The murder of T. P. Chandrashekharan has been a much discussed topic in the current Kerala society. It has drawn unequivocal condemnation from a wide spectrum of society including laypersons, intellectuals and politicians. While the investigation is still on, a response attributed to V. R. Krishna Iyer in the course of an interview with him turned up in Facebook.
V. R. Krishna Iyer, for those of you who do not know, is a legal luminary par excellence. A pride of the Indian Judiciary, his concern for social justice reflected in his judgments at the various courts which he served including the Supreme Court of India. He had also been a minister of the CPI(M) government in Kerala in 1957. His writing on various issues, which regularly appear in The Hindu also reflects his nuanced understanding of law and were always impassioned appeals for social justice. I would say that he was someone who I looked forward to read. I might add that apart from his expertise in jurisprudence, he has an excellent command over the English language.
In an interview, he apparently said that "The realisation that CPI(M) was behind the murder of T. P. Chandrashekaran is saddening and if he had realised that this was politics, he would not have ventured into it." According to the report, he was overwhelmed with emotions when he said that. I shared this on Facebook with the following comment. "Unbelievable. Would a judge of his standing with his awareness of
history of the modern socialist movements and revolutions be surprised
at the alleged involvement of a Left Party in a political murder. At
best, they are tears of a remarkable naivete. Incredible."
I must admit I was angry when I commented like that. In fact, it was also a venting of a pent up anger at some of his articles which seemed to be in praise of the left wing politics and parties. I have always had a major problem with the left.
But coming to the question of what lies behind the anger and what explains my deep rooted dislike for the left wing ideas. (Not sure it is just the left.) Apart from my Christian upbringing (with inadequate exposure to Liberation Theology), exposure to Reader's Digest at a very young impressionable age, management education and a slightly privileged upbringing, what were the other factors. Or perhaps what was the world view that I developed based on these and other influences which made me so against the left. In spite of the fact that some of my best friends are of the left persuasion.
I think one of the key elements of the anti left world view, apart from a rejection of materialism, class war and the enthusiasm for revolution, is manifested as my natural tendency to defend the accused whoever it is. (It has been a source of much consternation to my friends that I tend to defend whoever is being accused. This disturbs them to no end as I seem to not have a stand on issues.)
The left has been some of the most vociferous critics of others in the world that I inhabit. It is often not just the 'system', but it is also the people who are part of the system that have been targeted. Also, they have always projected themselves as an alternative and have provided arguments to justify their positions. But going further, it is not just the left which I have had a problem with on this issue. Liberals, right wingers, left wingers and all those who have criticised what ever system that exists, personalised the criticism in their politics and projected themselves as an alternative have been major sources of discomfort for me. It might very well be impossible for any political agent to survive in a democratic polity without developing a critic of others and projecting themselves as an alternative. Therefore, it does seem to me that my dislike for criticism is inherently anti democratic. You can very well ask me whether am I not myself criticising people in this article. Good question. I hope to answer that one through this article as well.
Now coming to criticism and how I view it. Criticism of any kind requires an intellectual foundation. There has to be a system of rights and wrongs or at least appropriateness and inappropriateness. The development of this system in most progressive groupings require an assumption of this being possible, a particular understanding of human nature and the ability to be a slightly objective observer. One also has to justify ones stand in public in order to garner support for one's views. Inevitably this includes personalised criticism of particular sections of society and also individuals who belong to opposite camps. And this is where I have a problem.
I have generally been of the view that most systems or rights and wrong are themselves wrong or at best incomplete. They are simply incapable of addressing the complexities of human existence. In such a scenario, any system with the subsequent political action of its adherents will lead to judgments of self and others which are problematic. And as a person, I am yet to find the perfect ideology across the systems that I have been exposed to over the years. However, this does not seem to dissuade one category of people in continually attempting to do this. That is the progressive intellectuals. Their or the category's raison d'etre is perhaps this attempt. Their political action is premised on justification of the self, vilification of the other and power politics of varied kinds (electoral, violent, non violent action).
In my view, which is decidedly Bible inspired, I see all three as problems. Problems due to a belief in our ability to offer moral justifications that are free from error. And it cannot be argued that these are not claimed to be free from error for one does not see that caveat in operation in the political theatre. Going to the Jewish society of Jesus' times as per the Bible, this function of progressive intellectuals were performed by the Pharisees and the Saduccees. (I do not think that the pursuit of rationality and secular values by modern day progressive intellectuals make them different from the comparison with the Pharisees and Sadduccees. The conviction in the possibility of arriving at moral justifications which are perfect and actionable is what makes the two sets alike in my view.) It is worth noting that apart from the Pharisees and Sadduccees, the other major category of people in Bible were the Romans, businessmen and tax collectors and the commoners. The modern equivalents of these four would be the intellectuals, the state and its functionaries, entrepreneurs and the rest of society. It is safe to assume that it is the first three which are the drivers of action in society with the last being the driven mostly. It can also be noted that the thought leadership including justifications for systems of rights and wrongs are supplied the category of intellectuals. The remaining two of the first three are primarily playing within the systems of rights and wrongs for they do not generally develop extensive and society wide systems of rights and wrongs that govern all political, economic and cultural activity.
It is remarkable that Jesus sought to serve his strongest criticism for the Pharisees and Sadduccees. The criticism was not that they were murderers, robbers, were greedy, adulterers or any such thing. What he criticised strongly was their tendency for self justification. And the continual vilification of others. When Jesus narrates a parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector praying, this clearly comes out. The message is further reinforced by his sayings of justified by faith (not reason), seek ye first the kingdom of God, sinful nature of human beings and many more. It is from this understanding that he asks us to refrain from judging others, asks us to bow before God seeking forgiveness. The message is very clear from his side. When viewed in this light, one gets to see what is the problem with the intellectual activity of defining systems of rights and wrongs. One simply is not in a position to do that. (And yes, what the intellectuals inevitably do is propose a system of rights and wrongs not just explanations.)
Assuming this to be right, does this mean that no stances can be taken or that one cannot act. No. This claim is proved by none other than Gandhi and his politics. As Akeel Bilgrami argues in an insightful paper on Gandhi and his philosophy, the fundamental premise of Gandhian politics and philosophy is simply eschewing of criticism from his lips and heart and mind. ("His (Gandhi's) integrating thought is that violence owes to something as seemingly remote from it as this assumed theoretical connection between values and criticism. Take the wrong view of moral value and judgment, and you will inevitably encourage violence in society. There is no other way to understand his insistence that the satyagrahi has not eschewed violence until he has removed criticism from his lips and heart and mind." - Akeel Bilgrami).
This reading of Gandhi, which I agree to, convinces me that it is possible to act without justifying the self, vilifying the other and being violent.
Now coming to the issue of the murder referred to above, CPI(M) as a party and left wing intellectuals in general are known for their definitions of rights and wrongs. Therefore, the seeds of the murder of T. P. Chandrashekharan is sown in the fertile soil of the left wing ideology. It is surprising and disappointing that a person like V. R. Krishna Iyer could not see this.
It is not just the left winger, every ideology which relies on building a moral justification of themselves and their positions have an inherent violence in them. It is perhaps an inherent trait of human beings. However, it is possible to move away from this. This is amply demonstrated by the lives of people like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many others. It must be noted that these are people who have be accused of not being radical enough or for not having a political ideology that challenged the status quo. However, in the two names that I did write, one was shot dead, the other made the lives of millions a little better.
What I have outlined above is my tentative first steps towards building an idea of a Christian engagement with society.
