JNU controversy shows the dangers of hyper-nationalism and McCarthyism: Ex-envoy Naresh Chandra

Naresh Chandra is a legendary figure Indian bureaucracy and has a tremendous reputation abroad. He has served as India’s ambassador to the United States, Governor of Gujarat, and as Cabinet Secretary. In this interview to Scroll.in, the grand old man of Indian bureaucracy speaks on the social unrest in the country, the heated debates over nationalism, the Jawaharlal Nehru University controversy, and the implications of this social unrest on India's image and standing abroad.

Do you think the social conflict and argumentation being witnessed over the last 19 months have acquired a worrying dimension?
It is worrying. This is because the entire debate is taking place in a surcharged atmosphere. The style of these debates is confrontational. Except for a few TV programmes that I have seen, the debate ends up in name-calling. I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that some of the anchors like to provoke participants. Some of them even go silent when two contenders begin to shout at each other. I am sure the professional in them knows the audience is getting nothing out of these debates other than a lot of screaming. I can’t figure out how these debates help anybody.

However, there are some who try to calm down participants and focus on the merits of the points they make. But to have a meaningful debate you need few participants. But they bring in 6,8, 10 people on their channels, and that makes no sense.

You are talking about the debate in the media. But what about the quality of the debate in public space other than what we are witnessing in the media?
Some very good articles have been written by senior journalists, jurists and professors. But much also depends on the reader’s attitude. Some writers have tried to articulate very fine points, but a layman might find it too subtle. There is also a tendency to see things in black and white.

Could you give an example of it?
For instance, there are people who believe in shouting and asking another group to demonstrate their nationalism. This doesn’t add to harmony.

But these debates wouldn’t have been happening without there being a conflict in the society.
There is a conflict.

What are the elements of this conflict?
This is also happening in most countries. Some people say these are troubled times and we are under the threat of extremism, based either on religion or ideology, and that there is a lot of violence. They also say the Army and security personnel are taking hits, and in such circumstances people should curb their free speech.

The other day I was watching a channel where saying anything in favour of tribals was deemed as anti-national, because CRPF constables had died. I can understand their feelings, but it can’t be that the tribals who are aggrieved have no case at all.

What is the solution? Are you going to annihilate all opposition or address their grievances? To reduce and manage social conflict, it is important to understand and address the causes of grievances [that people have]. The more you create infrastructure and jobs, the more likely the support that the extremists are deriving will go down.

In this scenario, those who highlight the problems and grievances of the vulnerable sections of the society, whether tribals or caste groups, can be misunderstood. This is because there is at times a very thin line between whether you are supporting extremists, or whipping up passions against the state, or you want it to work intelligently [to handle situations].

Social instability is inevitable to any society. What forms of social instability become problematic?
Problems get accentuated when people feel they are being victimised. Our electoral system is such that you can’t avoid political parties whipping up passions and trying to cash in on votes. They do this by telling social groups that they could have done better or are being discriminated against. This adds fuel to the fire, and enhances their sense of victimhood.

To an extent, I guess it is something you have to live with. But beyond a point it leads to divisiveness. If some people feel they are being exploited, then there has to be a class which is the exploiter. The division consequently gets accentuated. The fact is that those who are considered to be having it good are seen to not be mindful to the problems of the deprived.

There are old techniques to handle this grievance – for instance, philanthropy of the rich and establishment of charities to gain the goodwill of the community. This is now being done even in the corporate sector through CSR [corporate social responsibility] so that the industrial giant enjoys goodwill in the neighbourhood where it is located. This is a work in progress.

How do you compare the social tension we have witnessed over the last few months to some of the events in the past?
The degree of distress which people experience varies from country to country. In India, a lot of people are in distress. Whatever the state does, their needs are not going to be addressed for a long time. When you go on the growth path, there are some people who are going to benefit earlier than others. This is galling to all those who are behind the race. What happens that every time an election comes, the political parties feel that if they have to garner votes of the underprivileged, they have to show they are with them. In the process, they take to badmouthing those who are well-off.

Even today, everybody knows that the path to progress lies in creating jobs in the non-agricultural sector. But every political leader at every level is very afraid to be pro-industry. This leads them to make a very false presentation to the people. It is a kind of lie, which he has to utter time and again. He knows he has to encourage industrialization. Yet, at the same time, he is very careful that he is not seen as an industry-friendly person. That is because he would lose votes. This creates the impression among those who are out of jobs or are employed in agriculture that industry is their enemy.

I don’t know what prevents those in authority from telling people that Indian industry is in competition with that of other countries. If we are not competitive and don’t produce goods which are useful for everybody – whether it is soap, cement, fertiliser, or generation of power – then these goods would have to be imported. For instance, we are today importing stuff which could be mined and produced in India. We can send these to foreign countries also and ease the foreign exchange crisis.

But if you do that you would be seen to be helping the moneybags. If Indian industry doesn’t have the same kind of state support as their foreign competitors, then they would have had it. You can shout if you have an individual case of crony capitalism, but to force the finance minister of any government to say that he would be fairer to agriculture than industry is, I think, presenting a false picture. We don’t have to lie to the people time and again. Today, most of the people in India haven’t grasped the essential features of a growing economy.

In other words, what you are saying is that there is a lot of hypocrisy in Indian politics.
Whether the United State or Europe, a political leader is forced to be a hypocrite. This goes with the politician’s job.

Are you suggesting that economic distress underlies social tension and debates such as what is nationalism is just a smokescreen?
No, most countries have gone through this. Even the United States, which is seen to be a very liberal country, you still have debates like free choice versus pro-life. With all their liberal think-tanks and media, they haven’t been able to introduce a rational gun system. We are better in this respect. It is the price you pay for electoral politics based on lobbying etc.

There are dangers, however. In the United States, we had a gentleman called [Joseph] McCarthy, who was a senator. He went after many Americans who he thought were anti-America. This is what we remember now as McCarthyism. A lot of innocent people in different professions lost a lot in terms of their career and reputation. Ultimately, Americans rejected him and his theories.

We have to be very careful that our so-called nationalist fervour isn’t hijacked by goons. They don’t have anything to offer to the people, but they think they are great leaders just because they are talking about nationalism.

Are you referring to the JNU episode in Delhi?
It brings out clearly the dangers of hyper-nationalism and McCarthyism. I don’t know the facts of the case, and the courts will bring out what these were. But I must say I was quite impressed by the piece written by Apoorvanand. He has shown great heart by writing the piece, "Umar Khalid, my son" [in the Indian Express]. If such feelings are articulated seriously, it will help dissolve unnecessary hatred among communities.

Since you have also been Ambassador, how do you think the social unrest in India would be seen abroad? I mean not only the JNU controversy, but also love jihad, ghar wapsi, etc.
I think all these are putting India in a negative light. Some of the foreign journalists have a very sincere and professional attitude. Many of them whom I have interacted are very impressed with Indian democracy. But they are the people who are very difficult to deal with. It is easier to deal with an irresponsible critic as you can give it back to him or her. But when those who are friendly with India raise serious questions about India and its deficiencies, then it is very difficult to deal with.

We have to take foreign criticism in various ways. If we feel much of the criticism is plain propaganda to malign India, then you can hit back. But those who hold a mirror to real India, whether it is treatment of girl child, the attitude of elderly patriarchs who resort to all sorts of things to maintain their so-called social tradition and so on, and yet wreck public property and deny the Capital drinking water, then what do we say? I am quite surprised that these elders get away with murder and, that too, in the name of tradition.

The biggest joke is that if you read Sanatana Dharama scriptures – and I say this because there is no such thing as Hindu scripture – you find all the epics emphasise that tradition is not dharma. You can’t do adharma on the pretext of parampara [tradition].

The traditionalists have to go back to their scriptures. To justify [unethical] actions on the pretext that it is our tradition is a very hollow justification for social ills being perpetrated over generations.

The New York Times, Le Mode and the Guardian have written editorials criticising the handling of the JNU issue.
Senior civil servants, particularly those in the External Affairs Ministry and the Prime Minister’s Office, should realise that just by calling them foreign hand is not enough. Are we totally immune or do not care about public opinion abroad? The answer is no. If it is otherwise, then you might as well wind up the ministry of external affairs.

The point is, whether right or wrong, you have to present a reasonable, responsible picture. I recall some years back that there had been a move in the US Senate to put India on the blacklist when it came to child labour. This move was initiated before President Bill Clinton’s impending visit to India in 2000.

I tried to subvert this move. The point was that this issue was being directly handled by the White House. I had a very good minister [Ajay] Malhotra in the embassy. We went and persuaded the White House that our aims and objectives were the same. “Let us have a common programme to address the problem of child labour.”

It required evolving a common programme, joint monitoring of our kids. I came here and found a lot of resistance to the idea. Right up to the committee of secretaries, they said the government hadn’t accepted there was child labour in India. They were willing to have a backlist notification issued rather than to cooperate [on the basis of] so-called assumed sovereignty like “who’s the US to tell us what to do.”

I rang up Atalji, who was the prime minister then. [National Security Advisor] Brajesh Mishra called up the cabinet secretary and we had an agreement. These are the alternatives governments are faced with. Do you deal with an issue responsibly and professionally, or do you ride the high horse and speak of sovereignty and show your thumb? You lose [in case you opt for the second].

So is the social unrest unravelling the good work India has done abroad?
The Prime Minister [Narendra Modi] has done a very good job in projecting India abroad. But with all this happening, senior officials and those in authority have to figure out whether the good image the Prime Minister has created abroad is being diluted. A lot of effort has been put into his foreign tours and there is a greater awareness of India and what India stands for. But this negative publicity isn’t helpful. If we can address this by being more moderate and responsible, what is the harm? You can go on fighting and shouting at each other, but it doesn’t redound to India’s credit.

But a lot of people would say it is the BJP and the RSS who are stoking social unrest.
That allegation has been made openly. That too has to be addressed somehow.

Do you think the social unrest we are seeing will impact on India domestically, too?
It will, first of all, impact on election results. With so many elections coming, it is anybody’s guess how all these heated debates on various issues are going to play at the polling booth. Ultimately, election results will have an impact on the party’s thinking. That’s the feature of electoral politics.

Are there security implications for the social turmoil we are witnessing?
Not the entire country is in turmoil. There are cases where things seem to have gone out of hand – for instance, in Haryana, or violent activities in extremist-affected areas and nefarious cross-border activities through intrusion. They definitely create disturbances but these are not spread through the whole of India.

Do you think it is inevitable for a nation like India to be ideologically polarised?
Polarisation doesn’t have a single dimension. Polarisation is taking place over various issues. People say we are living in a multi-polar world (laughs), but a lot of issues get polarised between two states or between two regions of a state or between two communities living together. If conflict management is not good, then it is bound to lead to polarisation. This is precisely what has happened in JNU.

What elements of state craft are required to handle a diverse society such as India’s?
The important feature of administrative machinery at various levels is fair play. If sections of the community do not have the confidence that there would be fair play by the authority, the game becomes very, very complicated. First of all, therefore, people should believe that the SP and DM or whoever is the authority will play fair. It is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to govern India.

Second, the action which has to be taken in times of conflict should be under a continuous review and study. An attempt should be made through various influence wielders and opinion-makers to deal with the conflict. The use of force or administrative injunction should be the second option.

In the districts the SP and DM play together. Here in Delhi an overworked, harassed Police Commissioner can’t do it. If the [political] situation in Delhi would have been normal, then other officers of the Delhi government would have been used. But the Lieutenant Governor and the Delhi government are at loggerheads; the Delhi government and the Home Ministry are at loggerheads. So that alternative is not available. This is very, very disturbing.

But isn’t politics the reason why the LG and the Delhi government are not getting along?
It has been going on for one year. We are not seeing the end of the tunnel. It has complicated matters.

Isn’t it a paradox that for the first time we have a government which has a majority in the Lok Sabha, but this has in no way led to social stability?
You have to see what agenda is being pushed and its impact on different sections of the society. Wherever there is a lack of trust and people begin to suspect that there is a hidden agenda, the problem gets difficult to manage.

But the situation varies from state to state. There are some states like Tamil Nadu where officers hardly have any role. They are essentially file-pushers, do the bidding [of political masters], for which no thinking is required. This is what I have been told by bureaucrats serving in Tamil Nadu. They say it is a very difficult situation to be in, but also an easy one. They simply have to send the file up for the decision to be taken. Even if the city of Chennai gets flooded, you don’t have to take a decision but simply push the file up. Let the people drown, it doesn’t matter. In West Bengal you have another situation, and UP’s is very complex.

But the thing is that most state governments seem to have lost universal appeal. In the old days, when the chief minister would speak, everyone used to listen. Today, only his party is listening to him.

It is gradually happening at the national level.
It is something that has to be avoided. A chief minister is the chief minister of the whole state. A prime minister is the prime minister of the whole country. You must project a much wider appeal than that of being just a party leader. I think all parties have had this problem. You have a national party choosing its chief minister and, unfortunately, this has been largely unsuccessful.

The best example of this is UP. Every chief minister was seen as a toady. The same happened in Andhra Pradesh. You badmouth your chief minister you lose out. In UP, under Indira Gandhi, the chief minister was treated like dirt. The prime minister’s personal secretary could keep the chief minister waiting for hours in the verandah. What happened? The Congress had to pay a price for it.

You have to build the personality of the prime minister and the chief minister as leaders of all communities and receptive to all views, even those which run contrary to their party’s.

Is this what you mean by fair play?
Yes, governments shouldn’t be seen as partisan. If it is seen as partisan, then politics gets vitiated.

Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist in Delhi. His novel, The Hour Before Dawn, has as its backdrop the demolition of the Babri Masjid. It is available in bookstores.