In Non-Alarmist Mode

AMARTYA Sen is an intellectual in the tradition of Bertrand Russell. Just as Russell wrote voluminously on philosophy, economics and politics and championed social causes throughout his life, Sen's concerns too stretch beyond economics to a consciousness of his duties as an Indian citizen and a critical assessment of certain aspects of Indian culture.

Among Sen's foremost criticisms is the rise of Hindu activism and the BJP's cultural nationalism. "By taking a simply Hindu view, India is belittled," he told Outlook. "All the major world religions other than Islam were already well represented in India well before the last millennium. It would be impossible to understand the nature of Indian culture today without seeing it in integrated terms. I'm a democrat and I defend the BJP's right to be in government. But I would never vote for it." Not only was the greatest Indian emperor in the pre-Muslim period not a Hindu but a Buddhist (Ashoka), there were other great non-Hindu emperors like Harsha. Bengal, in fact, went from Buddhist rule to Muslim with only a very brief period of Hindu monarchy in between.

 Sen says India has always had a variety of different religious approaches and writers like Kalidasa or Kautilya cannot be regarded as simply "Hindu" writers. "While references to raids from Ghazni and other isolated elements of divisive history remains tactically potent and even flammable in the contemporary politics of India, the nature of the present-day Indian civilisation cannot be understood without seeing it as a joint product of many influences of which the Islamic component is very strong."

Another criticism Sen makes of Indian cultural attitudes is the constant bogey and fear of "westernisation". "The label of westernisation," he told Outlook, "often serves as a cloak for an unreasoning defence of traditional attitudes which are in need of critical scrutiny." While there is no denying examples of Western cultural imperialism in the world, yet Indians tend to condemn something as "western" in origin far too readily. After all, the progress of culture as well as science and mathematics in the world has greatly benefited from learning things across borders. Perhaps it is a legacy of colonialism that as a reaction to British rule we always argue that everything about India is great and good and we have nothing more to learn.

Does the use of penicillin amount to Westernisation. What about the enjoyment of Shakespeare? Is Indian cooking deeply Westernised because chilli was unknown in India until the Portuguese brought it? Sen quotes from Tagore: "Let me feel with unalloyed gladness that all the great glories of man are mine." Sen also disputes the existence—often voiced among Indian thinkers of the two monoliths "East" and "West"—that Eastern thought is "religious" and "mystical" and Western thought is "scientific" and "rational". In fact, there is a long tradition of Indian rationalism and analysis and we have always been a "very worldly" civilisation with even the Mohenjodaro culture being marked by an advanced degree of trade and merchant activity.

In fact, he is critical of the orthodox Left in India for not being as appreciative of democracy as they should have been. "I was a defender of Indian democracy even when the Left used to described it as a bourgeois or sham democracy." Democracy, he believes, is not only an asset for the state but also for the market. Elections, opposition parties and public debates can even influence the direction of the economy. The media plays an important watchdog role. "I've written that famines do not happen in democratic countries, as seen in Sudan or North Korea. It's necessary for the opposition and the public media to keep emphasising the criminal neglect of primary education and totally unacceptable gender relations."

Yet, Sen notes that the Indian public sometimes tends to be a little apathetic. "I have been emphasising the massive neglect of elementary education for decades now. But it is depressing that my lectures don't seem to affect people's way of thinking. But it's not being vocal which makes the old polity survive."

Pokhran II, he says, was a serious mistake, both ethically and politically. Since India already had a conventional weapons advantage over Pakistan, it did not need a nuclear one. Contrary to the government's wishes, Kashmir has now been internationalised. India was already secure in its nuclear capability yet it contributed to a Pakistani bomb. The chances of Security Council membership in which the government had evinced a keen interest have been reduced. The "India-Pakistan balance" way of thinking has been further consolidated. The chances of military dominance over the Pakistan government have increased whereas India had a real interest in seeing a civilian government there. Most importantly, there's been a massive misdirection of funds away from economic needs and social priorities.

Sen points out that when he took up issues of women's welfare, he was accused in India of voicing "foreign concerns". "I was told Indian women don't think like that about equality. But I would like to argue that if they don't think like that they should be given a real opportunity to think like that." Yet for all his India-related angst, the economist is still an Indian citizen and votes when he has the opportunity. "There is an element of self-criticism in my critique of Indian social welfare. In fact, the responsibility for it lies as much with citizens as with the government."

"Amartya Sen," says sociologist and former colleague at the Delhi School of Economics Andre Beteille, "is a new breed of Indian for whom there is no contradiction between being Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, and a Bengali." Sen is as Indian as Salman Rushdie, Beteille adds, "a new category whom we have to get used to." "My difference," Sen says, "is with the fearful. Alarmists of different kinds have a shared concept of Indian culture as something flimsy and brittle. I believe in the robustness of our culture. We are able to be welcoming to new influences without losing what we value and what we have reason to treasure."