| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« the logical space of reasons | Main | The Real Wisdom of the Crowds »

January 31, 2013

A Conversation With: Sociologist Ashis Nandy

30-Nandy-IndiaInk-articleInline

Niharika Mandhana in the NYT's India Ink:

Ashis Nandy, an eminent Indian sociologist and political analyst, now finds himself in what he described as an “astonishing and ironic position,” in an interview Tuesday.

He has championed the rights of India’s lower castes and tribal groups for the better part of half a century, he said, but is now being accused of making remarks that some have cast as “anti-Dalit,” a reference to India’s lower castes, formerly known as “untouchables.”

Speaking last week at the Jaipur Literature Festival, an annual  gathering of writers, thinkers and commentators, Mr. Nandy acknowledged that what he was about to say was “undignified” and “vulgar,” but then said, “It is a fact that most of the corrupt come from the Other Backward Classes and Scheduled Castes, and increasingly the Scheduled Tribes. And as long as this is the case, the Indian republic will survive.”

(For our readers outside India, the Indian government classifies some of its citizens according to socioeconomic status, grouping them under the labels Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.)

His comments followed those of the journalist and editor Tarun Tejpal, who characterized corruption in India as a “class equalizer.”  Mr. Nandy’s statement was instantly picked up by television news channels, often in an abbreviated form, and many portrayed his words as a slur against lower castes.

“Ashis Nandy says OBC, SC, ST most corrupt,” the Press Trust of India reported.

After his comments were publicized, small demonstrations broke out in Jaipur, and a complaint against Mr. Nandy was filed with the police under a law that aims to prevent and punish crimes and atrocities committed against Scheduled Castes and Tribes.

India Ink spoke Mr. Nandy about the recent furor, the correlation between caste and corruption, and the state of free speech in India, at his New Delhi apartment on Tuesday as the 75-year-old waited to receive a warrant from the police for questioning.

Q. The current controversy arose as a result of a statement you made where you suggest that most of India’s corrupt belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. What did you mean when you said that?
A. That’s not what I wanted to say. That can’t be empirically supported, because there’s no real survey.

The point I was trying to make was this: if you remove all corruption from society, that’s good. But that will take decades. In the interim period, those who are on the brink of desperation, those who have been deprived of access to power for centuries, deserve to get a share of the loot. Their corruption is a sign of their empowerment and the growth of the Indian republic. In fact, it should be encouraged.

 

(Here, in Outlook India, you can find a transcript of his comments and a video of the session.)

Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:06 PM | Permalink

Comments

> Their corruption is a sign of their
> empowerment and the growth of the
> Indian republic. In fact, [corruption] should
> be encouraged.
Words fail me. Mr. Nandy's argument is riddled with mistakes. There is a ton of empirical evidence against Mr. Nandy. Corruption should not be encouraged. This is a bizarre argument that seems to be best described as 'an argument for argument's sake'.

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Jan 31, 2013 9:32:15 PM

Now, if Nandy had said something like this here paragraph below, it would start to make sense. This paper, by the way, runs some empirical analysis (using actual numbers) and ,sure enough, finds that "bureaucrats raise red tape to extract bribes" and, more importantly, that "corruption undermines the very purpose of regulation".

Citation below. This is an important paper that deserves wider circulation Hopefully, people can compare and contrast the robustness of the analysis and the usefulness of the conclusions between the paper's main text and Mr. Nandy's comments, which honestly seem much more like 'armchair speculation'.

> Some argue that such corruption is
> socially beneficial (Leff, 1964;
> Huntington, 1968; Lui 1985). For example,
> Huntington (1968) remarks that “[I]n terms
> of economic growth, the only thing worse
> than a society with a rigid, overcentralized,
> dishonest bureaucracy is one with a rigid,
> overcentralized, and honest bureaucracy.”
> Others argue that corruption is harmful for
> society (Myrdal 1968; Rose-Ackerman, 1978;
> Klitgaard, 1991; Shleifer and Vishny, 1993;
> Djankov et al., 2002). This disagreement
> is linked to differing views on which parts
> of regulation corruption circumvents.
> Does it allow the circumvention of
> the privately noxious, but socially
> unimportant components of regulation?
> For example, bribes may serve as “speed
> money” when there are administrative
> delays, moving those citizens with the
> highest willingness-to-pay to the front
> of the queue. If so, then corruption
> merely “greases the wheels” of
> the bureaucracy by cutting through red tape.

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Jan 31, 2013 9:45:21 PM

Citation :

Banerjee, Abhijit V., Mullainathan, Sendhil and Hanna, Rema, Corruption (March 13, 2012). MIT Department of Economics Working Paper No. 12-08; HKS Working Paper No. 12-023. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2022236 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2022236

Posted by: Anand Manikutty | Jan 31, 2013 9:46:44 PM

1. *yawn* What exactly is Nandy's contribution to any field? Is he just famous for being famous? (I really want to know, so any pointers will be much appreciated). Also, does anyone else think it curious that he speaks English like a semi literate Bengali clerk?

2. Can some one please stop Tarun Tejpal. How can anyone stand his blather?

3. @Anand: While Nandy's comments are "not even wrong", why would you use silly research by natural scientist wannabes (Banerjee's silly obsession with RCVTs for example)? The paper you linked to is as silly as Nandy's comments

4. I am amused to see the Indian intelligentsia get all worked up about Nandy's freedom to speak. Reminds me of Aaron Director's comment:


“Free speech is the only area where laissez-faire is still respectable.”
– Aaron Director

Posted by: Sundar | Feb 1, 2013 9:47:41 AM

One good observation by Nandy about caste is Bengal.

You would never know this by reading the Indian left media and newspapers, but the Communist party in Bengal is and has always been dominated by Brahmanas. I guess radical consciousness has not reached the other varnas.

Posted by: Sundar | Feb 1, 2013 10:05:08 AM


@Sundar

Interesting that the political leadership in West Bengal during the long dominance of CPI(M) consisted of upper class Hindus.

They were as corrupt as the ones before them. Some residents of Kolkata say that the current leadership might be "cleaner"". That, of course, is open to arguments.

For ordinary citizens without political connections who need to venture into the bureaucratic jungle, nothing has changed. Whether one deals with low level employees or “officers”, bribes open doors, get permits processed.

Sociologists can do their research and publish papers until the cows come home.
Corruption is endemic.

Posted by: waqnis | Feb 1, 2013 12:36:58 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Dr. Smith on Race Is Not Biology

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Sundar on Why race as a biological construct matters

Sundar on Race Is Not Biology

Joel Grant on Why Rational People Buy Into Conspiracy Theories

khaled on Evolution shapes new rules for ant behavior

musafir on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

araldo on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

JM on Physicists Create Quantum Link Between Photons That Don't Exist at the Same Time

SteveRR on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Grace on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Elatia Harris on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Abbas Raza on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Bill on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Louise Gordon on The need for critical science journalism

omar on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

Jonathan on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Bill on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

jo smith on Mohsin Hamid: 'Islam is not a monolith'

carlos on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

freddie on Daniel Dennett's seven tools for thinking

Eli on "Everybody Hurts" by Sachal Studios, Lahore, Pakistan

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed