Smriti Zubin Irani, the human resource development (HRD) minister in the union government, is presently at the centre of a ‘controversy’ with regards to her formal educational qualification. According to her 2014 election affidavit, in 1994 she passed the Part I examination of the Bachelor of Commerce degree course offered by the School of Open Learning of the University of Delhi. In short, she started a Bachelor’s degree programme by correspondence but did not finish all the requirements for the degree.
Big-word big-degree angrezi types have pounced on her appointment and have summarily declared her unqualified for the position. Correspondence college, B.Com dropout, 12th pass— these have been used as abuses as well as reasons for her disqualification. Ajay Maken, one of the many general secretaries of the Congress party, also deemed her unfit for the job. There is another controversy about the apparent mismatch between her declared educational qualifications of 2004 and 2014 as well, but I will not go into that.
Smriti Irani, in turn, has declared that she wants people to judge her by her work. And that she must be, very closely. Policies matter— way, way more than the policy-maker’s credentials.
This tirade against her is but Brahminism by another name— a sophisticated urban-Anglicized version of it. It is important to note that no other appointment has been questioned and grilled so intensely on the basis of ‘qualification’ or lack thereof.
So, for being the minister for agriculture, you do not have to have agricultural experience, for urban poverty alleviation, you do not have to have the lived experience of being an urban poor in the subcontinent and so on. Indeed, it would seem, generalists can do all that but not human resource development. This ‘brahmin’ profession needs ‘specialists’. This is where formal degrees and certificates from others help you take decisions. Not anyone can do that. Agriculture— anyone can do that, or can they?
On a different note, the most brahminised group of them all, the brown Marxists, have a hallowed tradition of outsourcing decision-making power on questions of education from the legislature to the party faithful. HRD is exactly that kind of ministry that a total-control ideology type of care-based party with a long-term vision wants to control. The minister is important only to an extent.
There seems to be serious lack of understanding about what HRD ministry has in its ambit. For starters, it includes much, much more than university education— the sector whose stakeholders are making the most noise. The HRD ministry looks after primary education, adult education, literacy, scholarships, distance education and much more. Those are ‘details’ which the predominantly high-caste beneficiaries of the central governments’ university education subsidy system don’t deign to ever investigate. Their ideology is exposed by what one chooses to see and what one chooses not to see.
As far as Smriti Irani’s profile goes, her trying to get a bachelors degree while working (a scenario faced by millions), her dropping out of the degree (another scenario shared by millions), is not the typical trajectory of the academic type born into a privileged high-caste Hindu or Muslim family. Her correspondence course enrolment and later discontinuation also means that she is not a big beneficiary of metro-centric higher-education subsidies that are designed to shower privilege on the already privileged classes and castes. It must be said, however, that beyond these details, in terms of her socio-economic profile, today’s Smriti Irani doesn’t share much with the majority of the millions upon millions who constitute the human resource pool of the present and the future. But then neither do her critics. In terms of aspiration and values, the minister and her critics may well be closer to each other than is apparent in the public spectacle around her. This mock-divergence is useful for both— for obvious reasons.
The politics of symbolism has serious currency in all human assemblages as they signal something. Whether the signal is followed up by substance is another issue. About 4 out of 5 citizens of the Indian Union are classified in the census as ‘Hindu’. The present cabinet has more women— women whose foreheads and hair-partings look like millions of women of their age in this nation. In this superficial sense, they are representative to an extent. The aspects in which they are non-representative are what they share with their critics.
What is remaining unsaid by the academic elite, who spend their time in their classrooms and otherwise brain-washing young adults into notions of ‘liberty’, ‘radicalism’ and ‘choice’, is that a large part of their contempt for Irani comes from this sindoor wearing, bahu-idol becoming the boss of those who hate the sindoor, the family, family relationships and other such 'conservative' things.
In their brainwash factories of ‘free choice’, Smriti Irani’s public get-up is anathema— a reminder of everything they spit on as part of their ' liberated' mannerism package. This perturbs most students and young people who have not been ‘educated’ enough to hate sindoor and evolve into ‘sophisticated’ beings. Which is perhaps why they end up seeing these vainglorious social pariahs as privileged aliens who indoctrinate from the perch of super-subsidized campuses.
These lifestyle-as-politics-wallahs deliberately create a culture of inferiority among the socially rooted, favour the ‘liberated’ amongst their students and ‘prefer’ them for various things and seek to convert the rest. The signal is clear. It is not enough to be formally educated. It is important to share the hatred of everything that is rooted, that you inherited from your family and society. Then only can you be ‘truly’ educated. And once you are truly educated, you will start acting like one and also looking like one, from a mile.
But one who looks exactly the opposite of this prototype now will sit over the head of this legion. That is the rub. Their jaw-muscles harden at that thought. Powerlessness hurts, especially the type that puts the societal isolation and alienation of the liberated and educated on public display. Anxieties about marginal loss of privilege and serious loss of influence are quite serious. The shrillness of their Irani-bashing reflects this.
Smriti Irani (Kshatriya father, Brahmin mother) is more self-made than those from similar caste backgrounds who get all the benefits of a communitarian upbringing, inherit its social capital, and then kick the society in its face with their superficial rebellious symbolisms. Their social capital remains conveniently intact. Burning sacred-threads and other ‘renunciation’ and public ‘de-class/caste-ing’ spectacles of this type cannot destroy that. Much like the aatma.
Smriti Irani wears the sindoor on her hair parting (shithee as we call it in Bengal). She is not publicly known to wear an intrinsic contempt for a majority of the society and its values on her sleeve, her speech or body-parts. That, to the privileged class of the radical and the rootless, is a problem. The outrage about her educational qualifications is a sideshow.
Garga Chatterjee is a Kolkata-based commentator. Twitter: @gargac
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
K.Kamaraj who was the chief minister of Tamilnadu was a total illiterate. But what he did for education far exceeded what acclaimed and so called educated intellectuals did as HRD ministers for this country.
I am not for a minute comparing Smriti with one of the Tallest Leaders this country produced, but give her time and a chance.
I do not know about any other job, but education minister of India withour any educational qualifications does not look good. It is true she can do better job and her educational qualifications may have nothing to do. But dil mange more...
This article contains no facts, only name calling. It's a shame that it gets past outlook's editors at all.
[[Err. i thought the problem was the contempt for law by stating false qualifications mentioned in the electoral forms. Of course, breaking a law or two is actually the main qualification for a Moditard.]]
Just as beheading (at least on Bakrid) is the main qualification for a follower of the religion of peace?
Err. i thought the problem was the contempt for law by stating false qualifications mentioned in the electoral forms. Of course, breaking a law or two is actually the main qualification for a Moditard.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT