None of the human inventiveness that has broken new ground in science and technology can be readily seen in today's politics, which has become a narrative of regression and despair. The early Twentieth-century demons are out of the bag again and we are debating some of the issues we debated ever since. With time - as we descended into permanently labelling people by what they believed at a given point of time - the politics of 'ism' has become personal. At a point of history when cooperation - on issues ranging from confronting terrorism to climate - and community have become essential to our well-being, we seem to be lost in a maze of ideological walls.
Democracy is dying, some commentators claim, and they point to the symptoms - fake news, irresponsible politicians and discredited institutions! And, yet, the disease goes unrecognised, perhaps by design: The complexity of the system, which was crafted to limit how much an ordinary person could understand and have a say about, have made the system unresponsive. It has almost no answers when the tide of prosperity that lifts all the boats - even if it raised some a lot and others just a little - subsides and time to give back and cooperate begins. It was all too convenient a charade - the almost festive day of the election, the pomp and ceremony of the inauguration, the daily drama of politics as usual, within the ever-growing, ever-expanding influence of those who control the purse strings - which has now reached a breaking point when sacrifices are being called for. And, yet, behind the curtains of isms which have obscured our vision for a very long time, we just can't see the change and begin to grapple with its consequences.
This is meant to be a personal note, though. This is about my troubles with political categorisation. I have been, it seems, almost always on the wrong side of what was politically fashionable. When it was politically fashionable to be apolitical, as it was in the 90s, I was politically minded. And, then, when people discarded the 'being professional' stance and openly chose one political camp or the other, I have been exposed as one of those homeless varieties who belong to none of the camps. It's a terrifying place to be, as this means being called names without finding solidarity among the persecuted.
Indeed, I am being called some names more frequently than the others. Despite my attempts to disclaim a label, I can be more readily identified as a socialist or 'left-liberal' (a peculiar grouping which still mystifies me). And, despite my several attempts to do a close reading of Marx and an early enthusiasm with the progressive ideas of socialism, I am all too acutely aware of at least two problems with its 'ism'.
The first is that inherent in socialism is a promise of acquisition, a better life for the world's have-nots by distributing the material resources more evenly. And, while I can readily see the injustices of the current arrangement and believe the fairness as a worthy cause, I know from my lived experience how easily this message of material well-being can be exploited by demagouges. It's easy for the oppressed to think that they ought to attain the lifestyles of the oppressor - that's what the message of aquisitive materialism leads to in practice - but this only makes the oppressed, once a revolutionary victory is achieved, the new oppressor.
The other, related, problem is the message of eternal class divisions and conflict. Here, while my lived experience points to undeniable existence of markers of class, the path to classlessness - for me - doesn't lie through class struggle and violence. The way, I hope, to transcend struggle is not to bring it to a bloody end but rather to look elsewhere for ideas. This may indeed sound hopelessly naive but it's no worse than believing that one side could be vanquished without permanent resentment. In fact, the latter is the path to guillotine and death camps, and yet, even those terrible methods have failed.
At this point, it should be clear that despite my readings of Marx and enthusiasm for a broadbased democracy, no socialist will really have me as a fellow-traveller. The ephemeral category of 'Left-liberal' (which would have been 'democratic socialist' in a different age) wouldn't also apply, because democracy, in its liberal form, has been a method of limiting political participation rather than widening it. In my interpretation of late nineteenth century and twentieth century history, the evolution of political systems shouldn't be seen just as gradual progression towards wider suffrage, but also in context of parallel emergence of a sovereign legal and administrative system, somewhat outside the direct influence of the political. The liberal project - in my mind - is to expand the deliberative participation while creating a strong state of continuity through institutions independent of democratic influence. Originally a Jeffersonian suggestion, writing the constitution all over again every twenty years, would have been out of line with this thinking as much as Mao's cultural revolution was. Instead, the Liberals wanted to build a state to secure property rights and to create inflexible 'meritocracies', a new system of hereditary advantage skewed in favour of middle-class men.
In fact, given my aversion to the big state, which is central to both socialism and liberal world-ideas, I should naturally belong to natural conservatives, those who believe in frugality, responsibility and ever-gradual change. Given that I was brought up with a 'producer ethic' - the first English expression that I learnt was 'cut your coat according to your cloth' and I am still deeply averse to taking loans and speculative investment - my values are often in sync there. However, being a conservative stopped meaning all those things a long time ago, perhaps ever since Reagan-Thatcher ascendancy, and it's now home for as many doctrinaire radicals as those on the extreme left. In fact, in the medley of labels, it's the liberals who want the world to go on as usual, whereas the conservatives want to tear it down. Despite all the nostalgia of maintaining communities, the communities in conservative dreams are often racially and culturally pure one, without any scope of mongrel nature of actual human contact. Besides, paradoxically, at the centre of this universe is an all-consuming man, whose life is built around materials produced all around the world, and whose sense of progress is defined by how much money - or his nations credit - can buy. If socialism's path lie through gulags, the conservative road leads to slavery and empire. Not my type, I would say!
As is plain, this leaves me nowhere. But, then, the place I am in, despite all the feeling of despair, is not a bad one to be. As the liberal world of undemocratic institutions and patriarchal practices, under the onslaught of radical right and unleashed left, come to a breaking point, unbelonging is as much a virtue as a handicap. In this season of questions, second-hand answers do not offer a feasible way to go by. Rather, it's a moment to recognise that the fundamental social realities are changing and new ideas, rather than old ideologies, may offer more useful ways of organising. I don't know them yet, but I would tend to believe that there are many more people like me - outside the tents rather than inside.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
There is no other city like Kolkata for me: It is Home. The only city where I don't have to find a reason to go to, or to love. It is one city hardwired into my identity, and despite being away for a decade, that refuses to go away. People stay away from their homeland for a variety of reasons. But, as I have come to feel, no one can be completely happy to be away. One may find fame or fortune, love and learning, in another land, but they always live an incomplete life. They bring home broken bits of their homeland into their awkward daily existence, a cushion somewhere, a broken conversation in mother tongue some other time, always rediscovering the land they left behind for that brief moment of wanting to be themselves. The cruelest punishment, therefore, for a man who lives abroad is when his love for his land is denied. It is indeed often denied, because the pursuit of work, knowledge or love seemed to have gotten priority over the attraction of the land. This is particularly
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
India's employment data is sobering ( see here ). The pandemic has wrecked havoc and the structural problems of the economy - service sector dependence, uneven regional development and health and education challenges - are more evident than ever. Something needs to happen, and fast. To its credit, the government acknowledges the education challenge. Belatedly - it took more than 30 years - India has come up with a new National Education Policy. It is a comprehensive policy, which covers the whole spectrum of education and perhaps overcompensates the previous neglect by advocating radical change. As I commented elsewhere on this blog, it shows a curious mixture of aspirations, cultural revival and global competitiveness put under the same hood. However, despite its radical aspirations, the policy document often betrays same-old thinking. One of these is India's approach to foreign universities. The NEP makes the case for allowing foreign universities to set up operations in Ind
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
It's not often that I get to do things I like, but, as it happens, the lockdown came with a little gift. I was asked to develop, by an Indian entrepreneur with a strong commitment to education, a framework for a Liberal Education for one of his schools. And, as a part of this exercise, I was asked to develop a critique of Indian Education, if only to set the context of the proposal I am to make. I claim to have some unusual - therefore unique - qualification to do this job. I am, after all, an outsider in all senses. I have lived outside India for a long time, but never went too far away, making it my field of work for most of the period. I have also been outside the academe but never too far away: Just outside the bureaucracy but intimately into the conversations. I worked in the 'disruptive' end of education without the intention to disrupt and in For-profit without the desire for profit. Along the way, the only thing I consistently did is study educatio
Nations are ideas. We try to fashion them as territories. But how can a river, a mountain ridge or sometimes an imaginary line in the middle of a field can explain the wide division in the lives, thoughts and futures of the people who live on different sides? Nations are not the people too. Indeed, people build nations and become its body. But the soul of the nation is an idea: People come together on an idea to build a nation. While that's what a modern nation is - an idea - and that way exceptionalism is not an American exception, very few nations are as completely defined by an idea as Pakistan. There was hardly any political, geographic or military rationale of Pakistan other than the idea of an Islamic homeland in South Asia. [In that way, the ideological brother of Pakistan in the family of nations is Israel] This, abated by the short term political calculations of some backroom colonialists, created a modern state which must be solely sustained on that singular idea. Reli
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.