Soumitra
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2011
- Messages
- 8,415
- Reaction score
- -17
- Country
- Location
Niti Aayog's member Bibek Debroy is a renowned economist who is known for speaking his mind. In an interview to TOI, Debroy reflects on the issue of intolerance and cites examples to show the need for multiple views. Excerpts:
A debate has been raging on the issue of intolerance in the country. What has been your experience?
What is generally not known is that Jagdish Bhagwati was essentially made to leave Delhi School of Economics and had to go abroad because his life was made very uncomfortable. He left DSE because there is a certain prevailing climate of opinion and if you buck that, your life is made uncomfortable.
In the course of the second five-year plan, a committee of economists was set up to examine it. Dr B.R. Shenoy was the only one who opposed it. Do you find Dr Shenoy's name mentioned in the history of union policymaking? No. He was completely ostracized. He could not get a job in India and he ended up in Ceylon.
The third is a book called 'Heart of India', written by Alexander Campbell who was a journalist. A patronizing book for that day and time but it is still banned in India because it says frivolous things about Jawaharlal Nehru, socialism in India, and the Planning Commission. People who say there should not be bans, why don't they ever mention 'Heart of India'.
I cited these three examples to drive home the point that intolerance has always existed and we will be stupid if we haven't recognized it.
READ ALSO:
No one should question SRK's patriotism: Sushil Modi
At a personal level, did you ever experience intolerance in the academic arena?
I studied at Presidency College in Kolkata and in a real sense my first job was there at its Centre for Research. Then it was time for me to apply for a proper job, meaning Department of Economics. The head of the department was Dipak Banerjee, who told me you are not going to get a job, just forget it. Remember it was the Left. All the experts are Left-wing. So, I went off to Pune.
How do you view the Rajiv Gandhi Institute, which you once headed, holding this conference on the issue of intolerance?
I was there for eight years and during that period we consciously distanced ourselves from the Congress. In 2002, I decided to organize a conference on what India was supposed to be, what its society be like, what the idea of India would be? I invited Seshadri Chari who was the editor of Organiser. Several people from the Left also came.
On the day of the seminar, a paper front-paged a report 'Congress think tank invites editor of Organiser." I get a phone call from 10, Janpath. Not Mrs Gandhi. "Madam has asked me to speak to you. Please withdraw this invitation to Seshadri Chari." I said I have issued the invitation and if Madam wants to talk to me, let her talk to me. Ten minutes later the phone rings again. "Will you please ask Seshadri Chari to give in writing what he is going to speak?" I said I am not going to do that. "No, Madam wants to see it."
Again the phone rings. "What happens if Seshadri Chari goes ahead and speaks about Godhra?" Meanwhile, all hell broke loose and some noted Congress people dropped out because Seshadri Chari was invited. I held the conference.
In 2004, Loveesh Bhandari and I did a study on economic freedom rating of states. Gujarat was number one. In 2005, municipal elections were being held in Gujarat and a newspaper carried a front page story, 'Congress think tank ranks Modi's Gujarat as number one', and all hell broke loose. I got a note from Mrs Gandhi saying anything that the Rajiv Gandhi Institute publishes henceforth be politically vetted. I said this is not acceptable to me. I resigned.
There was an Arjun Sengupta Commission. Next day, I was thrown out of there. I was on two task forces of Planning Commission, I was thrown out of there. Did anyone complain? I only remember two people. One is Loveesh, he was biased because he was the co-author, and the other was a journalist, Seetha Parthasarathy. All these people who are complaining about different points of view, none of them raised their voices.
The intellectual discourse has been captured by a certain kind of people, with certain kinds of views. It is a bit like a monopoly and that monopoly does not like outsiders and that monopoly survives on the basis of networks.
A section of academics has raised the issue of growing intolerance. Do you think they have a point or is it because they are politically aligned?
If you tell me intolerance is increasing, it is purely anecdotal and is purely a subjective perception, there is no point in arguing with you because you will say it is increasing and I will say there is no evidence of it increasing. The only way I can measure something is that if I have got some quantitative indicator. If I look at any quantitative indicator, communal violence incidents, internet freedom, these are objective indicators, and I don't think it is increasing. In the intellectual circuit there has always been that intolerance. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Now people are saying there is a risk of a new type of monopoly, ideological hegemony taking place.
If there ever is, which I doubt very much, I will argue against. Demonstrate to me that there is a monopoly. Where is it? All the institutions which thrive on the basis of state patronage they are still populated by that old crowd. So where has it got populated?
So what should be the reaction of the establishment?
I cannot speak on behalf of the government. I can only give you my view on this. I have two reactions to what you are saying. Firstly, many of our views are formed as to what we read as children in school textbooks. I may never study economics after my school leaving examination. How much reference will you find in the textbooks to any of the southern dynasties? Very little in passing. Instead, we are deluged with the Mughal dynasty. Fine. The fundamental question I am asking is who writes these textbooks?
There is an advisory committee presumably for all of this texts. Is that advisory committee sufficiently broad-based? Because that is what we really want. We don't want that advisory committee to become uni-dimensional from the other end either. We want it to be broad-based.
Second point I want to make is that I talked about state patronage. All of these institutions are funded by citizens' money. ICHR, ICCSR even UGC. As citizens we have a right to know of who is being funded for what purpose? How that selection is happening? And what is the outcome of that. Today, the system is so much cloaked in lack of transparency and opaqueness. I don't know why is ICHR giving project to XYZ? Why has not been completed for Z number of years?
I am arguing for transparency and accountability not controlling it. That's a wrong word to use.
Do you think the government should broad-base these committees now that there is a regime change, whether it is for writing history books, or the composition of ICHR?
In any of these institutions the ruling dispensation always has chosen the heads, so to speak. So that's part of life. It has happened for the past 65 years it will continue to happen. If I did not complain for the last 65 years I should not be complaining now on a matter of principle. But the broad basing requires the subsequent transparency, accountability. Because until I do that I will not be able to ensure what you are asking either.
A debate has been raging on the issue of intolerance in the country. What has been your experience?
What is generally not known is that Jagdish Bhagwati was essentially made to leave Delhi School of Economics and had to go abroad because his life was made very uncomfortable. He left DSE because there is a certain prevailing climate of opinion and if you buck that, your life is made uncomfortable.
In the course of the second five-year plan, a committee of economists was set up to examine it. Dr B.R. Shenoy was the only one who opposed it. Do you find Dr Shenoy's name mentioned in the history of union policymaking? No. He was completely ostracized. He could not get a job in India and he ended up in Ceylon.
The third is a book called 'Heart of India', written by Alexander Campbell who was a journalist. A patronizing book for that day and time but it is still banned in India because it says frivolous things about Jawaharlal Nehru, socialism in India, and the Planning Commission. People who say there should not be bans, why don't they ever mention 'Heart of India'.
I cited these three examples to drive home the point that intolerance has always existed and we will be stupid if we haven't recognized it.
READ ALSO:
No one should question SRK's patriotism: Sushil Modi
At a personal level, did you ever experience intolerance in the academic arena?
I studied at Presidency College in Kolkata and in a real sense my first job was there at its Centre for Research. Then it was time for me to apply for a proper job, meaning Department of Economics. The head of the department was Dipak Banerjee, who told me you are not going to get a job, just forget it. Remember it was the Left. All the experts are Left-wing. So, I went off to Pune.
How do you view the Rajiv Gandhi Institute, which you once headed, holding this conference on the issue of intolerance?
I was there for eight years and during that period we consciously distanced ourselves from the Congress. In 2002, I decided to organize a conference on what India was supposed to be, what its society be like, what the idea of India would be? I invited Seshadri Chari who was the editor of Organiser. Several people from the Left also came.
On the day of the seminar, a paper front-paged a report 'Congress think tank invites editor of Organiser." I get a phone call from 10, Janpath. Not Mrs Gandhi. "Madam has asked me to speak to you. Please withdraw this invitation to Seshadri Chari." I said I have issued the invitation and if Madam wants to talk to me, let her talk to me. Ten minutes later the phone rings again. "Will you please ask Seshadri Chari to give in writing what he is going to speak?" I said I am not going to do that. "No, Madam wants to see it."
Again the phone rings. "What happens if Seshadri Chari goes ahead and speaks about Godhra?" Meanwhile, all hell broke loose and some noted Congress people dropped out because Seshadri Chari was invited. I held the conference.
In 2004, Loveesh Bhandari and I did a study on economic freedom rating of states. Gujarat was number one. In 2005, municipal elections were being held in Gujarat and a newspaper carried a front page story, 'Congress think tank ranks Modi's Gujarat as number one', and all hell broke loose. I got a note from Mrs Gandhi saying anything that the Rajiv Gandhi Institute publishes henceforth be politically vetted. I said this is not acceptable to me. I resigned.
There was an Arjun Sengupta Commission. Next day, I was thrown out of there. I was on two task forces of Planning Commission, I was thrown out of there. Did anyone complain? I only remember two people. One is Loveesh, he was biased because he was the co-author, and the other was a journalist, Seetha Parthasarathy. All these people who are complaining about different points of view, none of them raised their voices.
The intellectual discourse has been captured by a certain kind of people, with certain kinds of views. It is a bit like a monopoly and that monopoly does not like outsiders and that monopoly survives on the basis of networks.
A section of academics has raised the issue of growing intolerance. Do you think they have a point or is it because they are politically aligned?
If you tell me intolerance is increasing, it is purely anecdotal and is purely a subjective perception, there is no point in arguing with you because you will say it is increasing and I will say there is no evidence of it increasing. The only way I can measure something is that if I have got some quantitative indicator. If I look at any quantitative indicator, communal violence incidents, internet freedom, these are objective indicators, and I don't think it is increasing. In the intellectual circuit there has always been that intolerance. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Now people are saying there is a risk of a new type of monopoly, ideological hegemony taking place.
If there ever is, which I doubt very much, I will argue against. Demonstrate to me that there is a monopoly. Where is it? All the institutions which thrive on the basis of state patronage they are still populated by that old crowd. So where has it got populated?
So what should be the reaction of the establishment?
I cannot speak on behalf of the government. I can only give you my view on this. I have two reactions to what you are saying. Firstly, many of our views are formed as to what we read as children in school textbooks. I may never study economics after my school leaving examination. How much reference will you find in the textbooks to any of the southern dynasties? Very little in passing. Instead, we are deluged with the Mughal dynasty. Fine. The fundamental question I am asking is who writes these textbooks?
There is an advisory committee presumably for all of this texts. Is that advisory committee sufficiently broad-based? Because that is what we really want. We don't want that advisory committee to become uni-dimensional from the other end either. We want it to be broad-based.
Second point I want to make is that I talked about state patronage. All of these institutions are funded by citizens' money. ICHR, ICCSR even UGC. As citizens we have a right to know of who is being funded for what purpose? How that selection is happening? And what is the outcome of that. Today, the system is so much cloaked in lack of transparency and opaqueness. I don't know why is ICHR giving project to XYZ? Why has not been completed for Z number of years?
I am arguing for transparency and accountability not controlling it. That's a wrong word to use.
Do you think the government should broad-base these committees now that there is a regime change, whether it is for writing history books, or the composition of ICHR?
In any of these institutions the ruling dispensation always has chosen the heads, so to speak. So that's part of life. It has happened for the past 65 years it will continue to happen. If I did not complain for the last 65 years I should not be complaining now on a matter of principle. But the broad basing requires the subsequent transparency, accountability. Because until I do that I will not be able to ensure what you are asking either.
Last edited:
