By Swapan Dasgupta
It is now an accepted fact that the English language has transcended its Anglo-Saxon origins and even acquired a uniquely Indian dimension. Indian English, however, does not merely comprise the use of distinctive words and phrases; it extends to very culture-specific understanding of key concepts. Much has been written on the confusion created, for example, by the simplistic and inappropriate translation of dharma into religion. Equally, many writers have stressed that the western understanding of the word ?secular? is hardly, if ever, accurately transmitted into Indian English.
The problem of miscommunication extends to another key term: Ideology. In India the term is generously, and rather loosely, used by both politicians and the media to cover anything from a stray utterance to a party manifesto. Moreover, ideology in India, by and large carries a positive connotation. When the communists refer to ideology, they imply an intellectual and emotional commitment to a body of thought that originated from Karl Marx. The perceived robustness of Marxism-Leninism is invariably contrasted with the pitfalls of revisionism. Likewise, when the BJP emphasises the commitment to ideology it is implicitly positing a virtue and alerting the faithful to the dangers of deviation. But, the communist parties base their ideology on a reading of Marxist texts and an understanding of the communist history, nationalism is not blessed with textual certitudes. Both sets of people use the term ideology but yet their approaches are fundamentally dissimilar.
It is important to have a measure of conceptual clarity about what ideology means and signifies. The term ?Ideology? originated during the French Revolution and evolved with Marxism. The British philosopher Roger Scruton described ideology as ?any systematic and all-embracing political doctrine which claims to give a complete and universally applicable theory of man and society.? It was prefaced on the Big Idea.
When the BJP emphasises the commitment to ideology it is implicitly positing a virtue and alerting the faithful to the dangers of deviation.
Conservative thinkers implicitly conferred on ideology a degree of theological rigidity and this may explain why, in the political parlance of the West, ideology is often equated with dogma. Consequently, it was projected as something immutable and even inhuman. The worst excesses in contemporary history, from the killings in the French Revolution to the genocides of Hitler and Stalin were attributed to the prevalence of ideology. After 9/11, the Islamic jehad launched by Osama bin Laden was, perhaps legitimately, blamed on the transformation of religion into doctrinaire ideology.
The reaction to ideology has been swift and forthright. Since liberal democracy was painted as the ultimate Big Idea-Francis Fukuyama even dubbed it the ?end of history?-politics was reduced to a simple managerial exercise. It became an instrument to make the status quo more convivial for citizens. Technology became the real agency of change within a defined parameter.
It was this managerial vision of politics that L.K. Advani implicitly sought to promote when he called for ?idealism? to prevail over ideology.
It was this managerial vision of politics that L.K. Advani implicitly sought to promote when he called for ?idealism? to prevail over ideology. In a speech to the BJP National Executive in 1998, just after the formation of the NDA Government, he maintained that ?good governance in most spheres of national life becomes possible only when it is de-ideologised and depoliticised.? At that time Advani'sspeech wasn'tgiven due importance, not least because it was overshadowed by the nuclear tests, but the approach was to define the conduct of the NDA Government for six years.
At one level, there is much to commend a managerial approach. Efficiency in government is a laudable ideal, particularly when juxtaposed to a culture of sloth, waste and corruption. What is called ?development? invariably involves the exercise of rational choice, coupled with dedicated implementation. It also necessitates an element of flexibility, which is by definition negated by rigid ideological structures. China is a society where ideology exists as a mere shibboleth; political practice is shaped by ruthless managerialism.
Hindutva is such an idea. It involves absorbing the essence of national life, social institutions and collective memory and harnessing it to the project for national reconstruction. Hindutva without an associated managerial drive is politically unsustainable. However being overwhelmed by the nitty-gritty of managerialism, without taking into account the imperatives of nationhood, is a recipe for vacuous, bureaucratic degeneration.
Yet, there is another dimension of politics which need not correspond to the rigid description of ideology. It is best called vision. At the core of a political vision is the question: What sort of society do we aspire to? If the answer is reduced to a series of material yardsticks like good roads, adequate housing and the maintenance of law and order, the managerial approach should suffice. Politics, in that case, becomes the efficient gathering and allocation of resources.
Fortunately, there is more to national life than just economics, important as that may be. The construction of national culture and the creation of a national purpose are central to the political project. These happen to be beyond the purview of managerialism. They are critically dependant on the Big Idea.
Hindutva is such an idea. It involves absorbing the essence of national life, social institutions and collective memory and harnessing it to the project for national reconstruction. Hindutva without an associated managerial drive is politically unsustainable. However being overwhelmed by the nitty-gritty of managerialism, without taking into account the imperatives of nationhood, is a recipe for vacuous, bureaucratic degeneration.
Comments