My guess is they would find them extremely offensive. Not merely because they suggest corruption is a good way to advance one’s station, but also since they imply corruption is what has entrenched upper-caste hegemony. Which is why, he says, the corruption of the Madhusudan Kodas and A. Rajas is welcome, because it equalises the situation. Nandy says he was being ironic and that his remarks were not anti-Dalit, but actually in their favour. He may think so, but their import is excessively cynical.
The reactions of the Rajasthan government and Minorities Commission chairman P.L. Punia are absurd in the extreme. However inelegantly Nandy phrased his point and however provocative he may have been, he has the right. The window of tolerance in this country is rapidly closing. When an academic has to worry about what he says at a literature festival, it’s the thin end of the wedge. On this, Nandy has the support of every liberal and right-thinking Indian. But had Punia and other Dalits really considered the substance and tenor of the remarks, they would still have grounds to be offended. For, Nandy’s nostrum is problematic on several fronts. To begin with, it mocks the millions of honest Indians, from all castes, creeds and linguistic backgrounds, who may be trying to carve out a place for themselves by virtue of hard work and merit. Their role models are not shady crony capitalists or rentiers or sundry crooks who take short cuts. They crave for an environment that allows for those who want to play it straight. Yes, gaming the system gives an unfair advantage to many. Is that something to aspire to?
It is also patronising to suggest that young, educated Dalits now entering the workforce as professionals or entrepreneurs would necessarily want to pick up tips from the Kodas and the Rajas. Their biggest icon Babasaheb Ambedkar rose by dint of hard work and intellect. Wouldn’t they want to emulate him? Why wouldn’t they want to create a new paradigm that moves away from the existing one? M.N. Srinivas spoke about Sanskritisation, the urge among the lower castes to mimic the Brahminical order. Is corruption the new Sanskritisation? That’s what Nandy would have us believe.
Most important, though, Nandy neglects the fact that millions of Dalits (as much as other poor Indians) are the bribe givers, not the takers. They find it is the only way to negotiate a society that can be deeply unfair. What would their takeaway be from Nandy’s glib assertions? Once again, prosecuting him for what he said is patently wrong; but letting him get away unchallenged for his flip theories would be a mistake too.
Sidharth Bhatia is a journalist and author based in Mumbai; E-mail your columnist: sidharth01 AT gmail.com
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.
Seems like Nandy doesn't want India to win world cup, since apparently, he is troubled that we are SUFFERING from too much nationalism
What a douche! No wonder our sicko/jehadis love him. They hate desh bhakts as much as him.
God forbid, if there were to be a war with pakistan, we know whose side Nandy will take.
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