The Curious Case of Sandeep
Pandey
In this semester I am teaching political sociology,
and this naturally forces me to think about the way political parties cement
their hold on power structure. I am not a Marxist, but I always advice my
students: ‘you cannot do social science without understanding Marxism’. The
reason being, that we live in the ‘age of capital’, and no one has analysed the
logic of capital better than Marx. So, I myself will begin this short essay
with Marx and some of his ideas about politics. For Marx, peasants were burden
on the history, as they lived in isolation, and had hardly any contact among
themselves. They had neither means nor vision to become revolutionary
proletariat. They were ‘class-in-itself’, as per the famous distinction Marx
made between 'class-in-itself’ and ‘class-for-itself’. It is the
urban-industrial proletariat, Marx opined, that had the potential to become
‘class-for-itself’, and are the vehicle of revolution.
However, in course of time Marx proved himself
wrong. While agrarian societies, like Russia and China, had experienced
communist revolutions; the industrial societies of the west, in spite of being
the home of some of the largest and very powerful communist parties, were not
experiencing any form of proletariat revolution. Gramsci, who was very much
concerned as to why revolution had not taken place in western societies, as
predicted by Marx, developed the concept of HEGEMONY to understand the
non-revolutionary character of industrial proletariat in the capitalist west.
For Gramsci, the way cultural institutions advocating the virtues of capitalist
logic have evolved in the western world, that, these institutions do not allow
the proletariats to perceive their real enemies. Broadly this is what Gramsci
meant by hegemony. For Gramsci, the ‘sacred canopy’ of cultural values and
ideas are essential for any economic or political system to function and
stabilise.
This theory of hegemony helps me to understand the
issue of Sandeep Pandey. For me, it is not important why Pandey was removed
from the IIT Banaras, but more important to understand is to how he entered the
IIT (without any corresponding degree). Pandey was proclaimed as a Gandhian who
would teach Gandhian values to the students. But there is a reason why the
Congress party ‘adjusted’ Pandey inside the IIT. The Congress Party has read
Gramsci thoroughly. The Congress knows that if it has to rule the country in
long terms, it needs the support of not only the people (voters), but equally
important, of those, who play important role in ‘opinion making’. Thus, after
Independence, the Congress has worked very hard to control most of the
educational and cultural institutions that shape the ideas favourable to it,
with the help of these ‘independent scholars’ (be it film, or curriculum, or
other forms of discourses).
The Congress knows that opinion of an ‘independent’
person or expert carries more weight in the eyes of the people, than those who
are overtly aligned to a political party. The ‘secular’, ‘leftist’, ‘human
right advocates’, ‘Gandhians’, to name a few, receive support from the
Congress, but they are hardly visible on the Congress platform. They proclaim
themselves ‘apolitical’, and also ‘speak’ against the Congress, but they never
hit the Congress where it hurts the most. This was one of the reasons why
Kejriwal and Anna found political space during the UPA rule, since most the
‘independent’ scholars and activists were not willing to confront the Congress
on the issue of corruption. These ‘independent’ scholars share very cosy relationship
with the Congress Party.
Thus, the Congress can bank upon the power of
‘independent’ scholars during critical political situation. (One such example
in recent times has been the ‘intolerance’ debate and ‘award wapsi’ by
‘independent public figures’ just before the Bihar assembly election). While
legitimation of dissent is most important feature of a democracy; the protest
by these ‘independent’ scholars against the NDA government for ‘systematically
destroying the institutions,’ had also something to do with an attempt to help
the Congress Party to perpetuate its control over those institutions that play
important role in the production and reproduction of hegemonic ideas favourable
to the Congress Party (one can see the way Indian Independence struggle has
been written by the historians of ‘repute’, and how people have forgotten the
‘Emergency’).
Contrast this with the BJP. First, the BJP has not
been able to put much of its supporters in the public institutions, since it
has not been in power for long. But whatever little supporters it is
cultivating, it forces them to publically affirm their loyalties to the party.
(Recently one such meeting took place in the Delhi University) I am not sure
who gets what from this type of event in the BJP, but certainly it forces the
scholars of repute, even when they are its best sympathisers, to distance
themselves from the BJP. And those who publically affirm their loyalties to the
Party, their viewpoints hardly carry much weight among the general population. The
BJP perceives intellectuals not as source of ideas, who would help the Party in
the creation of a hegemonic structure favourable to it, but in terms of number.
Thus the BJP cannot bank upon the power of ‘independent’ scholars and experts
when it needs, and its hold over power remains fragile.
No doubt the Congress remain a natural ruling party
in this country (even it has less support in terms of numbers), and others,
including the BJP’s entry in the government remain an abrasion (even they have
more support in terms of number). Erosion of people’s support, to some extent,
can be compensated by control over ideas.
