Social Scientologist Dipankar Gupta's Advice For Gujarat Congress

This seems to be the season for celebrities to shower advice on the Congress party. In my previous post I tried understanding why ‘Shekhar Gupta is doctoring and nursing the Congress’. Rajdeep Sardesai in an article, “Insider, Outsider” laments  on Pranab Mukherjee never getting his due from the Congress because others have to be kept at bay. Another one, “Telling the wrong story” is what catches my attention though. It is written by Social Scientologist Dipankar Gupta. Alright, let me explain. This Gupta, a former professor with JNU, the coffee shop of communists, is supposedly a social scientist. My understanding was that social scientists do a lot of work on the ground with people on various issues to arrive at conclusions. But Social Scientologists in India are now a cult group that simply work on a pre-set body of beliefs and rituals created by fiction and fantasy. The supposed religion of Scientology is described as a body of beliefs and related practices created by science fiction and fantasy author L. Ron Hubbard. It would have been unheard of but for prominent celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta being its followers. Scientology is also a very very secretive cult. Therefore, rather than being referred to as scientists who deal with facts, the term scientologists is more appropriate for people like Dipankar Gupta who write largely with no first hand research. After all, FAITH, is the key.

So Dipankar Gupta (DG) is his article in TOI “Telling the wrong story” (Quotes in blue) wonders why the Congress isn’t telling the right story. He writes: “Is the Congress afraid of winning in Gujarat? Nothing else explains why it lets Narendra Modi tom-tom development when it should have been the Congress banging the drums. The economic achievements of governments before Modi's read like an award citation, but too much secularism has since led the Congress astray. Instead of showcasing its past performance to regain Gujarat, it is obsessed with nailing Modi as a communalist-in-chief. Naturally, it is not getting anywhere fast”. Interesting, “too much secularism”? I give that much to DG, secularism has almost become synonymous with anti-development. It has come to represent pandering and appeasement and nothing more.

After those opening lines DG then goes on to reel off a healthy dose of statistics to reveal why Gujarat was a poster-boy for development even before Modi. I quite agree and have always maintained that Gujarat has been economically progressive historically and traditionally. As a state it has done far better on most fronts than a huge majority of states in India even before Modi. DG only fails in his reasoning why Congress is unable to counter NaMo. That is because he fails to understand the people of Gujarat. The most important ingredient in political and electoral battles is the public. As a social scientologist DG has completely failed to read the minds of the Gujjus. That’s the reason all the statistics and economic indexes he uses become academic nonsense for a Congress revival.

The story of Congress in Gujarat cannot be written without a mention of its divisive politics in the state. The one theory that most epitomises its deeply divisive tactic that meant to divide a ‘secular’ society has to be the one by former CM Madhavsinh Solanki. His KHAM theory is as much a Secular laboratory as the Hindutva laboratory that Gujarat is often called. KHAM stands for Kshatriya, Harijan, Adivasi & Muslim. The Congress believed creating and strengthening such vote-banks would keep them in power for good. Well, vote-bank politics is a traditional tactic for the Congress. To support that tactic the Congress also sprinkled its strategy with an abundance of reservations and subsidies. Surprised? Well that is still the strategy in most states for the ‘secular’ parties. DG perhaps overlooks an important turning point in the history of Gujarat.

In 1985 the Madhavsinh Solanki announced reservation policies which resulted in agitations and riots throughout the state. These went on for months and then suddenly turned into communal riots. A majority of people believe that the Congress turned it into communal riots to deflect the reservations issue. The Hindus in Gujarat believed they were at the receiving end of all social mishaps. Reservations, communal riots, subsidies etc. These are emotive issues and not the statistical nonsense that DG reduces the discussion to. And he’s supposed to be a social scientologist!  If one Congress leader can be held singularly responsible for the party’s sinking in Gujarat, it has to be Madhavsinh Solanki. And what’s his reward? He gets to be a minister in the Central Govt. later on.

Now, having all along fought their elections on fake ‘secularism’, garibi-hatao, aam-aadmi, reservations, caste and community divisions, minorities appeasement, subsidies and so on can the Congress suddenly jump to ‘Development’ as an electoral strategy? I am surprised someone as educated as DG cannot see the irony. By his own logic Gujarat was already on a development path, what the Gujaratis didn’t want was the other nonsense that the Congress party fought elections on. Get that DG?

DG goes on to write: “Now that Gujarat's economy is all grown up and good-looking, the Congress should admit its responsibility and submit to a paternity test. What is there to hide? Hefty anti-saffron helpings, on their own, will not do. With a stomach full of that stuff, the Congress can hardly catch up with Modi. In fact, Jawaharlal Nehru taught us that secularism does not win elections, development does. Why then is the Congress doing its best to come second-best by gagging its record of the 1990s? In politics, as in sports, winning is not everything, it is the only thing”. Well DG you and other colleagues of yours in the social club and the media are the ones who brought the Congress to such a miserable shape. Peddling lies only helps so much. Fighting elections by calling Modi a mass murderer, calling him communal and anti-muslim does not resonate with Gujaratis. The Congress hoped to benefit by permanently tagging Modi with the 2002 riots and with the support of corrupt NGOs, social clubbers and the media hoped to win elections. A first start would be to admit that this strategy has failed.Another first would be to admit that Jawaharlal Nehru did to India what Congress has mostly done to Gujarat.

Another important aspect in politics and society is not just about being a minister, winning elections or about the Chief Minister. It is about leadership. I repeat what I wrote in a previous post: "What a leader does for followers is..turn anxiety into confidence. They’ve always done that throughout time and in every different society and situation. When leaders lead well, it’s because they’re able to rally people to a better future and make people spirited when they were previously anxious." This is what NaMo provided to a state in a time of severe strife and anxiety brought about by the 2001 earthquake followed by the 2002 riots. Maybe yes, he would have played a communal card since he is and will remain a politician. So why did the secular card repeatedly fail then?

Another important issue that DG overlooks is that the Congress now wants to campaign against NaMo on issues of corruption for the 2012 elections. Would you believe that DG? Where’s your advice on that? You might find a lot to hurl at Modi but corruption can be related to Modi as much as Sarah Palin sees Russia from her lawns. An issue that DG does not acknowledge is that if Gujarat managed to make giant strides under Modi it is actually because of absence of or negligible corruption in the system and elimination of the red tape.

Another wrong example that DG draws on is that of Dhirubhai Ambani: “Most recently, Mukesh Ambani praised Narendra Modi for putting Gujarat on the world map. He seems to have forgotten that his father, and Reliance, prospered in Gujarat well before Modi properly entered politics”. Dhirubhai’s success is in no way connected with Congress rule in Gujarat before Modi. Dhirubhai was a Gujju and his first venture in textiles was when Gujarat was still the Manchester of India. It is state where labour unrest was minimal. DG might like to know that once public giant IPCL used to proudly put up a sign at its entrance that said to the effect “Since inception no strikes at IPCL”.  Reliance is now a stake-holder in IPCL and it still doesn’t see strikes. If the Sardar Sarovar project was started much before Modi he is credited with speeding up the canals and bringing the Narmada water to various parts of Gujarat, including Ahmedabad. The dam is only half the achievement, bringing water to the parched cities and villages counts for a lot more. Much of Gujarat was drought-prone, that’s a situation laid to rest in a very large measure.

While his sympathy for the Congress may not be misplaced, social scientologists like DG sometimes use the most spurious arguments as logic. In a discussion with Rajdeep Sardesai on Subramanian Swamy’s controversial article in DNA and the subsequent petition for his dismissal by some Harvard constituents, this is what DG had to say: “If anybody goes to teach summer school in Harvard he is obviously not top of the pops”! Well, I reserve my opinion on the professors of JNU but if DG really wants to revive the Congress in Gujarat he must sacrifice scientology and embrace facts.

The Rajdeep Rehash

Just like Rahul Gandhi sees two Indias I believe there could also be two Rajdeep Sardesais. There is one Rajdeep who, in his privacy, is often in deep introspection and contemplation with great thoughts and the other on TV who often can’t string together a single coherent sentence without stuttering and stammering. The stuttering and stammering is not so much a speech handicap as it is the manner in which he handles or approaches issues. On 29^th July Rajdeep released his latest Friday blockbuster on his blog “When should a minister resign?” And then in the evening he decided it was to time to discuss Subramanian Swamy’s provocative article in DNA.

It’s a bit surprising that Rajdeep chose to discuss Swamy’s DNA article over two weeks after it was published. The reason? Some Harvard students and faculty members have petitioned for Swamy’s dismissal from Harvard University. Well, whatever else happens to Swamy at Harvard, it appears those petitioners are not quite aware of the First Amendment to the US constitution that guarantees free speech. Rajdeep is right in bringing up the issue on CNN-IBN but when he allows absolute trash to pass as expert opinion or analysis that is where is he is guilty of thoughtlessness and refuses to see idiocy when it happens right in front of him. Among the participants was Dipankar Gupta, supposedly a Sociologist,  and these were some statements he made to Rajdeep during the discussion on being asked if Swamy should be thrown out of Harvard:

“If anybody goes to teach summer school in Harvard he is obviously not top of the pops”! Well, for a sociologist that is supposed to be a hard argument against Swamy’s article I guess. I also assume Rajdeep and Dipankar aren’t aware that Swamy was in the Department of Economics at Harvard as a professor and the summer school teaching is the latter part of his career. Still, what that statement by Gupta has to do with the topic is a mystery. Rajdeep fails to read that. Gupta doesn’t stop there, he goes on to make another interesting observation: “Swamy has the right to his opinion but not the right to be published”! Can anyone explain that? And that too goes over Rajdeep’s head? Why? Because Dipankar Gupta is supposedly a “sociologist” with great skills at debate and those statements were his sound arguments against Swamy's article. We all get it!

And then Rajdeep Sardesai has the penchant for claiming “we exposed, we exposed, we exposed”! This, on the cash-for-votes scam. Anyone following events would know that CNN-IBN had actually suppressed the sting video which helped the UPA survive a no-confidence motion in July 2008. Now that the SC is hounding the Delhi police and the case is back in the news Rajdeep claims to have exposed the scam. Not only that he claims to have exposed 2G, CWG, Adarsh and so on. If this continues he would one day out-do Bollywood starlets in exposure.

That is the first Rajdeep. The second Rajdeep is one who thinks a lot more clearly when he retires to his privacy and is able to regain his presence of mind and think with greater clarity. Which could be the reason his blogs are so different from the personality on TV.

Still, his clarity of thought does not take away from the fact that his channel, and others too, do not possess adequate moral and ethical balance in their account to be lecturing politicians or common people. I decided to have some fun rewriting and rehashing his latest blog. So here goes: “When should a minister resign?” asks Rajdeep. (Quotes from his article are in blue)

Referring to the resignation of Shastri in 1956 owning moral responsibility for a rail accident, Rajdeep says: “That, of course, was a different age: a period when the notion of 'integrity' had genuine meaning, and was not the self-righteous proclamation it's been reduced to today.” How true! If back then there had been TV channels and they had captured something like the “Cash-for-votes” sting they wouldn’t have suppressed it. They would have put nation ahead of parochial considerations. Isn’t it funny to hear this guy talk about integrity?

The self-righteous lecture on moral science doesn’t end there, here’s more:

It is this growing public frustration with a tardy judicial process that has created the present environment in which a carnivorous media is playing, to quote a rather forlorn prime minister, "accuser, prosecutor and judge." The classic jurisprudential principle in which an accused was presumed to be innocent till proven guilty has been turned on its head. You are now guilty till you can prove your innocence. A television studio is now a cacophonous courtroom, and the news anchor (this columnist included) is often the ultimate judge. The result is that resignations can be forced if a sufficient amount of surround sound is created over a 'scam'.

You could take that para and put it in any article concerning the media. Well each time Rajdeep and his channel heap scorn on someone and carry out a media-lynch operation this would suggest he is a very different person on TV and an altogether different one when he introspects and writes his blog. Each time he sermonises – look inward, raise the standards of media and so on and even submits a meek confession by including himself in the crime. A sort of Dr.Heckle and Hype! Hitchcock would have loved this guy! And then he allows the likes of Dipankar Gupta to make the most stupid statements on his channel without countering it. That’s how you allow mindless lynching.

That done, he once again returns to his favourite principle : “Hammam mein sab nangein hain”, here he rephrases it for the netas:

The battle, in that sense, is now being fought in the peoples' court where perception matters more than legal niceties, a perception magnified by the 'sab neta chor hai' slogan. In normal times, an A Raja would not have had to step down on the basis of a CAG report. After all, CAG reports often 'indict' ministers and officials. But in the case of Raja, the report only confirmed the widespread suspicion of a deliberate misuse of the telecom ministry for personal benefit. Similarly, former CWG chief, Suresh Kalmadi was deemed guilty even before a chargesheet in the case because there was a general 'perception' that he had manipulated games contracts. By contrast, Delhi chief minister Sheila Dikshit stays on in office even after the Shunglu panel probing the Commonwealth Games scam indicted her government because she is 'perceived' to be an honest, hard working chief minister.

Here’s the truth: The biased media, including CNN-IBN, NDTV, Headlines Today chose not to make half the noise about Sheila Dikshit as they did about B. S. Yedyurappa. To their joy they also found a TV-hugging Lokayukta who simply loved frequent press conferences. This Lokayukta was discussing his report on mining even before actually releasing the report. I can't recollect Shunglu hugging and delighting the media with his reports. The public perception of media’s motive isn’t too hard to see as Rajdeep himself gets the feedback from various sources and responds through Twitter. The corrupt media is as brazen in promoting the cause of one party and a family as were Raja and Kalmadi in their actions.

Here’s some more:

The 'perception' factor in public life is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be a rough check of the system, forcing normally brazen politicians to resign under the sheer weight of public opinion. A Yeddyurappa may seek a Nobel Prize for fighting illegal mining, but once a crusading Lok Ayukta has charged him with corruption, he loses credibility. An Ashok Chavan could argue that he was forced to quit as Maharashtra chief minister over the Adarsh housing scam even before an FIR could be filed in the case, but the emotional quotient attached to Kargil war widows made him a political liability.

Now how does this rehash sound like?:

The 'perception' factor in public life is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it can be a rough check of the system, forcing normally brazen journalists to resign under the sheer weight of public opinion. A Barkha Dutt may seek a Nobel Prize for fighting imaginary communalists, but once a crusading Manu Joseph or Vinod Mehta has charged her with power-broking, she loses credibility. A Vir Sanghvi could argue that he was forced to quit as Hindustan Times ED over the Radiagate scam even before an FIR could be filed in the case, but the emotional quotient attached to paid news made him a media liability.

The words are exactly Rajdeep’s, I have just changed the name and causes. So how about applying it those who are peddling bias, untruths and covering up important news and issues? Not to forget, even employing fake tweets to back their own causes.

We aren’t done yet. Let’s take another para on this moral science sermon from Rajdeep and rehash it.

On the other hand, an uncontrolled war of words can lead to instant character assassination where lines get blurred between fact and allegation, truth and hype. Take the case of former union minister Shashi Tharoor. There was no legal charge against him, and yet, he was summarily removed on grounds of 'perceived' impropriety. That he had no real political base perhaps made him an even softer target. Contrast his situation with that of a Vilasrao Deshmukh who remains a cabinet minister even after having strictures passed against him in the Supreme Court. A Tharoor was 'dispensable'; a Deshmukh is a political heavyweight.

Here’s the rehash:

On the other hand, an uncontrolled war of words can lead to instant character assassination where lines get blurred between fact and allegation, truth and hype. Take the case of former CNN-IBN journalist Siddharth Gautam. There was no legal charge against him, and yet, he summarily quit on grounds of 'perceived' impropriety. That he had no real media-celebrity base perhaps made him an even softer target. Contrast his situation with that of a Rajdeep Sardesai who remains a Managing Editor even after suppressing the cash-for-votes video. A Gautam was 'dispensable'; a Sardesai is a celebrity heavyweight.

The story of the cash-for-votes sting and the subsequent events and suppression of the video by Rajdeep Sardesai is documented at India Today. I recommend reading it. The unfortunate experience of Siddharth Gautam, former CNN-IBN journalist involved in the sting op, is pretty well laid out in the article at India Today.

To his favourite line “Hammam mein…”, Rajdeep has now added another line “Sab neta chor hai”…. I have a suggestion of one more that he can add to his collection: “Muh me Ram, Bagal mein Churi”… Every once in a while Rajdeep’s conscience strikes, and trust me, I will be there to rehash it for him.