Rosario, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
107. Arvind Narrain, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
108. Jiti Nichani, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
109. Usha R, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
110. Siddhartha Narrian, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
111. Anand Chokhwala, Surat, India
112. Nayana M Trivedi, Scripps Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
113. Munira A Basnai, NIH, Bathesda, USA
114. Attila Melegh, Corvinus University, Hungary.
115. Gauri Viswanathan, Columbia University, USA
116. Bhrigupati Singh, Johns Hopkins University, USA
117. Prerna Singh, Princeton University, USA
118. Saumya Das, Mass. General hospital, Cambridge, USA
119. Ranjini Obesesekera, Independent Scholar, Sri Lanka
120. Sithie Tiruchelvam, Tiruchelvam Associates, Colombo, Sri Lanka
121. Jonathan Parry, London School of Economics, London, UK
122. Manav Ratti, Oxford University, UK
123. Priyamvada Gopal, University of Cambridge, UK
124. Harsh Pant, King’s College, London, UK
125. Keya Ganguli, University of Minnesota, USA
126. Joshua Castollino, Middlesex University, UK
127. Sudeshna Guha, Univeristy of Cambridge, UK
128. Debjani Ganguli, Australian National University, Australia
129. Kavita Daiya, George Washington University, USA
130. Jonathan Woolf, University of Liverpool, UK
131. Soumhya Venkatesan, University of Manchester, UK
132. Kriti Kapila, University of Cambridge, UK
133. Shirin Rail, University of Warwick, UK
134. Radmila Nakarada, University of Belgrade, Serbia
135. Gul Khattak, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan
136. Suketu Bhavsar, Cal Poly, Pomona USA
137. Jishnu Das, Center for Policy Research, Delhi, India
138. Swati Chattopadhyay, UC Santa Barbara, USA
139. Dineshwar Tiwari, Deshkal Society, Delhi, India
140. Ranjeet Nirguni, Deshkal Society, Delhi, India
141. Mary JaJehanbegaloo, University of Toronto, Canada
142. Imtiaz Ahmad, Dhaka University, Bangladesh
143. Shard Chandra Behar, Bhopal, MP, India
144. Arthur Kleinman, Harvard University, USA
145. Aamir Mufti, UC Los Angeles, USA
146. Nauman Naqvi, Brown University, USA
147. Steven Caton, Harvard University, USA
148. Ziauddin Sardar, City University, London, UK
149. Ohashi Masaki, Keisen University, Japan
150. Jessica Marglin Princeton University, USA
151. J. Mohan Rao, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
152. Sylvia Marcos, Center for Psycho-ethnological Research, Cuernavaca, Mexico
153. Jean Robert, Architect, Mexico
154. Partha Chatterjee, Columbia University, USA
155. Rajeev Bhargav, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi
156. Baber Johansen, Harvard University, USA
157. Srirupa Roy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
158. Fredrique-Apffel Marglin, Smith College, Northampton, USA
159. Shudana Yusaf, Princeton University, USA
160. Sudhir Kakat, Psychoanalyst and Writer, Goa, India
161. Daho Djerbal, University of Algeria, Algeria
162. Upendra Baxi, Warwick University, UK
163. Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizen’s Web
164. Govinda Rath, G.B.Pant institute of Social Sciences, Allahabad, India
165. William Connolly, Johns Hopkins University, USA
166. Dipankar Gupta, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
167. Indrani Chatterjee, Rutgers University, Delhi
168. Peter Ronald deSouza, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Simla
169. Triloki Madan, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India
170. Mira Kamdar, World Policy Institute, New York, USA
171. Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
172. Partha Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
173. Amiya Kumar Choudhuri, MAKAIS, Kolkata, India.
174. Rajaram Pande, The Japan Foundation, New Delhi, India
175. Lloyd I Rudolf, University of Chicago
176. Susanne H Rudolf, University of Chicago
177. Rosemary M George, UC San Diego
178. Shylashri Shankar, Center for Policy Research , Delhi
[I certify that emails indicating the consent of all persons to the statement are available with me. Veena Das, vdas@jhu.edu or veena.das@gmail.org]
We write to protest in the strongest possible terms against the charges of criminal offence levied against Ashis Nandy, a political psychologist, sociologist and an internationally renowned public intellectual of the highest caliber. This is the latest case of harassment of intellectuals, journalists, artists, and public figures by antidemocratic forces that claim to speak on behalf of Hindu values sometimes and patriotism at other times, especially in Gujarat, but who have little understanding of either. What is pernicious in this case is that the charge of criminal offence against Nandy levied under Section 153 (A) and (B) for his newspaper article "Blame the Middle Classes", was brought by the head of the Gujarat Branch of the National Council of Civil Liberties. The State Government of Gujarat by giving its permission for filing the case has shown its own complicity in the case.
It seems part of the strategy of the most intolerant sections of Indian society today to make a cynical use the language of civil liberties to achieve ends that are the opposite of what the aspirations to civil liberties and the struggles over them represent. The harassment of well-known intellectuals and artists hides we fear, the daily intimidation being faced by members of minorities and especially the Muslims in Gujarat. We demand that all the charges against Professor Nandy be immediately dropped. We understand that there is a great deal of anxiety in Gujarat today about its lost honour. It might help to remind ourselves that this honour or "asmita" will not be gained by acts of violence and intimidation but by recovering or discovering the humanity of each other. Gujarat can and will regain its own destiny by remembering the politics of nonviolence, as one of its sons by the name of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi once taught the nation and the world.
1.Veena Das, Johns Hopkins University, USA.
2. Homi Bhabha, Harvard University, USA
3. Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Center for Policy Research, Delhi, India
4. Gananath Obeyesekere, Princeton University, USA
5. Pratiksha Baxi, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
6. Saurabh Dube, El Colegio de Mexico
7. Diana Eck, Harvard University, USA
8. Sanjay Subrahmaniam, University of California at Los Angeles, USA
9. Lawrence Cohen, University of California Berkeley, USA
10. Sasanka Perera, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka
11. Jonathan Spencer, University of Edinburgh, UK
12. Flavia Agnes, Legal Center of Majlis, Mumbai, india
13. Harsh Mandar, Aman Biradari, Delhi, india
14. Uma Chakravarty, Independent Scholar, Delhi, India
15. Hent de Vries, Johns Hopkins University, USA
16. Ravinder Kaur, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India
17. Nancy Scheper-Hughes, University of California Berkeley, USA
18. Akhil Gupta, University of California Los Angeles, USA
19. Ishita Bannerjee, El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico
20. Nivedita Menon, University of Delhi, India
21. Deepak Mehta, University of Delhi, India
22. Nirja Gopal Jayal, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India
23. Srimati Basu, University of Kentucky, USA
24. Pamela Reynolds, Johns Hopkins University, USA
25. Perveez Mody, University of Cambridge UK
26. Janaki Abraham, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
27. Rajni Palriwala, University of Delhi, India
28. Kalpana Kannabiran, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad
29.Stewart Motha, Kent Law School, UK
30. Anand Pandian, Johns Hopkins University, USA
31.Vikram Vyas, St. Stephens College, University of Delhi
32. Maria Pia de Bella, CNRS-IRSI-EHESS, Paris
33. Gil Anidjar, Columbia University, USA
34. Lawrence Liang, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore
35 Ranendra K Das, Johns Hopkins University, USA
36. Stanley Samarsinghe, Tulane University, USA
37. Kavi Bhalla, Harvard Initiative for Global Health, USA
38. Naveeda Khan, Johns Hopkins University, USA
39 C K Raju, Center for Studies in Civilizations, Delhi, India
40. Asha Singh, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi, Delhi.
41 Sanjay Barbora, Panos Institute South Asia, Guwahati, India
42. K. Tudor Silva, University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
43. Ashok Xavier, Loyola College, Chennai, India
44. Rada Ivekovic, College international de philosophie, Paris
45. Vasuki Nesiah, Brown University, USA
46. Nermeen Shaikh, Asia Society, New York, USA
47. Mani Shekhar Singh, Independent Scholar, Delhi
48. Kavita Misra, Columbia University, USA
49. Christopher Stone, Hunter College, New York, USA
50. Arjun Appadurai, New School University, USA
51. Fredrique-Appfel Marglin, Smith College, USA
52. Ailli Trip, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
53. Nayanika Mookherjee, Lancaster University, UK
54. Sanjay Reddy, University of Columbia, USA
55. Dipesh Chakrabarty, University of Chicago, USA
56. Sanmay Das, Ransellier Polytechnic Institute, USA
57. Mohan Trivedi, University of California, San Diego, USA
58. Kamala Visweswaran, University of Texas at Austin, USA
59. Banu Subramaniam, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
60. Geeta Patel, University of Virginia, USA
61. Ajay Sakaria, University of Minnesota, USA
62. Gloria Goodwin Raheja, University of Minnesota, USA
63. Farah Aziz, Journalist, Mumbai, India
64. Pankj Mishra, Writer, New York, USA
65. Uday Mehta, Amherst College, USA
66. Qadri Ismail, University of Minnesota, USA
67. Rachel Dwyer, University of London, UK
68. Michael Dwyer, Publisher, London, UK
69. Bhaskar Sarkar, UC Santa Barbara, USA
70. Ashok Dhareshwar, Washington, DC, USA
71. Mahdi Almandrja, University Mohammad V Rabat, Morocco
72. Richard Falk, Princeton University, USA
73. Piya Chatterjee, UC Riverside, USA
74 Ann Grodzins Gold, Syracuse University, New York
75. Sunil Bhavsar, San Diego, California, USA
76. Simone Sawhney, University of Minnesota, USA
77. Gyanendra Pandey, Emory University, USA
78. Sabina Sawhney, Hofstra University, New York, USA
79. Vivek Dhareshwar, Center for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, India
80. Adel Wessell, Southern Cross University, Australia
81. Baden Oxford, Southern Cross University, Australia
82. Indira Chowdhury, ARCH, Bangalore, India.
83. Jerry Pinto, Journalist, Mumbai, India.
84. Andrea Pinto, Librarian, Mumbai, India.
85. Sruti Chaganthi, Center for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, India
86. David Loy, Xavier University, Ohio, USA
87. Jan Obevg, Transnational Foundation, Sweden
88. Vrinda Grover, Marg, Delhi
89. Mahua Sarkar, Binghamton University, USA
90. Joseph Borocz, Rutgers University, USA
91. Megha Subramanian, University of Southern California, LA, USA
92. Nayanika Mookherjee, Lancaster University, UK
93. Pradeep Jeganathan, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka
94. Malathi de Alwis, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo, Sri Lanka
95. Ein Lal, Independent Film Maker, Delhi, India
96. Shastri Ramachandran, Journalist, the Tribune, Chandigarh, India
97. Rita Brara, University of Delhi, India.
98. V.Venkatesan, Journalist, Frontline, Delhi
99. Debamitra Kar, Pearson Education, Delhi, India
100. Maitreyi Krishnan, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
101. Ponni Arasu, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
102. Manoranjani Thomas, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
103. Mayur Suresh, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
104. Prashant Iyengar, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
105. Namita Malhotra, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
106. Clifton Rosario, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
107. Arvind Narrain, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
108. Jiti Nichani, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
109. Usha R, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
110. Siddhartha Narrian, Alternative Law Forum, Bangalore, India
111. Anand Chokhwala, Surat, India
112. Nayana M Trivedi, Scripps Memorial Hospital, San Diego, California, USA
113. Munira A Basnai, NIH, Bathesda, USA
114. Attila Melegh, Corvinus University, Hungary.
115. Gauri Viswanathan, Columbia University, USA
116. Bhrigupati Singh, Johns Hopkins University, USA
117. Prerna Singh, Princeton University, USA
118. Saumya Das, Mass. General hospital, Cambridge, USA
119. Ranjini Obesesekera, Independent Scholar, Sri Lanka
120. Sithie Tiruchelvam, Tiruchelvam Associates, Colombo, Sri Lanka
121. Jonathan Parry, London School of Economics, London, UK
122. Manav Ratti, Oxford University, UK
123. Priyamvada Gopal, University of Cambridge, UK
124. Harsh Pant, King’s College, London, UK
125. Keya Ganguli, University of Minnesota, USA
126. Joshua Castollino, Middlesex University, UK
127. Sudeshna Guha, Univeristy of Cambridge, UK
128. Debjani Ganguli, Australian National University, Australia
129. Kavita Daiya, George Washington University, USA
130. Jonathan Woolf, University of Liverpool, UK
131. Soumhya Venkatesan, University of Manchester, UK
132. Kriti Kapila, University of Cambridge, UK
133. Shirin Rail, University of Warwick, UK
134. Radmila Nakarada, University of Belgrade, Serbia
135. Gul Khattak, Sustainable Development Policy Institute, Islamabad, Pakistan
136. Suketu Bhavsar, Cal Poly, Pomona USA
137. Jishnu Das, Center for Policy Research, Delhi, India
138. Swati Chattopadhyay, UC Santa Barbara, USA
139. Dineshwar Tiwari, Deshkal Society, Delhi, India
140. Ranjeet Nirguni, Deshkal Society, Delhi, India
141. Mary JaJehanbegaloo, University of Toronto, Canada
142. Imtiaz Ahmad, Dhaka University, Bangladesh
143. Shard Chandra Behar, Bhopal, MP, India
144. Arthur Kleinman, Harvard University, USA
145. Aamir Mufti, UC Los Angeles, USA
146. Nauman Naqvi, Brown University, USA
147. Steven Caton, Harvard University, USA
148. Ziauddin Sardar, City University, London, UK
149. Ohashi Masaki, Keisen University, Japan
150. Jessica Marglin Princeton University, USA
151. J. Mohan Rao, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
152. Sylvia Marcos, Center for Psycho-ethnological Research, Cuernavaca, Mexico
153. Jean Robert, Architect, Mexico
154. Partha Chatterjee, Columbia University, USA
155. Rajeev Bhargav, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, Delhi
156. Baber Johansen, Harvard University, USA
157. Srirupa Roy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
158. Fredrique-Apffel Marglin, Smith College, Northampton, USA
159. Shudana Yusaf, Princeton University, USA
160. Sudhir Kakat, Psychoanalyst and Writer, Goa, India
161. Daho Djerbal, University of Algeria, Algeria
162. Upendra Baxi, Warwick University, UK
163. Harsh Kapoor, South Asia Citizen’s Web
164. Govinda Rath, G.B.Pant institute of Social Sciences, Allahabad, India
165. William Connolly, Johns Hopkins University, USA
166. Dipankar Gupta, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
167. Indrani Chatterjee, Rutgers University, Delhi
168. Peter Ronald deSouza, Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Simla
169. Triloki Madan, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, India
170. Mira Kamdar, World Policy Institute, New York, USA
171. Ashutosh Kumar, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India.
172. Partha Ghosh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India
173. Amiya Kumar Choudhuri, MAKAIS, Kolkata, India.
174. Rajaram Pande, The Japan Foundation, New Delhi, India
175. Lloyd I Rudolf, University of Chicago
176. Susanne H Rudolf, University of Chicago
177. Rosemary M George, UC San Diego
178. Shylashri Shankar, Center for Policy Research , Delhi
[I certify that emails indicating the consent of all persons to the statement are available with me. Veena Das, vdas@jhu.edu or veena.das@gmail.org]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
