Wisdom can be contagious

Nobel Laureate Economist-Philosopher Amartya Sen’s latest book The Idea of Justice takes on the conventional notion of justice, or more distinctively, the intrinsic idea and aspirations for a ‘just state with just institutions’. The 3rd Penguin Annual Lecture presented him at Nandan to elaborate on his idea. Among the ones yet to read the book, I took a remote seat at the theatre, certain and disquieted about the imminent breakdown of a hack-writer’s throttled reason before Prof. Sen’s sublime wisdom and gigantic mental faculty.

I don’t claim to have digested all of his speech. Sitting in the corner I beat my brain out to decipher many technical words and phrases, but a number of people in the theatre probably knew better. They did all they could to do justice to the lecture—snoozing, snoring, craning their necks back and forth to see if others are also sleeping, popping up and finally walking out the theatre. But that’s what most of the Nandan regulars have always been—of all places they find it most suitable for a quick nap and they always manage to get invites.

My coming through, however, didn’t warrant me complete immunity. I were to prepare a report on the lecture, but my laptop conked out after allowing the first two paragraphs to be written—giving out thin wisps of smoke. It couldn’t stand the barrack-room lawyer in me anymore.

I never expected the hard disk to recover. But disasters are hardly dodged if you are so destined—my laptop was returned intact, with the unfinished article right on the desktop, beckoning mischievously. Following few paragraphs bear the signature of my pilfered wisdom— they are from the recovered version, read them at your own peril.

The lecture, titled ‘Justice and India’ was built on two basic ideas. One: The approach to the ‘utopian’ standards of justice may not be the right way, as it focuses more on a perfectly just society than on reality with countless streaks of injustice. Put in simpler terms, it’s important to thrive towards achieving justice through a comparative study of multiple ways— and if need be, often keeping the ‘absolute solution’ off the mind. For, a given problem may have an ideal solution, but it can be infinitely difficult to achieve. As such, the right justice will be to pick up one among the many competing options—practicable and aimed at making things ‘less unjust’.

The analogy he used to elaborate is simple, even I could understand it. Da Vinci’s Monalisa may be considered the best painting in the world, but its mention is of little use while comparing the artworks of Nandalal Bose and Amrita Shergil. The challenge, he argues, also lies in prioritising issues demanding immediate justice. He wondered how issues like Indo-US nuclear treaty or land acquisition often get highlighted when more pressing concerns like poverty, child malnourishment or gender inequality cry for attention.

The second idea he presented is the need to involve ‘reasoned’ public debate in the making of justice. Open and spontaneous debates, he believes, bring up more and more competitive options towards a solution. However, it’s important that the people taking part in the debate or the majority of them are not bigots and their voices are not constricted.

Sen’s moments with Barkha Dutt of NDTV came to be more enjoyable. Less serious and more energetic, their lively televised chat touched upon pivotal points of his lecture. But the credit goes to Barkha’s nonchalant way of quizzing. She is a rare type who doesn’t like her subject to cue her, no matter how big a name he or she is.

So came this question: After the Babri Masjid demolition in 1992, there was a major upheaval in people’s opinions and views about politics and its communal undertones, which, debatably, paved the way for the RSS controlled BJP to power in 1998. Again, the Gujarat communal violence after the Godhra carnage, allegedly cockered by the state’s then CM Narendra Modi, aspired to make a national level firebrand Hindu leader of him. Both the incidents saw considerable public debate and media attention, which, no doubt, influenced the poll results in favour of BJP and the political mileage Modi earned. Seen in the light of Sen’s theory, one can always argue if people’s reflection on these cases had lost direction. Can they be termed proper cases of justice?

Sen’s fascinating answer came immediately. It’s so surprising that he finds answers to all tricky questions so fast even at this age. He argued though the Babri Masjid incident helped the BJP earn the PM’s chair, it slapped a strong communal tag on it at the same time—which the party leadership couldn’t get rid of. This tag, nurtured by people’s debate and criticism mustered enough strength to oust the party from power in 2004. The similar tag that Modi earned often came in the pursuit of his national dreams. The best result of public participation in justice may not be immediately visible, but given enough time and liberty to flourish it can reach its goals.

This tickled up the poor faculties in even a lesser mortal like me. The feel, magnificent and strong, had me for some time. Even now it slowly possesses me as I am getting ready to express it. There have always been two schools of thought about Mamata Banerjee’s agitation at Singur that drove the Tata Nano project out of this state. The one that’s not apparently bothered by the shabby state of industries and employment in WB gained dominance and eventually influenced her resounding success in the last elections. But is there any chance of a resurgence of the dormant opinion in future, like what happened with BJP in 2004?

Mamata Banerjee wasn’t among the attendees. These days she is busy hobnobbing with the business community who were her fierce critic till the last elections. She looks keen on doing things not just now, but immediately. But it’s a wonder how politicians easily get at wisdoms academics spend years researching on.