A former judge of the Supreme Court of India recently published a critique of Indian society [1] in a leading Indian daily. Noble as his intentions may have been, this was couched in rather inelegant terms and did not exactly represent the work of an intellectual giant. A rebuttal [2], published in the Indian edition of the Wall Street Journal, was even less impressive.
Ø “First, when our people go to vote in elections, 90 per cent vote on the basis of caste or community, not the merits of the candidate. That is why Phoolan Devi, a known dacoit-cum-murderer, was elected to Parliament — because she belonged to a backward caste that had a large number of voters in that constituency.”
How does the good Judge know that they chose her on the basis of her caste? Perhaps they deeply considered all political issues, the various candidates on offer and decided to go with her. Or does he claim to read their minds? Or was it because he heard a couple of those who claimed to have voted for Ms. Devi say that they would have voted for her irrespective of her political beliefs and purely on the basis of her caste? But can we be sure that they actually did vote for her? Remember that India, like Germany, has a secret ballot in most indirect elections. And that they are being entirely straightforward now – perhaps they did vote for her political views, but wish now to disassociate themselves from those views.
Ø “Second, 90 per cent Indians believe in astrology, which is pure superstition and humbug. Even a little common sense tells us that the movements of stars and planets have nothing to do with our lives.”
Common sense is scarcely appropriate in discussions involving modern physics. And how can movements of large and shiny objects have nothing to do with our lives? They provoke thought (this is apparent) and exert a gravitational force on the entire universe (this is current scientific thinking, even if not necessarily apparent).
Ø “Yet, TV channels showing astrology have high TRP ratings.”
There might be a leap in logic here. Was this tested using a control group? Perhaps the high ratings are on account of the really attractive girls and boys who do the astrological readings? Or could it be the pleasing background music?
Ø “Such films, to my mind, serve no social purpose, but act instead like a drug or alcohol to send the viewer temporarily from his miserable existence to a beautiful world of tinsel.”
A philosopher has already suggested that there is little to choose between a king who dreams for twelve hours that he is a peasant, and a peasant who dreams for twelve hours that he is a king. That aside, does the good Judge truly take upon himself to deprecate beauty? What next, condemn art because one cannot sit on it, or eat it, or use it to shelter oneself from the rain?
Ø “At one time, India led the world in science and technology”
Now the good Judge allows outmoded patriotism to carry him away. What is India? Do we include Pakistan and Bangladesh and the State of Hyderabad? What about Afghanistan? What does “led the world” mean? The number of patents, the number of Nobel Prizes in mathematics? What of times before then? A pathetic grasping at imagined glories of the past, then.
Ø “According to the report, Mr. Katju said that “the problem with some ‘educated Indians’ was that they still suffered from ‘colonial inferiority complex’” and therefore believe Indian writers are inferior to those who live in London or New York.”
Yes, well, this is one of the main issues that post-colonialism is concerned with.
Ø “During his speech there, he took it upon himself to criticize a wide range of subjects beloved of millions of Indians: from cricket to Sachin Tendulkar to film actor Dev Anand to activist Anna Hazare”
This is shameful. It is a free country, and the Judge is free to express his opinion. If called to speak, speak he ought to! The Wall Street Journal article appears to imply that one may not criticize things beloved of the masses.
Ø “We reached Mr. Katju, 65 years old, by phone Monday to ask whether his 90% estimate was derived from scientific thinking.”
Generally, it can only hearten one to see that the Press does not let an unattributed statistic in an article pass unchallenged. This schoolboy pettiness though, one could have dispensed. Especially when the Press, a few paragraphs earlier, also quotes a statistic without stating the provenance, “approximately 1.08 billion anonymous Indians”.
The general tone of the WSJ article is not very sophisticated and no great love of intellectual diversity and of freedom of expression shines through.
Ø “Such statements are nothing new for a justice who has made his name speaking his mind – over and over again – since taking over as the chairman of the Press Council of India”
Surely, we should applaud the Judge for speaking his mind, and not that of someone else. Or does the author of the WSJ article suggest that the chairman of the Press Council only be allowed to express his opinion once every couple of months?
[1] The 90%; http://www.indianexpress.com/news/the-90/934145/0
[2] India, a Nation of More Than 1 Billion ‘Fools’ ; http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/04/09/india-a-nation-of-more-than-1-billion-fools/?mod=wsj_share_facebook
