Ramachandra Guha. in Conversation with. S Manikutty and Anil Gupta. S Manikutty: What was the thesis on?

Transcription

1 INTERFACES Ramachandra Guha in Conversation with S Manikutty and Anil Gupta S Manikutty: After doing a doctorate in Management, how did you become a historian? Ramachandra Guha: My doctorate was not in Management. IIM Calcutta had developed a Fellow Programme in Social Sciences away from the management stream unlike the conventional FPM which involves two years of course work in management, followed by a thesis. IIM Calcutta has always had a very strong social science tradition. There was a special stream comprising economics, sociology, and regional development, i.e., geography. It still exists, but they don t often get good students. My doctorate was from a management institute but the management component of my education was minimal. S Manikutty: What was the thesis on? Ramachandra Guha: My thesis was on the study of the conflict between the peasants and the state over forest resources in the Himalayas. It started as a sociological analysis of the Chipko movement. But then it became a long range historical study of conflicts over the commons. S Manikutty: In your book, India after Gandhi, you have outlined many ideas of India. Which one is your idea of India? THEMES Indianness Value System Gandhian Philosophy Management Education Entrepreneurship Ramachandra Guha: My preference is for the constitutional idea the one contained in the Indian Constitution. This upholds democracy with pluralism, that is, the right to vote, the right to free movement, the right to free association, the right to live anywhere in India, the right to speak any language of India, the right to practice the faith of one s choice or follow no faith at all. I think, the Constitution guarantees all of that. So, it is a pluralist democracy challenged, however, by the idea that India should be a Hindu theocratic state on the right, and a Marxist revolutionary state, on the left. A final idea of India is that there is no India at all, and that we are actually 25 nations artificially held together. So, my idea of India is the liberal plural constitutional India. S Manikutty: How do you compare this with Sunil Khilnani s.. VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

2 Ramachandra Guha: Our views are very similar. I would agree with Khilnani that Tagore, Gandhi, and Nehru, despite their differences within, were the three visionaries who realized that we could not constitute India except as a plural federal democracy and in that sense it is that idea of India that I uphold. S Manikutty: What Khilnani talks about is at once an old idea and also a relatively new idea. He talks about the Aryans coming and creating the basic idea of Aryavat and extending it downwards the Mauryan empire. But they were not looking beyond their own kingdoms. Truly, the idea of India is one which really came after the British overpowered everybody and everybody was in the same misery. So everybody had the awakening that we belong to one nation. Ramachandra Guha: I would put it slightly differently. I would say, I disagree with those who feel that there was always an India, because I don t think so. I think there were many different kingdoms and fiefdoms in the pre-british period. Even the Mughal empire at its zenith did not control more than 40 per cent of what is now called India. We, in South India, had never even had the remotest whiff of the Mughal empire. The British gave an artificial unity to India. They did it artificially and accidently through their own strategic and commercial motives. It was Gandhi s great contribution to endow the people of this territory who had been given an artificial unity, with a moral and political purpose. He showed how we could come together despite differences of language and religion and build a nation that was inclusive and diverse. I think, the most remarkable thing about Indian nationhood, as defined by Tagore and Gandhi, is that it does not demonize any other nationalism. Pakistani nationalism is against Indian nationalism; Polish nationalism is against Russian nationalism; British nationalism, historically, was pitted against France. But the greatness of Gandhi was that he could oppose the British, but not demonize the British. His best friend could be an English priest C F Andrews. My idea of India is the liberal plural constitutional India. I disagree with those who feel that there was always an India. I think, there were many different kingdoms and fiefdoms in the pre-british period. Even the Mughal empire at its zenith did not control more than 40 per cent of what is now called India. Anil Gupta: If you look at Shankaracharya who travelled into four parts of India, and understood the pulse of each one of them, and so to say, required that one had to go four dhams to fulfil one s dharma. Would not that create a notion of oneself with what was called India or Bharat? Ramachandra Guha: I think, there is a sacred geography that the Hindus share with the Catholics. They have Rome while the Hindus have various pilgrim spots. But that is purely a cultural construct. It has no political meaning. If one is going from Karnataka to Badrinath, he/she would be passing through 25 different states. Thus it has no political meaning. I think, the uniqueness of Gandhi was that he bypassed that sacred geography. Otherwise it would have created polarization between Hindus and non-hindus. By the time Shankracharya was here in the 8th century AD, there were virtually no Muslims, Christians, Parsees, or Sikhs. What Gandhi did was to create an alternate idea of India which was based on a modern democratic idea of citizenship implying that the people who inhabit this territory can speak the language of their choice as well as follow the faith of their choice. He said choosing a particular language or religion was a private issue. He wanted to make sure that Hindus and non-hindus remain united. S Manikutty: The interesting thing is that he was both religious and secular at the same time. He was never far from his Ram and Gita and was very clearly a Hindu, even though he chanted Quran verses in his prayer meetings. Yet nobody thought of him as a representative of the Hindus at any stage of imagination. Everybody looked up to him as an Indian. Ramachandra Guha: Indianness would be a better term than Hinduness. You are right about Gandhi. After all he was assassinated by a Hindu who felt he was not Hindu enough though he lived and died a Hindu with the name of Ram on his lips. Though he was clear in his personal faith, he did not impose that personal faith on others of different faith. One of the most interesting and 70 INTERVIEW

3 little known aspect of Gandhi is that one of his followers was an atheist called Gora who was a social worker from Andhra Pradesh. We know about his interactions with the Christians and Muslims, but he was broadminded enough to incorporate an atheist as a Gandhian. S Manikutty: But what is the essence of this Indianness. How would you define Indianness? Ramachandra Guha: I think, the greatness of Gandhi s Indianness lies in its not having a clear, definable essence. Because once you pin down nationalism to a religion, a language, a territory or an enemy, there is a problem. Let me refer you to the American politicial philosopher Samuel Huntingdon who is very worried about the Hispanic immigration into America because he felt that it would dilute the essence of what it means to be an American. I think the greatness of Gandhi is that he refused to reduce nationalism to a single essence because we are too diverse a country. Take someone like Sonia Gandhi despite all the efforts by her opponents to call her a foreigner, no one really thinks she is a foreigner. We may oppose Sonia Gandhi s policies or her leadership, but no one opposes her because she was born in Italy. We all accept her as an Indian. Sonia Gandhi could not have become the President of America because she was not born there, or the Prime Minister of Israel because she is not a Jew. So, I think, the greatness of Gandhi was that he refused to pin down Indianness to an essence, because once you take an essentialist approach in such a large diverse country, you begin to divide people. Anil Gupta: He brought the element of universal citizenship in the Indianness. By being an Indian, your identity is not just that of belonging to a nation state. He never advocated or The most remarkable thing about Indian nationhood, as defined by Tagore and Gandhi, is that it does not demonize any other nationalism. Pakistani nationalism is against Indian nationalism; Polish nationalism is against Russian nationalism; British nationalism, historically, was pitted against France. But the greatness of Gandhi was that he could oppose the British, but not demonize the British. What Gandhi did was to create an alternate idea of India which was based on a modern democratic idea of citizenship implying that the people who inhabit this territory can speak the language of their choice as well as follow the faith of their choice. justified commitment to a territorial India alone, but a conceptual, inclusive or philosophical India, if one may say so. He always talked about the loyalty to basic human values (in which he synthesized Buddhism, Ruskin, Hinduism, Jainism, Catholicism, etc.). In that sense, the essence of Indianess lies in human values and not in nationalism. He was aware of the hazards of nationalism as he had seen in the Second World War and he never nurtured them. We are committed to the physical boundaries and one s loyalty to the country is judged by his/her ability to subscribe to the values which are cherished within those boundaries. Human values cannot be judged within those physical boundaries. Don t you think so? Ramachandra Guha: Absolutely. I totally agree with you. I would just add two things. One is that Gandhi s ideas were, as you say, transcending the national borders and having affiliation with members of the human family wherever they were. I think it has two very important roots. One is his experience in Africa when he lived for 23 years, in another continent not just in another country. The other is actually the influence of Tagore on him. I think that Tagore made him a true universalist. During the First World War, Tagore gave a series of lectures on nationalism. They were delivered in Japan and the US warning the people against the European style nationalism. That influenced Gandhi a lot. You can see this in the letters between Gandhi and Tagore, because Gandhi comes back to India at that time. But there is a very interesting exchange between these two great Indians on the relevance of the English language. While Gandhi said that Indians should not use English, Tagore felt that it is important to communicate with the world too; otherwise we VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

4 would be isolated. Gandhi conceded the point. The influence of Tagore on Gandhi is actually greatly under-appreciated. Particularly, with regard to what Anil said, about transcending national boundaries, Tagore had a great influence on Gandhi. Anil Gupta: There is one more instance of influence. When Gandhi gave his statement about the earthquake being a consequence of sins that people in Bihar had committed, Tagore reprimanded him. Gandhi went to Shantiniketan, had a long dialogue with Tagore, and at the end they said, we agree, but we don t agree because Gandhi was not convinced. He remained in a dilemma. What Tagore did was to sow a seed of doubt in him. This way he was also trying to separate personal morality from social morality. Tagore later called him Mahatma and Gandhi became Mahatma Gandhi. S Manikutty: You have made an assertion that whenever a country has been formed on religion, it has never led to unification, even though it is actually supposed to do so. In fact, it has always led to disintegration. For instance, Pakistan and some other countries probably tend to become inward-looking. It was not the case with Indians. Though they were also inward-looking in some sense, they didn t feel threatened by it. Who can really destroy our essence, let them all come. Like Gandhi said Let the wind blow..many of them had to keep their windows shut. They did not want to have the contamination. The greatness of Gandhi was that he refused to pin down Indianness to an essence, because once you take an essentialist approach in such a large diverse country, you begin to divide people. Gandhi and Tagore were never insecure about their Indianness. That is why they could embrace the rest of the world. Those of us who are insecure tend to shout the loudest about Indianness.calling someone else a deshdrohi or a traitor. Ramachandra Guha: Even the quote of keeping my windows open comes from the Tagore-Gandhi exchange. It was Tagore who told him to keep his windows open. There was this inner confidence in those Indians. Gandhi and Tagore were never insecure about their Indianness. That is why they could embrace the rest of the world. Those of us who are insecure tend to shout the loudest about Indianness calling someone else a deshdrohi or a traitor. That has always been the case. But to add to your examples of states based on religion, I think one state that is going to face more and more problems is Israel. Because they have a large and growing Arab population; if they insist on identifying themselves as Jewish, it would create this kind of division. I think, we are fortunate not to have gone down that line. S Manikutty: Basically our plurality in itself is our strength rather than a weakness, because nobody can identify with anything. At least, we have something to identify with, i.e., commonality. Ramachandra Guha: When you say the Christians have their Bible or the Muslims have their Quran, I think Indians have the Indian Constitution. We do have a text and the text says that regardless of what language you speak, what religion you practice, or where you live in India, you have the same rights. There has been an attempt to define Indianness in terms of not just religion but language too. Recall the riots in Tamil Nadu in 1965 against the imposition of Hindi. That is a very important moment in the evolution of Indian nationhood. Today the South Indians accept Hindi when it comes to them through the Bombay films or the TV serials. But they would not accept the Central Government imposing Hindi on them. So we are open to cultural exchange, open to learning somebody else s language, but we don t like anything enforced on us. The American way where to be American you must learn English, you can t speak Spanish is not our way. That s something which is the bequest of people like Gandhi and Tagore. S Manikutty: If you look at India s development now, do you really think there is a basic problem that it is moving forward economically? There is actually no question about that, but if you see the underlying value systems and the development of character, it is really not taking off in that sense. For instance, I didn t go to a particularly great school. But all the teachers were very devoted. Their 72 INTERVIEW

5 value systems were absolutely priceless. They were very clear as to what we should do. Today, that is not always the case, starting with the teachers to the students and everybody else. If you look at the underlying values and the way they understand, it seems to be a rootless growth which is taking place. Do you agree and does it worry you? Ramachandra Guha: Indeed, it worries me. Again, if you go back to the period of the National Movement, the remarkable thing about that movement was that so many millions of Indians imbibed a spirit that transcended the boundary of one s personal self, caste, family, religion, and linguistic group. That selflessness seems to have disappeared from the large sections of our society. Either we have embraced once again what was there before, which was the particularities of caste and family and village (if you look at our politics, the handing down of political party from father to son) or we have embraced a kind of aggressive western hedonism and individualism. Me, myself that kind of an attitude which you might see in some of your students. I think that is a loss. We are doing well in many parts of our society but the kind of public spiritedness, a sense of sharing, of solidarity which was so visible among us not just the teachers and doctors, but even among the politicians and the civil servants is disappearing. We are facing some kind of crisis of values. S Manikutty: Who is to be blamed the teachers or the parents? For instance, our parents We are doing well in many parts of our society but the kind of public spiritedness, a sense of sharing, of solidarity which was so visible among us not just the teachers and doctors, but even among the politicians and the civil servants is disappearing. We are facing some kind of crisis of values. Ours is a traditional society becoming a modern society, a feudal polity becoming a democratic polity, a village-based civilization becoming increasingly an urban civilization. used to talk to us, tell stories, and instill certain values in us. Gandhi s mother used to tell him the stories of Ramayana, Harishchandra, etc., which shaped him. These days the parents don t do that the same way. They devote some quality time but that is like you say, nothing much one way or the other. Because they themselves don t have the time to develop. So, they don t develop their children either. Is this a problem of our generation or a little younger than that? We don t really bring up the children in the way they should develop. Ramachandra Guha: I think this is a product of a complex society undergoing a complex journey. Ours is a traditional society becoming a modern society, a feudal polity becoming a democratic polity, a village-based civilization becoming increasingly an urban civilization. In the course of this journey, it is natural to have dislocations, breakdown of families, pressures on parents to work more, to work harder and hence to neglect children. At the same time, many aspects of the social changes taking place are to be welcomed. For example, we don t want a reversal to the caste system and the practice of untouchability. Anil Gupta: Going back to freedom struggle, one of the unique aspects of the Gandhian experiment was that you could participate in the freedom struggle by burning the foreign made clothes in your street. There was no need for you to go to a particular point or place to protest. Of course, it was very important to understand that you buy (foreign made cloth) and burn. You were not supposed to loot and burn. He was very clear about following the principles of market autonomy. But look at it today, as you mentioned, you have to protest at the Boat Club in New Delhi. You even have centralized arena of articulation. Why should it be necessary for me to go to the Boat Club to protest? Why can t I protest at my own place and yet be heard? Today you are not likely to be heard. Therefore this tendency to centralize a lot of space which Gandhi had decentralized. Don t you think this is a tension of the modern state we need not have to go through? Ramachandra Guha: This is a very important point. We have to decentralize. To make ourselves heard now we have to go to the centre. The Salt Satyagraha was far away from Delhi from Ahmedabad to Dandi. And yet it shook people in Delhi. VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

6 Today, in Gujarat, you have to go to Gandhinagar to protest; in Madhya Pradesh, you have to go to Bhopal. Anil Gupta: Why shouldn t this be thought about as a part or aspect of our polity where we need to do some correction in the nation building process? Ramachandra Guha: It may be the fault of our institutions. Our political elite is so detached from the ordinary people s lives, confined in their fortresses, in their capitals that we have to go there in order to reach them. If you look at Gandhi, the way he walked among the people made the difference There is now a lack of feeling and sensitivity among our political leaders. Anil Gupta: It is in the media too. Look at any TV channel. They will be addressing the so-called intellectuals within the central capital. There is something in the whole society. On the one hand, economic development is generating more decentralizing influence, with state governments taking decisions without referring to the centre. That is one of the positive sides of the economic development. On the other hand, politically, we are getting centralized. Every Party high command is an important consideration now. Is there a tension there? Ramachandra Guha: I think, the media is a very important force, which can play a positive role and in fact, has historically played a positive role in India. However, it is now undergoing a crisis. The major papers and TV channels have been taken over by a cult of glamour and celebrity. There is very little good reporting going on. Many of the issues in the countryside are not covered at all, e.g., the Naxalite insurgency in Central India. Anil Gupta: There are about 170 districts affected by Naxalism not reported by any newspaper. Places like Nandigram, Singur and many other Our political elite is so detached from the ordinary people s lives, confined in their fortresses, in their capitals that we have to go there in order to reach them. If you look at Gandhi, the way he walked among the people made the difference The media is a very important force, which can play a positive role and in fact, has historically played a positive role in India. However, it is now undergoing a crisis. The major papers and TV channels have been taken over by a cult of glamour and celebrity. There is very little good reporting going on. places do get heard. But how many people realize that? There are 170 districts today by the assessment of the Home Ministry of the central government where the writ of the government does not run. And, the growth in these numbers has happened in the last years in which the growth has also taken place. So while the economic growth has received so much of attention, the growth of the regions beyond the purview of the central government, affected by the Leftist violence (due to continued poverty and neglect) has not received this kind of attention. Ramachandra Guha: Nandigram was reported because it was so close to Kolkata and because of the contradiction between the Left Front policies in West Bengal and elsewhere. But actually because of Naxalite insurgency, countless people have been affected, in fact, much more than in Nandigram. In Nandigram, some 10,000 people were displaced but in Chhatisgarh, 200,000 people might have been displaced. But no reporter is covering it. So, I think, we should not let the media so easily off the hook. They are not doing their job. S Manikutty: I talked earlier about the deterioration in values and economic development taking place without the simultaneous link or balance. This can have two kinds of explanations which are very different and have different implications. One of them is particularly the economic liberalization 1990 onwards, when the GDP started rising much faster and people got the opportunities to become materially well off; there was a lot of mobility everywhere, not only in the top, but in case of everyone. The villages that you see today are very different from the villages I have seen in the 1990s. The alternate explanation is that, it is basically in Indira Gandhi s time that things took a different turn, because she did two things. Firstly, she never really thought of an ethical 74 INTERVIEW

7 kind of framework, and secondly, she centralized everything. The party disintegrated at the lower level and simply went to pieces. There was no one who could command anything at the lower level because everything was decided by the top. So, the non-responsiveness started from there. These two together formed a deadly combination as everybody could do what they pleased so long as they had a comfortable equation with the top. Ramachandra Guha: Very true. In terms of the deterioration of the institutions, Indira Gandhi has to take a large share of the blame. What she did to the Congress Party was imitated by others. She and her colleagues also damaged the bureaucracy by creating over-committed civil servants and a committed judiciary. Luckily, in case of committed judges, she failed, but in the case of committed civil service, she succeeded. There must be a wall between the executive and the legislature. Civil servants, district judges, and irrigation engineers cannot and should not be identified with parties or politicians. No public institution can function on the basis of nepotism and favouritism. But the system has been corrupted by the politicians; they all have their favourite IAS officers. Anil Gupta: To be just a devil s advocate, there was one thing that she did right. If you look at her respect for scientific and technical leadership and the access and the autonomy that she gave to them to be able to take momentous decisions affecting this country and its geopolitical aspirations in the contemporary world. You can trace it to the decisions that she took. Whether it was agriculture, nuclear physics or space. Look at any sector of science and technology. I remember, when after the 1971 War, because of the Sevenfleet that had come to the Bay of Bengal at least they were threatening to she took the scientists off the planes going to the US for various kinds of training. The best period of Indian science was when she disconnected with the West and people had to be on their own. I would say that period of isolation gave tremendous confidence to people in the scientific community at least to commit mistakes and learn from them. For all those leaders like, Patel, Rajaji, Azad, Rajendra Prasad, Nehru, Jayaprakash Narain, Kriplani, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay there were so many remarkable leaders below the level of Gandhi politics was a quest, a journey of understanding of the people they were living with and leading. Ramachandra Guha: She definitely had several positive contributions. Apart from the nurturing of scientific institutions you mentioned, her contributions to the expansion of rural credit were also commendable. The agricultural boom was possible only because of the nationalization of banks. I would like to add one more thing. I think in many ways she had this inclusive spirit that Gandhi and Nehru had. She was not a Hindu, neither was she a North Indian. She could communicate with the people in the South; she could communicate with the minorities in the North East. In that sense, she transcended these limitations of caste and region and was an inclusive Indian. Anil Gupta: Although after 1980, when she came back, she changed a bit. Ramachandra Guha: But because of her essential insecurity as a human being, she could not trust others in the Congress Party. There was something deeply insecure about her in the sense that Gandhi, Nehru, and Patel could trust people. The insecurity led to the centralization of power in her party. S Manikutty: You also mentioned that one of the explanations as to how India developed on a different path, really is to do with the fact that it has a number of visionaries at the top. Jawaharlal Nehru was not the only one whereas Pakistan does not have anybody of that caliber or greatness. Then what constitutes the essence of a visionary, how is it that these visionaries developed at that time? It is a remarkable period because we produced so many great leaders in such a short time, neither before nor later. Ramachandra Guha: I think, they were all nurtured by Gandhi. They were all given their space. These people grew over a period of time. Just as Gandhi was openminded, willing to learn from Tagore, Nehru was an aristocrat from Cambridge. But then he mingled with the peasants; he travelled in eastern UP and in South India. Rajaji was a Brahmin but he also declassed himself. They had many years of preparation. Jinnah never VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

8 moved outside his law chamber and his political party. He could never assimilate with ordinary people, travel in a 2nd class compartment, go to the villages. I think, for all those leaders like, Patel, Rajaji, Azad, Rajendra Prasad, Nehru, Jayaprakash Narain, Kriplani, Kamaladevi Chattopadhyay there were so many remarkable leaders below the level of Gandhi politics was a quest, a journey of understanding of the people they were living with and leading. Anil Gupta: One has to be fair to Pakistan. There were a lot of reformists even in Pakistan. In fact, Akhtar Hamid Khan and many other reformists did admirable social reconstruction work in Pakistan. All said and done, the fact is that their per capita income was higher than ours, let us not deny that. In fact, the per capita income of Pakistan for most part of history has remained higher than ours. So they did not do too badly. They did not do too badly even in terms of entrepreneurial process. It is true that even today they have much larger feudal gentry, with people who have acres. What happens in Bihar happens there in Punjab even in fertile areas. Whereas in India, fertile area land reforms have taken place reasonably well except in some parts of Bihar. You may say Pakistan may not have had great visionaries but it is not true that their economic situation and their institutions were totally corrupted. Otherwise how would they achieve so much of development that they could surpass India in terms of their per capita income. It is true that the situation today is totally depressing. The military rulers in some sense or the other have used institutions for their narrow interest, as it is happening currently. It is a pity but I don t think the people per se in Pakistan are any different from the Indians. Their aspirations, their ability to deliver things, are the same. If you go to the US or the UK, Pakistani entrepreneurs there are no different from us. Don t you think so? Pakistan may not have had great visionaries but it is not true that their economic situation and their institutions were totally corrupted. Otherwise how would they achieve so much of development that they could surpass India in terms of their per capita income. It is true that the situation today is totally depressing. Indian greatness cannot survive in vacuum if countries around us are collapsing. We have failed in recognizing our Gandhian essence. Ramachandra Guha: I think, such institutions, like the IIMs and the IITs were not created in Pakistan. There were isolated visionaries like Akhtar Hamid Khan who, however, was influenced by Gandhi. But they did not have the numerous institutions which nurtured so many good entrepreneurs, scientists, and lawyers in India. Somehow tertiary education was very badly neglected in Pakistan. You won t find a single good college except may be the Lahore University of Management Sciences which is new. That s all. In contrast, we have a reasonably good number of medical and management colleges. So, I think, our professional class is much deeper. In Pakistan, you need to be a feudal elite s child, like Imran Khan or Benazir Bhutto, to go to Oxford. In India, even an ordinary person can become an entrepreneur, e.g., Dhirubhai Ambani. In that sense, social mobility has been much greater here. Anil Gupta: Economic development is only one aspect. There might have been one per cent extra development. Most of the time what we need to build upon are the opportunities. There were opportunities for us to support Bangladesh and Pakistan, to contribute to their institutes, and get students from there. Something that is happening now should have happened much earlier. We should have invited their youth to come and study in our institutions. Indian greatness cannot survive in vacuum if countries around us are collapsing. We have failed in recognizing our Gandhian essence. Ramachandra Guha: This proposal could have come 30 years ago. Even now it is not too late. Why doesn t a proposal come that in every IIM and IIT, 5-10 seats a year will be allotted to SAARC countries on a proportional basis? I think it will add enormously to the image of these institutions. Anil Gupta: It will immediately generate tremendous respect from common people who want a fair and 76 INTERVIEW

9 equal opportunity. Here we are talking about looking at the world in different ways. Harvard brought people from all over the world and indoctrinated them. Many other institutions did that. I think now India has time to create or craft elite mindset which builds nation in a participative, inclusive, and entrepreneurial manner, and not just in South East Asia but even in Africa. Chinese are going to Africa and almost taking over the entire infrastructural development. A superpower must have the quality of relationships and decisions to create a superpower. And what are we doing with Africa, South East Asia, or South Asia? We are not contributing as much to the creation of common public good. We have some of the best academic institutions in the world. We are still getting people who can apply their way through in private institutions in India. So, we are getting the upwardly mobile meritocratic youth of various countries. S Manikutty: Coming back to management education, which is our business here, I am just looking at the way in which we are training our managers. They are sometimes very bright and innovative, but by the time they get through these two years of Post-Graduation in Management, not much of it remains. They are trained to think in a very incremental and linear fashion. This prevents them from being innovative. They would make good managers; they would know how to overhaul systems, find what is wrong etc., but they would not be able to provide a visionary leadership because they stop thinking out of the box. They really do not have incentives to take the kind of risks that are involved in making new type of things. I am not talking about the managers who in any case do that. I am talking about the vast majority. The underlying sense of values is again a big question mark. I personally think that many of the problems arise because of our emphasis on analytical abilities being developed continuously. So, on day one, we tell We are pushing our students too much into analytics and not letting them deal with uncontrolled chaotic situation which is what the Indian society is all about chaos and action. Somehow, we are not letting them see the unpredictability, the uncertainty, and the opportunities which may arise out of disorder. The strength lies not in being great but in seeing greatness in others. From that point of view, we should bring the Gandhian essence to management education. the students that profit maximization is the motive and equations and all that tell you how to achieve it. Everybody talks of production. Even Organizational Behaviour, really speaking, is a team building exercise but still it is not meant for anything other than profit maximization. They are all meant for better organizational performance. They cannot be reconciled with more nonlinear thinking where you can incorporate in them the ideas of thinking differently and getting a holistic picture. This would involve teaching of humanities not just literature and history but even performing art. Why not have one course where everyone is made to learn drama and how to act. When you try to act as someone else, you really imbibe what is meant by getting the emotions and try to see the other s point of view. Even music or any of the fine arts can become a part of the curriculum. Do you think we can develop better leaders and not necessarily better managers by these methods? Ramachandra Guha: There are two aspects to this. One is a deeper understanding of the society and polity in which they live in which is what this ISPE course* does. The other is cultivation of the emotional and assertive parts of your intelligence and not just the analytical or quantitative parts. There is an excellent institute in Bangalore called the Indian Institute of Information Technology. They asked me to address their students. I wanted to know what I should speak about because they are even more focused than your MBA graduates they are into information technology, code cracking- that s all. I told them that if they ask me, I would tell them to read more history, sociology, politics. The greatest achievements of the human mind are reflected in music, literature, fine arts, and pure science. Try and cultivate at least an appreciation for music, literature, and arts. You cannot do everything. Maybe * Indian Social and Political Environment, a first year course for which Ramachandra Guha had been invited. VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

10 you would follow only Hindustani classical music. Still, I believe that music, art, and literature are the three great and godly expressions of the human imagination. We should all have some exposure to them. Anil Gupta: Prof. Manikutty raised a very valid point. There is a book, Abol Tabol, written by Sukumar Ray, father of Satyajit Ray. It is a book on absurd, nonsensical poetry which has been read by almost the entire generation of Bengalis. I m also using it in a Second Year course. My feeling is that you are absolutely right that we are pushing our students too much into analytics and not letting them deal with uncontrolled chaotic situation which is what the Indian society is all about chaos and action. Somehow, we are not letting them see the unpredictability, the uncertainty, and the opportunities which may arise out of disorder. The strength lies not in being great but in seeing greatness in others. From that point of view, we should bring the Gandhian essence to management education. The greatness of Gandhi was that he saw greatness in others and continued to nurture it no matter how difficult it was. You said earlier that he brought a lot of outstanding leaders. Today we are not generating a spirit of leadership and a managerial profile where you say your job is not just to be great yourself. Your job is to see greatness in others. How do you build up on that? How do you spot people who are chaotic, who are not following the rules, who are possibly crossing the boundaries. I think, the decline or descent in the polity at large is also affecting the descent in terms of generation of ideas. We are not encouraging people to nurture ideas which are at variance from ours/others. There is some decline of the democratic profile of a person. We are also producing people who are probably more autocratic. How many times have the students defied us or have had the courage to defy us on issues where they thought we were wrong and they were right. We are generating enough pluralism in the educational world. Our institutions of education are not showing enough We are such a diverse complicated society that we can t be run in a regimented way like Singapore. excellence. All along we thought that parents were the source of moral values. Here are young people who have now gathered enough understanding of life, to the extent that if they have to follow a path which is right and if the parents are not likely to provide that direction, then they would ignore the parents rather than ignore the path. variation and I agree with you that this is a reflection of a larger political institutional decline which we are now trying to mirror in the garb of excellence. Ramachandra Guha: It is a very narrow functional productionist view of S Manikutty: Many people talk about the typical Indianness which is reflected everywhere including our management education. They talk about people basically being autocratic and feudalistic by nature. This is a part of the Indian culture. They are probably more prone to corruption. There is corruption everywhere but here it is of a different magnitude altogether. Then there is this chalta hai attitude which has been quoted by everybody which basically means that we don t want excellence. We are quite satisfied with things as long as they don t harm our work. There is also an inherent lack of discipline which was observed by the Singapore Prime Minister when he visited India. He didn t say India lacks it, but certainly meant that when he said that Singapore has it when he was asked why India and Singapore developed so differently when India probably was ahead of Singapore in Are these really the underlying cultural factors in India and its institutions? Ramachandra Guha: I think, it is to do with the chaos and anarchy. We are such a diverse complicated society that we can t be run in a regimented way like Singapore. I find the Singapore analogy unconvincing because of the sheer scale. But I think it is true that we do tend to take short cuts. The lack of long-term vision, the chalta hai attitude which you mentioned earlier, is very prevalent in our universities. It is less in the IIMs. Our academics by and large do not believe in personal or institutional growth. In most of our universities, they would do a Ph.D. and then rest on those laurels. They will not be growing all the time. They won t be doing original research. So, I think, in our professional classes, security is paramount rather than setting targets for oneself. 78 INTERVIEW

11 They try to achieve the targets set externally by somebody else. But they themselves don t set targets for their own improvement. Anil Gupta: I want to share one experience which is very contradictory and I would contradict myself in the process because that is enjoyable. In the last three years, a strange trend has emerged. About 15 to 20 students narrated incidences where they did not consult their parents in dealing with a particular ethical dilemma because they feared that their parents would ask them to compromise. All along we thought that parents were the source of moral values. Here are young people who have now gathered enough understanding of life, to the extent that if they have to follow a path which is right and if the parents are not likely to provide that direction, they would ignore the parents rather than ignore the path. There is also a positive side to that that I have not come across this strange phenomena earlier. It is a recent development of a sense of confidence of being able to make their own way, to decide what is right and different, and to take that path even if it might not get the approval of the elders of the family. So we need to be optimistic about this class of youth. Look at the number of people who are making their career in music. Compare that with the 60s and 70s. Let us accept that we do not have many young people in our institute who are going for the career of their choice. Probably in our institute, our induction system is such that, we are not getting too many of those young people who are experimentalists. In our society, at large, these are not conceived of as a career. Ramachandra Guha: Like making a career in photography, travel, mountaineering, etc. You need to be daring. S Manikutty: It is also to do with opportunity. Because underlying this is the fundamental yearning for good performance, good ethical value which is probably stifled by the system. There is no chalta hai attitude in our classical music tradition. Even half a note or frequency less or more won t do. One of the problems with our young people today is their lack of commitment to institutions. They join a place and within three months, they want to move. They take a new job and from the next day start looking at naukri.com. something some years ago that struck me that our classical musicians strive for excellence and achieve it. I think they are the greatest of Indians. We talk so much about our cricketers and entrepreneurs; our classical musicians are much greater. Sometimes even after hours of riyaaz everyday for years, their gurus don t let them give a public performance. They can t do it till they are perfect. I think in many ways, they are our exemplars. Because of professionalism, excellence, and search for perfection, in many ways our classical musicians should be the role models for our management students. S Manikutty: Nothing less than perfect would do. That is seen even in some of the artists when they paint. Dance also does not permit any kind of deviation. They are absolutely perfect. Anil Gupta: Let me play the devil s advocate again. Are we saying that in these forms of creative expressions where compliance of rules, or conformity to the boundary is of essence, we still continue to excel but wherever innovations are required or permitted, we seem to falter? Ramachandra Guha: Innovations are also happening in classical music. Previously there was a rigorous gharana tradition. Now you can be in your own gharana but also borrow from some other and enhance your reputation. I think it is not excellence versus innovation. It is not simply following a set tradition and excelling in it. There is some amount of innovation happening. S Manikutty: It may not be true that there is an underlying cultural foundation of chalta hai, corruption, and lack of value. It may be the institutional environment which is really breeding these kinds of attitudes. Ramachandra Guha: I think an artist is possessed by something. It is something different. It is from within. Anil Gupta: Musicians and dancers excel in their profession because of the passion for performance at their own terms. You may want appreciation but not approval. Ramachandra Guha: There is a rigour in music. It is a hours hard work in a day. Amitav Ghosh said Ramachandra Guha: A classical musician does not set out to obtain success and wealth. It may come acciden- VIKALPA VOLUME 33 NO 1 JANUARY - MARCH

12 tally. In 25 years, you may become M S Subhalakshmi, if you work very hard and have some luck. But young people don t want it that way. I am not an expert on the job market but one of the problems with our young people today is their lack of commitment to institutions. They join a place and within three months, they want to move. They take a new job and from the next day start looking at naukri.com. I think this rapid turnover is also prevalent in the voluntary sector. They want to be with some good NGO but also want to have all of them in their CV. If you have five NGOs in five years in your CV, it would mean that you have not understood and imbibed the culture of any of them. Where did this come from? This was not the case before. In fact, long-term commitment to institutions used to be the norm. Anil Gupta: There was a lot of loyalty in the organizations - the kind of loyalty and values that the familybased organizations nurtured.. Ramachandra Guha: This was not seen only in the family-based organizations but even in professional organizations, e.g., working in Hindustan Levers for 25 years. Do you see a problem here? S Manikutty: It is essentially because of the opportunities available. Job market is very much a buyer s market. They keep going to naukri.com because they know that employers looking for talent are also looking at naukri.com. They are offered higher salaries and therefore by changing jobs frequently, in the first six to eight years, they really get catapulted to a pretty senior position. It is also a perception that unless you do this, you really don t get along fast. But having got there, i.e., after six to eight years, they don t change so frequently. But the real problem is that there is no commitment to any institution of any kind and there is no underlying sense of values that they can develop. I don t know what you feel but can the values in an organization be developed by a leader who himself is moving every three months? I know of young people who have taken a break from their career, who travel and do different things. In our generation, the young people could not muster so much of courage. We are still very organized and elitist in our perception. There is a problem with us. The teachers have to take the responsibility. We are not providing new icons of social development. Our choice of icons is also very narrow. Anil Gupta: Look at it slightly differently. Let us understand that today when it comes to entrepreneurship, inventions, innovations and trying out new things, our sample is too small. We are making these judgments based on a very small section, less than a fraction of a per cent of the elite, which has a lot of opportunities. That is not the case all around. Let us accept that. But there are people who are able to pursue their own longing or cause. The number of people who are today trying to work in the civil society is going up. You mentioned this point that civil society is much more buoyant today. So while we still don t have Rockefellers and the big philanthropists at this moment in this country, large corporations which may have comparable wealth to the richest people in the world do not contribute even a fraction of their wealth for social or common good. So, it is not the leadership which is showing this. This is one area where the leadership is very weak. But the bottom line is that the base is very strong. Thus, it is actually a very flat pyramid in the civil society. Our civil society is not being led by icons. There are large number of springs of small initiatives around the country where people are trying to do their bit. Some of them do belong to professional class. You have understood the protest movement in the ecological sectors, have looked at the struggles in the post independent India. From that vantage point of view, how do you see these trends? Look at how people are able to now defy and oppose. Look at the kind of response people are showing in case of Right to Information. So, for the moment, getting away from the totally elite class, look at the large number of young people who are trying to take things in their stride. They are totally contrary to the chalta hai attitude. They are not succumbing to compromising with it. What do you think? Ramachandra Guha: I think here also there is a crisis. From what Prof. Manikutty said, maybe in the corporate sector, you need to make rapid moves. But in civil society, you have to work with the institutions. I know 80 INTERVIEW