Opinion Keep Left no more: After 2014, a change in the state’s default setting

To be fair, people are people regardless of the positions they occupy and the institutions they are part of. However, some institutions and offices are expected to resist such tendencies and rise above ideological gatekeeping owing to the roles assigned to them by the Constitution. Occupants of such offices are called “constitutional functionaries” for a reason since their allegiance is not to power or its wielders but to the Constitution. These offices are expected to perform the role of neutral referees or umpires in the contemporary version of Game of Thrones, who must endeavour to remain untouched by power or other considerations, including the natural human biases of their occupants. In a way, they are neutral enclaves, at least on paper. It is precisely for this reason that institutional independence of such offices is not just an ideal requirement, but a very real functional prerequisite. It is also for this reason that in a democracy, by and large, such offices remain unelected exceptions to the will of the people. And, it is also for this reason that they are meant to strictly operate within their boundaries to prevent the possibility of the tyranny of the unelected. Clearly, an evolved conscience, which is aware of its own biases and attempts to keep them at bay, an even temperament, integrity, impartiality, and fidelity to the Constitution are attributes expected of constitutional functionaries.

Having said that, the unfortunate reality of post-World War II public life, which may be better attributed to the Cold War, is the deeper entrenchment of ideological divides that intermingle with pre-existing fissures in societies to give rise to camps of various shades and hues, such as the binaries of the Left and the non-Left and everything else in between. Thanks to such entrenchment and years of conditioning through education and association, no aspect of societal discourse is free from such divides, be it academia, humanities, journalism, arts, popular culture, and of course, politics. The critical legacy of the Cold War is that practically every state institution, whether elected or unelected, is a veritable battleground of ideologies. Specifically, the textbook modus of the Cold War Left was to secure control over institutions that enabled the perpetuation of its worldview without democratic interruption, interference or oversight. Unelected constitutional institutions fit the bill to the tee since they were not subjected to the vagaries of popular will, and their independence enabled sub-optimal transparency and accountability. So much for the claim of being a people’s revolution.

The above state of affairs remains true of countries of the erstwhile Western and Eastern blocs, as well as those that subscribed to the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM), foremost among them being Bharat. After all, non-aligned countries were coveted spheres of influence for the warring blocs. In any case, notwithstanding Nehruvian India’s aspirations of leading the NAM, the fact was that it was closer to the Eastern Bloc. Therefore, one should not be surprised at the ideological proclivities of the Nehruvian state apparatus, including its unelected bodies, which is “Keep Left”. This has been the state’s default setting for at least seven decades, especially in its formative years, while simultaneously indulging in Orwellian doublethink by paying lip service to thought pluralism.

Although there have been pockets of resistance in Bharat over brief periods to the Left-dominant worldview of the establishment, perhaps the period since 2014 represents the most sustained challenge to the Left’s monopoly over thought, speech and expression. No wonder the attempt of the Old Guard is to retain its hold over unelected bodies citing institutional independence, free speech and the health of democracy as politically correct pretexts or justifications. That said, in the process of loosening the Left’s stranglehold over such institutions, the baby cannot be thrown out with the bathwater. What, then, is the way forward without undermining the institutions which preserve Bharat’s democratic and constitutional traditions?

For starters, it would help to candidly recognise the existence of ideological camps, especially within unelected bodies, and work towards actual diversity of thought to set the balance right by levelling the playing field. That way, the public is better positioned to make informed choices as to the worldview and positions it wishes to throw its weight behind. In other words, instead of holding on to faux neutrality and paying lip service to diversity of thought, the public good may be better served by creating a vibrant marketplace of ideas where ideological allegiances are openly worn and embraced, and ideas are tested for rigour, depth and efficacy. When false advertisement has adverse consequences for consumer interest in the world of goods and services, why do we expect such conduct to yield different and better outcomes in the critical realm of ideas where the public good is at stake? Perhaps, the time has come to get real.

In any case, the Old Guard in Bharat must wake up and smell the coffee. Its days of monopoly over thought are up, and its anti-competitive tendencies in the realm of ideas will have to give way to competition. Let the market, the people, decide what’s good for them.

The writer is a commercial and constitutional litigator who practises as a counsel before the Supreme Court of India, the High Court of Delhi, the NCLAT and the CCI. He is the author of India that is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution, and India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation