Anatomy of a Non-Debate

As befits a ceremonial occasion, he could hardly be expected to offer a scholarly critique on colonial rule. His speech was eminently prime ministerial, marked by intellectual sophistication. It was reflective of the maturity and dignity that have characterised our relations with the former imperial power, the tone of which was set on the morrow of our independence by Nehru himself. Critics have missed the uniqueness of the Gandhi-Nehru led freedom movement that focused on resurgence, not rancour. The PM and his critics are on different wavelengths.

The criticisms of the Oxford speech, expectedly, have come from the ultra-left and the communal right. Despite their ideological conflict, the two poles ironically have much in common. The ideologues of both have a sense of history and are self-righteous, always taking the moral highground. Both believe in what Learned Hand called ‘‘impregnable political absolutes’’ and see themselves as guardians of the national interest. Ideology for both is more important than the institutions, democratic processes, systemic logic and even the autonomy of the state. Both are ever exhortative, and impart a pedagogic tone to their utterances. Both are intolerant of those they disagree with, and see things in black and white, forever imputing motives to adversaries. Both have little use for politics of the middle ground. Both are animated more by their antipathies than by their sympathies. In short, both essentially lack the democratic spirit and reject what Amartya Sen calls the ‘‘sovereignty of reason’’.

The BJP’s Pavlovian reaction hardly merits attention. It has no moral right to comment on any aspect of the British rule. A party whose ideology rejects the values of the freedom movement and of the Constitution; a party which equates communalism with nationalism and cannot distinguish between jingoism and patriotism is a rank outsider in any nationalist discourse.

The criticisms of the Marxist intellectuals, however, have the veneer of an ideological approach, albeit the tenor of these criticisms is grounded in the assumed and presumed roles of the said intellectuals in national politics. The main criticism has come from Messrs Prabhat Patnaik and Irfan Habib. What is irksome about their attack is not merely its stringency but the terms in which it is couched. Prof Habib is a left historian but there is more of left and little of history in his observations. To use expressions like ‘‘looking for applause from the sahibs’’ or ‘‘begging the United States to extend its own expertise in good governance’’ is alien to the traditions of any scholarly critique.

The principal intellectual attack has come from Prof Patnaik whose views are presumably his own and not necessarily those of the CPM. His and Prof Habib’s criticisms fall into a short compass. The speech is faulted on three counts. First, the PM presented a certificate to the British for good governance, ignoring the record of their repressive regime. This is also the crux of the BJP’s rather hysterical attack. Secondly, by praising ‘good governance’ the PM was being true to ‘‘neo-liberal’’ thought. Lastly, the ‘‘beneficial consequences’’ remarks of the PM could not be equated, as was seemingly done in the editorial of a leading national daily, with Karl Marx’s reading of the British Raj’s ‘‘dual mission in India — one destructive and other regenerating’’. In other words, the PM ought not be allowed to appropriate Marxian logic to further his neo-liberal agenda.

The criticisms are flawed on every count. Prof Patnaik’s article (IE, July 18) should be part of syllabus in Logic, since it provides a case study in Illogic, exemplifying all the fallacies known to the discipline. He takes recourse to both suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. Besides, he follows a method peculiar to the Marxists, whereby they pick up an opponent’s statement, call it ‘typical’ of a particular ideology, and then hurl all the criticisms prescribed in the textbook against a token of that type. In this case the attack is more on the PM and his ideological proclivities as perceived by Prof Patnaik, than on what the PM actually said. These criticisms bear — but alas do not withstand — scrutiny.

First, the ‘allegation’ — and that is what it is — that Dr Singh gave a testimonial to the British for ‘good governance’, flies in the face of the import of his remarks and reflects a confused vision. The PM gave no certificate for good governance. The meaning of what he said is totally lost on his critics, who betray ignorance of the historical context in which the ‘good governance’ versus ‘self-government’ argument came up during the freedom movement. Countering the colonial rulers’ assertion that theirs was a good government, Lokmanya Tilak thundered: ‘‘A good government is no substitute for self-government’’. This was not a slogan and neither was ‘‘Freedom is our birth right’’ a mere slogan. Both reflected a new belief among Indians, that throwing off the colonial yoke was more important a goal than any conceivable advantage of foreign rule.

Dr Singh’s nuanced attempt to relive the past by alluding to a glorious moment of our history was in tune with the design and thrust of what was essentially a ceremonial speech. He talked of self-government and not good governance, the accent being on ‘‘the natural right to self-governance’’.

The second leg of Prof Patnaik’s arguments relates to an imaginary link between the PM’s good governance remark, and his neo-liberal agenda. The connection between the two is nothing but a product of Prof Patnaik’s fatigued imagination. How Dr Singh’s balanced remarks, juxtaposing the exploitative nature of British rule with the democratic legacy we inherit, are even remotely attributable to his ‘neo-liberal’ philosophy, remains a mystery.

The real piece de resistance in Prof Patnaik’s critique is his belaboured attempt, as a defender of the faith, to rescue Marx from being misused by neo-liberals (read: ‘‘Manmohan Singh or his staff’’) to bolster the ‘‘beneficial consequences’’ remarks. The fundamental error that vitiates Prof Patnaik’s reasoning is that he has chosen to analyse the Oxford speech on the anvil of classical Marxism which has no bearing on the content of this speech.

The scholar’s attempt to distinguish Marx’s ‘regeneration’ theme and his special emphasis on the ‘blood and dirt’ analysis to stress the point that Marx was after all a Marxist, both smack of disingenuity and sophistry. Marx lacked insight into Indian reality and his understanding was primarily based on the reports of missionaries, trading companies and British administrators. The truth is that Marx’s regeneration theme was central to his theoretical construct, while the ‘blood and dirt’ reference was only incidental. Besides, Marx’s disquisition relates to a period prior to the time when India was fully drawn into the imperial system, and therefore lacks historical perspective. Despite Marx’s greatness, his views on India’s colonial history can find at best a place in the footnotes of an authentic and serious critique of British rule.

Many have viewed the entire controversy with anxiety. The formation of the UPA government has been a significant development in coalition-building to which the left has made no mean contribution. The left for the first time is playing an important part at the national level. The new experiment necessitates ingenuity, creativity and flexibility on the part of all coalition partners. It also demands greater respect for the cabinet system, and for the institutionalised and systemic functioning of the government. It is imperative that the left play a constructive role. There is a historic need for the Congress and the left to have a mature relationship.

The writer is a former Additional Solicitor General, and a member of the Congress Working Committee (Permanent Invitee)