None left behind

Niche opinions of mass phenomena deserve a special hearing, now and then, and Ashis Nandy's opinions perhaps all the more so for their sheer expanse. Last year, he hit a note of marketing profundity in describing Coca-Cola as a statement of epistemology (the study of knowledge), not ontology (study of existence): gulp! Fromm someone given to casting brands as "pseudo-solidarities" for the "atomised individual", that was some admission.

Yet, that's not quite as provocative as a one-page essay he wrote some years ago on India's policy framework in Outlook: this book, Talking India, is in the form of an elongated exchange with Iran's Harvard-educated philosopher Ramin Jahanbegloo, but calls for urgency as a read because it has an elaboration of that very position""one of "Gandhian" dissent, as it were, against a cherished Nehruvian ideal integral to Indian nationhood.

Nandy proclaims his freedom of fixations at the very onset, through his analysis of ideology as a "psychological structure"""a defence mechanism of the mind, to his mind. Rational positivism and Western orientalism are some of the other mortal constructs that he subjects to the sharp edge of his formidable intellect, as also what may be called Rushdie-ism, though with a hint of motivational empathy.

This sets the stage for both, his big Gandhian proposition, that it's no use working in isolation of the larger social paradigm, and his big advocacy of recent times, that India turns duly assertive as a civilisation rather than nation-state. The former, he sees as "a conversation and a confrontation among cultures", with borders too fuzzy to be boxed in or sharply defined. The latter, merely as "a colonial imposition" of frail modernity that has found expression (often graphic) in a dusty ideology that militates with some success against the scientific positivism of benign hope only because both are flawed.

The challenge, to Nandy's mind, is to reduce the "cognitive dissonance" that arises from the Nehruvian modus operandi which has not only led to heavy-hand statism in almost every sphere of Indian life, but exposed the chink of insisting on scientific truth as non-negotiable while indulging a free-for-all in domains considered trivial.

In other words, he says, it's time to move towards a "post-secular world", a new sort of convivencia. And also why Tagore holds emotional appeal for him now, while it is Gandhi who holds intellectual appeal""a reversal of sorts. And also, perhaps most critically, why he must "trust the good sense of citizens and reject any idea of a vanguard".

On the whole, this book is coherent, even if slightly mind-boggling. To put it to one of those psychological "association" tests, what comes to mind is a sitar recital of some "khayal" or the other. Intriguing, enrapturing and even enlightening, but impactful chiefly in its suggestion of pragmatism.

The vanguard debate, though, reminds me of a surprise race held in school once: each house would have to dive into the pool for a swim across its length, jointly, with the last guy's timing taken to represent all 40-odd house members. We had some hydrophobes: guys who were too over-awed by the pool as an arbitrator of life and death to have ever learnt swimming. But at the sound of the "start" clapboard, without a moment's thought, we swimmers grabbed them, dove in and hauled them across. A few still haven't forgiven us, but none can claim it didn't give us something serious to reflect on.

TALKING INDIA
ASHIS NANDY IN CONVERSATION WITH RAMIN JAHANBEGLOO

Oxford University Press
Price: Rs 395;
Pages: xi + 150