YouTube Transcript:
A Call for an Indian Political Theory — Yogendra Yadav | JNU Lecture Series

Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.

AutoDub

Understand YouTube Foreign Videos

Immersive YouTube Voice Translation

Break language barriers, embrace global quality content

Solve Foreign Video Barriers Instantly

Video Transcript

Video Summary

Summary

Core Theme

The speaker argues for the urgent need to develop an "Indian political theory" that is grounded in India's unique experiences and challenges, rather than merely applying Western frameworks. This endeavor is presented as crucial for understanding and reclaiming the nation's democratic republic amidst its current dismantling.

Mind Map

Click to expand

Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate

Thanks for this uh honor.

honor.

Thanks for keeping the introduction

mercifully short

because in India the tradition is to

give long introductions.

Uh I'm grateful that you kept it very

short and the operational line in that

introduction is political activist.

That's what I am. I'm no longer a

scholar. I'm certainly not an academic.

Uh I used to be one and I'm happy to be

a political activist.

Uh which is the vantage point from which

I wish to speak today.

I'm particularly happy

happy

that I'm back in an institution where I studied

studied 198183.

198183.

I was a student like many of you of

center for political studies. Uh I did

my masters from here.

I must confess that for nearly two and a

half decades almost for three decades I

was somewhat indifferent to my JNU legacy

legacy

and was awkward if not embarrassed about

my JNU connections

till the assault on JNU began a few

years ago

and uh I'm very happy to say that once

that assault on JNU began

intellectual assault

political assault and the physical

assault on JNU.

I rediscovered my attachment with JNU

and almost began to feel proud of being

a JNU, a word that I had never used in

my life before.

I'm very

proud that students have started this

lecture series not the universities not

the authorities not that I have anything

against the authorities

in this context

uh but because JNU has had the tradition

of studentled initiatives the election

commission of JNU was not formed by any

political by any authority students

would create their own election

commission which would hold elections

students decided who to invite, who not

to invite to speak. The post-dinner

talks which have sadly become rare or

almost non-existent.

Uh I'm so happy that you are reclaiming

that space of studentled discussions,

debates which are open. Uh and I'm

therefore I must compliment all of you

who've been behind this initiative.

As many of you are from CPS,

I cannot but recall

some of my teachers who are no more.

Many of you may not have heard about

them. Professor Rashiduin Khan,

Professor CP Bambri,

Professor India Zahmed, Professor Kiran

Sakena, they are no more in this world.

But today when I speak, I must remember

them and what I learned from them.

I should also begin by recalling some of

my teachers. I won't bore you with the

entire list of all the teachers but some

who were directly involved in imparting

me thinking about political theory. what

I wish to speak today uh specifically

professor Sudita Kavirj and professor

Rajiv Parkov who are not in this room

but very much around to guide us who really

taught me how to think and even today

I feel grateful for what I learned.

I may disagree with some of what they

have said.

I may criticize them but I cannot but

recall how much their thinking has

Without any more prefetary remarks I'll

straight come to the topic of what I

have chosen to speak today.

And I must also thank the organizers

once again for allowing me to speak on

what I wanted to speak rather than what

they wanted me to speak on.

which is a call for an Indian political theory.

theory.

Now the very title itself

implies five propositions.

Number one that there is something

called Indian political theory.

Otherwise, why would there be a call?

Number two, that this is not just a

description. It is something desirable.

Otherwise, why would you give a call?

That number three that this does not

exist right now. At least not in the way

that it should. If it existed, there's

no need to give a call for something

that already exists. Number four that

this is realizable

that there is a way of moving towards it.

it.

You don't give call for impossible

things. And finally that this must be

our collective priority.

Hence the call the sense of urgency

priority about it.

All this is in a sense written into the

subject itself.

That's what I'm going to do this afternoon.

afternoon.

I'll break what I'm going to say in

exactly these five parts.

Part one, what is Indian political

theory? I'll begin by saying what it is

not, distinguish it from many namesakes

and what qualifies to be an Indian

political theory. I'm not going to give

a very heavy complex or unique

definition. I want to work with common sense.

sense.

In part two then I'll transit to why do

we need an Indian political theory begin

by saying something about why do we need

theory at all and why do we need a

theory with an Indian suffix

part three

I will get into do we already have a

body of thought that can be called

Indian political theory in large measure

if not entirely does it already exist

My disquite with what passes for

political theory in the Indian academia

is what I would focus on and offer some

thing about what would constitute

political theory Indian political theory

in the sense in which I call it. In part four,

four,

I'll say something about what is the way forward.

forward.

I don't want to give just a vague

abstract call. I want to break it down

into smaller bits of doables. How do we

go about creating political Indian

political theory? I'll give some

concrete proposals about reorienting the

discipline, the curricula and the

research about our priorities.

And I'll conclude by saying something

about why this is such an urgent task in

the face of the dismantling of our

republic today.

That's the political bit. But I'll keep

But before I get into part one,

let me begin by clarifying

that I'm not a political theorist.

I don't pretend to be one.

Yes, when I was a student of uh CPS,

I did think of myself as a political

theorist was trained into one and for

the first

almost 10 years of my academic career. I

practiced what is recognized as

political theory

namely to write about philosophy of

social science. My first paper was on

positivism and hermenitics.

uh was uh another one was on Makuz Ki

was interested then in Quentin Skinner

in theories of interpretation. Fuko and

Dida had just arrived on the Indian

academic scene. Gshi was the real passion

passion

and I made myself believe that I was

uh doing political theory

partly because it was the done thing.

You know so many of us do things because

it's the done thing because everyone

else is doing this and especially in the

CPS somehow the assumption was that if

you had good grades then you did

political theory. My friend Gopal Guru

once called it the theoretical brahinss

and the empirical sudras.

Uh that I think was largely true at

least in those days. If you were smart,

you did political theory.

And if you had nothing else to do, you

did public administration and

international relations. I I do not for

a minute agree with that. I'm just

describing what was the common

understanding at that time and why

people like me just sort of drifted

towards doing what we considered was

This is when

1989 happened.

The Ratiatra then

then

came Mundal market

Indian politics

and indeed the world politics USSR collapsed.

collapsed.

Everything was changing

and I asked myself

how do I make sense of the changes that

I see around myself

and frankly I did not find my political

theory being of much help.

So much to the astonishment

and disappointment of many of my

professional colleagues who still remind

trying to make sense of Indian politics

which led me to election studies and so

on. I'm saying all this just to

underline two things. Number one, I'm

I'm basically a consumer of political

theory and I speak here just as a

consumer. Someone who reads these

things, someone who needs it, and

disquite with a phone, just as you can

express unhappiness with a software that

you are using, you don't have to be a

software engineer in order to say

something is wrong with that software.

It doesn't work. It doesn't do what I

expect it to do.

So I speak from a similar status not as

a political theorist I don't speak as an insider

insider

at best an informed consumer

and secondly I say all this to underline

the fact that this is not meant to be a

critique of my colleagues who do

political theory

it is as much a self-critique

uh as it is a critique of others

uh it is as much a critique of my own

academic career when I was doing study

of Indian politics not merely when I was

formerly a political theorist

but also when I was doing election

studies when I was doing research survey

methods and so on

much of the critique that I'm going to

offer applies to me equally as it does

to others so it's not just a critique

directed at others it's as much a self critique

With this preface,

let me start with part one of what is

Indian political theory.

I will deliberately, as I said, I'm a

consumer. So, I have very little

interest in the scholarly debates about

political theory versus political

thought versus political philosophy

versus political ideology.

These may be relevant distinctions. I do

For me the important thing is

simply answering three questions. For me

the enterprise of political theory is

about answering three questions for me.

Number one,

where do we stand today?

Number two, where do we want to go?

Number three, how do we go from where we

are to where we wish to go? Simple.

Simple.

That would be my enterprise today.

So much of discussion on political

theory hangs so much up in the air and

we are so terrified by it all the time.

Political theory is almost a another

name for intellectual atajar that

happens all over that my attempt would

be to bring it down closer to who we are

closer to what we do in our lives and so

on as I said I'm a consumer so you know

So I'm interested in these three things.

What do these three things involve?

Where do we stand today is a question of

explanatory and causal political theory.

This is about establishing cause effect

relations. This is about understanding

the big picture. This is about

uh a certain condensing of our political experience.

experience.

Where do we want to go is a normative

political theory. What is good? What is

worth doing? What should we what kind of

an ideal society should we be moving

towards? That's your entire political

philosophy that Rajiv Bargo specializes in.

in.

Third is how do we go from where we are?

That's a prescriptive part. A part that

we've almost forgotten. We don't even

think this is what political theorist

should do.

Now for me Indian political theor theory

is simply answering these qu three

questions for contemporary India.

Any attempt to answer these three in

today's context for contemporary Indian

politics would count for Indian

political theory. No more, no less, no

need for mystique, no need for feticization.

feticization.

Going by this very elementary

definition, later on I'll keep adding a

few things to it. Going by this

elementary education,

what political theory is not. Indian

political theory is not

political theory done by an Indian is

not necessarily Indian political theory

because so much of what

people of Indian origin in India or

abroad do in political theory there's

very little Indian content to it

so it's not dependent on who does it equally

Political theory done in India or in

Indian institutions is not necessarily

The political theory that is practiced

in an Indian institution that could be

JNU that could be DU that could be wherever

wherever

that does not by itself become an Indian

Western political thought applied to India

India

does not become Indian political theory.

An Indian political theory

has to make sense of India, make sense

of the Indian experience,

make sense of

Its origins are of hardly of any consequence.

consequence.

The person could be sitting in New York

and doing Indian political theory.

Someone could be do sitting in Delhi and

doing political theory that has nothing

I will add I will spell out a little more

of what it means to be to do Indian

political theory but not right now.

Right now I'll start with something as

elementary as that

and move on to the second question of

why do we need Indian political theory.

I must confess that I had in my

intellectual journey reached this stage

when I had almost switched off from

political theory or from theorization altogether

altogether

because so much of what passed for theorization

theorization

looked like just jumble of words which

had no meaning which had no power which

had no explanatory significance for me.

But that was clearly an overreaction to

the feticization of theory that goes

along. But theory is something.

But we do need theory.

So when I say I'm a political activist,

this is not to deride theory. This is

not to say well we can do without

theory. Let's do practice. There is no

point of theory. No, that that's that's

is simple nonsense because every practice

practice

has an unstated or stated theory built

into it. You know, you may be able to

articulate it, you may not be able to

articulate it, but there is a theory

that informs any practice.

So theory is important

and theory is something that all of us

do all the time in more or less

conscious, more or less systematic or

more or less successful ways.

All of us are engaging in that exercise. So

I'm a woman.

I experience strange behavior from men.

I experience

things that I

don't like.

I find some men who are otherwise I mean

in my family, my father, my brother who

are otherwise very nice human beings

doing things that I just I feel uneasy about.

about. Then

Then

I come across this word called patriarchy.

patriarchy.

Suddenly things fall in place. I can

connect so many things. I can make sense

of it. I can understand that men need

not be villains in order to do things

which are obnoxious.

So this one word, this one bit of theory

begins to give sense, make sense of so

Yadavabs of Hana where I come from.

I used to wonder why is it that my Nani

and my daddyi

had core in their name. Anar core and

praash core was the name.

I could never relate. We are not six.

Why this core is there in their names

and why everyone carries a sing in their

name in you know in my in the generation

of my father

and when people said you are an OBC I

said yes but no I don't know there's

something different it's not quite an

OBC not quite a backward class and when

I came to JNU

uh and when I encountered Bihar for the

huh Sharif

Sharif

they couldn't relate this they found it

very odd to you know they probably

expected me to carry a latti or

something in JNU or something

till I encountered this word Sanskritization

Sanskritization the theory suddenly made

sense of so much of my experience and

then I discovered that actually the

original research article of

sanskritization was written on yadavs of

south harana.

This is what a theory does. A theory suddenly

suddenly

enables you to put so much of your

discrete experience, discrete,

contradictory, scattered experience into

a whole, something you suddenly begin to

make sense of.

That's why we need theory. This is the

power of theory.

It's like it's like getting a map of the

city or the town or the village that

you've always lived in. Try doing that.

You try searching your village on a

Google map. Suddenly you get a different

experience. Acha. Oh acha. This is so

small. I always thought this is bigger.

Aa this distance is not too much. You

know uh in my childhood the school that

I went to which looked so distant

because I would cycle to that school.

Then I googled my town and I looked at

the map and I say oh my god it's 1.2 2

kilometers. I thought it was a huge

distance. So, so you know, so this is so

theory is a window. Theory is a map.

Theory is something that

establishes condenses our experience.

Theory is something that enables us to

see, to say, to do things that we would

otherwise not be able to see, say, or do.

do.

Please also remember never forget that

while theory enables us to see things, a

theory always makes us unsee things.

The best of theory

it suddenly says of all this experience

that you have this bit is important.

This is unimportant. Don't pay too much

attention to it. This is a distraction.

This is a minor thing theory. So part of

the process of being able to see is the

process of unseeing.

So for years, for decades, a certain

kind of Marxist theory would not allow

Marxist scholars to see something that

they experienced on a daily basis in

their life, namely cast.

This is something they encountered every

single day. And yet the theory made them

unsee that part. So that's the danger of

theory. It is so powerful.

It makes us see things which we could

not see otherwise. It makes us unsee

things that may be right in front of our eyes.

Now

mark of a good theory to my mind is its

ability to provide us understanding.

A good theory is like a good piece of poetry.

poetry.

You read it and you say, "Ah, that's

what I wanted to say.

I didn't have the words. This man has

the words, but it was there."

A good theory

enables you to make sense of the world

that you are moving in. It gives you a

provides you with a certain ease in your practice.

practice.

Please remember theory is no guarantee

of good practice.

That's not what theory is meant to do.

But when you fail, a good theory can

tell you why you failed. It is no

guarant the crude idea that a good

theory would lead to good practice.

That's not always the case. And we

should not burden a theory with doing

those kind of stuff. But clarifying is

And the trouble as I said it can make us

unsee things

and I always use the example of uh

because we are in Ju. So we go to Munka.

There are three things we can do if we

are walking in Munka. One is to walk in

Monerka without a map, which is all

right. We do it all the time. We sort of

find our way. We make a few mistakes. We

get it.

Second would be a lovely thing. When we

walk in Monka with a map of Monilka,

we would be faster, smarter, and so on.

But imagine a third thing. Walking in

Monila with a map of Manhattan, New York,

York,

and trying to identify buildings.

What does that do to you? It's not as

ridiculous as you think it is. I mean,

it is ridiculous, but it's not as

uncommon as you think it is.

I would like to insinuate

that so much of what passes for

political theory is actually that

trying to walk in Monka with a map of Manhattan.

Manhattan.

And that's why a bad theory, an

inappropriate theory

can leave us in a situation worse than

walking without a map. You would be much

better off without a map

because a theory can confuse, can

That's what brings me to my point. Why

do we need political theory with an

Indian suffix?

simply because political theory is

I'm almost tempted to say there is

nothing called political the political theory

theory because

because

what is called political theory

has written in invisible parenthesis.

West is written in that

what is called social. It applies to

social theory as well and we forget to

use the word west which is inscribed in

so when I say that we need Indian

political theory and when I insist on

that Indian suffix,

it is not because I believe that there's

something unique about India or we are

vishurus Indian political theory should

then tell Nigerians about how to lead

their life, tell Indonesians or tell

Afghans. No, I have no such uh strange

ideas in my mind. And not just because

we are one sixth of humanity you know

that by itself doesn't give us a title

to reach the remaining 56th.

I insist on this Indian suffix because

which is not to say that other journeys

are not unique. If I was standing in

Pakistan today I would have probably

said the same things. If I was standing

in Brazil today, I would have probably

said the same things. We are not

reliving the past or present of Europe.

The Indian case is even more exceptional.

exceptional.

The case of Indian democracy,

the case of Indian politics

is even more exceptional than the usual

cases of the I mean everyone is unique

but we are unique in a unique way to put

it differently

because Indian democracy succeeded

succeeded

when global theory told us it will not succeed

succeed

and it collapsed.

when no theory told us that it might collapse.

collapse.

So just for this reason we appear to be

rather unique. Now when I say unique I

do not mean to say that we are that that

our uniqueness lies in our past only

uh because you know often we can

misunderstand our uniqueness especially

in the present political dispensation.

Every uniqueness is understood in terms

of every you know in terms of glory in

terms of being higher than others. I

I do not mean for a minute to deny

that a substantial part of our political

experience today is drawn from institutions

institutions

and practices that originated in Europe

and America.

that our constitution and many of our

practices things like political parties

I mean so much of our constitutional

structure which is straight away taken

from a European experience

we are not reliving the experience of

Chandra Gupta Maria or Akbar for that matter

matter

so I do not mean to deny for a moment

the modernity of our experience

But modernity

as we now know fully well is not the

name of a single trajectory.

Modernity itself is the name of multiple

trajectories, multiple unique trajectories.

trajectories.

Ours is one of them.

So we need Indian political theory because

because

it must because there is a certain

uniqueness to our experience

and every political theory in every part

of the world must do justice to that uniqueness.

uniqueness.

There is a generality

of our experience. But we would arrive

at that generality only by recognizing

that unique specificity of our

experience. And for far too long that

unique specificity has been forgotten, denied

denied

So we move on to the question of do we

already have a body of thought that can

It's an awkward question

given where I speak

but I must choose honesty over politeness.

And the simple answer is no. We don't

I do not mean to say

that India has never had the tradition

of political theorizing.

I do not mean to say that India has not

had great people who think about politics.

politics.

All I'm all I'm saying is that what

passes for political theory in India,

Indian academia today is not something

that can or should be called Indian

political theory.

Why do I say so? I say so because

India actually has had a very rich

tradition of thinking about modern

politics. And I'm not speaking of

ancient India. I'm not speaking of

medieval India. I'm just speaking of

very modern India.

For nearly 100 years, we have had one of

the richest traditions of thinking about

modern politics. This is modern Indian

political thought. Call it the

nationalist thought, call it by any

name. So roughly from the middle of 19th

century to roughly the middle of 20th century,

century,

we have had

such a rich tradition

of thinking. There was nothing. There

was no major ideology in the world that

was not reflected in India, that was not

And suddenly something happens after independence

independence

Borrowing

something for another scholar, I call it

the sudden death of modern Indian

political thought.

this great vibrant tradition of thinking

about politics

suddenly dries up. So it's like a uh you

know you must you may have seen rivers

when you create a dam

and it's always a exciting and tragic

experience to drive along the river

which is flowing then comes a dam lovely

modern dam then you drive after and you

suddenly feel there's no water

something of that kind happened in India

in 1960s postindependence

I have written something about it,

proposed to write more about it. But

let's for the time being just call it

the sudden death of modern Indian

political thought.

That is a moment when political theory

makes a transition

because all these great thinkers for

those 100 years are activists.

They are leaders. They are engaged in

politics. These are practitioners of

politics who are reflecting on politics.

that tradition suddenly comes to an end

and the business and the job of

theorizing about politics is given to

university professors

beating about the bush I would say that

the transfer of polit the transfer of

the task of political theory from

practitioners to university based

academics has been this has been an

unmitigated disaster for India. Suddenly

Suddenly

everything changes. Suddenly our

political theory is so weak, so emaciated,

emaciated,

so completely

dependent and so completely cut off from

the lived experience of politics.

Sometimes I call it since many of you

are students of political science. I

keep joking and saying you know in in my

school in childhood the word science I

mean you would remember you come from

the same institution

uh the word science was called sans science

science

that's a very punjabi way of saying the sans

sans

so political science and political sans

which is to say political sense have

diverged in this country

there is political there's a political

science and academic discipline

and there is a sense of politics

and now that I have one foot in both the worlds

worlds

I can tell you there's actually very

little connect between the two

political science and political sense do

not speak to each other

and the problem is not with political

sense the problem is those who claim to

have a science of politics.

That's where the real problem lies.

There are all kinds of sociological

reasons for that. There's disconnect of

the academia from society. Suddenly

these university based academics come

up. Universities have very little

connect with the world outside largely

because of the language issues and all

kinds of other issues. There is

two things happen simultaneously.

Those who are theorizing about politics,

that is to say professors based in academia

academia

are at the same time cut off from

practice of politics

and integrated with global academia.

Both things happen at the same time. One

disconnect and one connect.

This changes the shape of political

theory in India.

In the 100 years of modern Indian

political thought, right or wrong,

political theory is responding to needs

of political practice.

And they could be wrong. I mean, I'm not

saying they were right. Some of them

were completely wrong-headed. Some of

them were advocating things that I would

find obnoxious.

But they were all responding to

something that was happening in reality.

They were engaged.

They were aware of what was happening in

the world. Most of them were aware

but they would receive it with a filter

which was their own filter. The filter

of their own lived experience.

What happens after 60s in this shift

from modern Indian political thought to

the formal academic political theory

is that

this two and fro with political practice

on the ground

is nearly gone

and the filter which enabled them to say

well this you know this may be the

trendy thing in the west but I won't

take it it makes little sense to

that is gone. So what we then have is

actually a

uh a word you would understand which is

a derivative discourse

which is to say

if something is being taught in Harvard

or Colombia today I more or less know

uh I don't need to know what's actually

happening in the society. So it's it's

it's a certain trade of ideas. It's a

certain important sort of it's a

derivative relationship of ideas that begins.

begins.

It has to do with cast profile and

cultural background of our academia

which has been extremely lopsided.

All these things put together I don't

want to do a detailed sociological

analysis of why it went wrong.

But what happened

is that

much of what passes for political theory

in our country

and this I'm speaking of the mainstream

stuff. I'll say something about the

exceptions later. There are exceptions

and I would say something about them.

But what passes for political theory

is actually two or three kinds of things.

things.

One is what my teacher professor Kavir

used to say. He you know he made a nice

Bengali distinction between theory kora

or theory galpoora.

Doing theory and telling stories about

theory. Gulpo is not gap in Bengali.

Gulpo is story. So they say he said he

used to say there's a distinction

between doing theory and telling stories

about theory.

So when I write a brilliant article on hemas,

hemas,

I'm not doing theory. Please don't

mistake it. There's nothing theoretical

about it. Heber says this, Hebermas

thinks that is no different from

a shoe maker in Aaria who thinks this,

who thinks that. As an anthropologist, I

can go and report all that. These are

stories about these are sophisticated

theory. Hembas is clearly a far more

sophisticated thinker. But reporting on

what Hebermas thinks is not a

theoretical enterprise.

You can say it's intellectual history,

intellectual history of the present. So

much of what is called political theory

in our country is actually simply

telling stories.

Sometimes coherent, sometimes not so

coherent. Stories about someone else's theory.

theory.

And who are these someone else? These

are the top names of whatever happens to

be in whatever happens to be trendy and

acceptable in western academia at that

particular point.

For the last 40 years, I've seen this game.

like those clothes have nothing to do

with our

climate. Similarly, that theory has

nothing to do with our political reality.

Theory

I see that happening all the time.

I wanted to say it. I'm sorry if it hurts.

hurts.

I see people coming from my town

Ganganagar. Then they come to JNU,

then they pick a lingo and that lingo is

all about dropping names

and impressing someone.

I don't know who's being impressed.

After some time they also realize that

one should be impressed. If someone says

heel, if someone says uh you know

whatever is the latest derida or whatever.

whatever.

So it's it's a little game that we are

playing with each other.

We learn to drop those names and we

learn to be impressed if someone else

drops those names.

Does it improve our understanding?

Does it enable us to see the world we

live in with some clarity?

I don't think we use that criteria anymore.

anymore.

So theory that's what I call

intellectual you know it's not emotional

it's intellectual you know theory as big

names complex words what I called

politics till yesterday I'll call the

so it's finding new words for something

that everyone has known and used all

This is a standard psychological

problem. But that's no theory. I I I

mentioned examples of good theory. You

know, a good theory suddenly gives you a

that's what theory should do. It should

not frighten you. If theory frightens

you, something is wrong with that. or

theory as a language of power

so much of what passes for theory is

just English and nothing else you take

English out of it translate that into

bhjpuri translate that into my hindi

translate that into telu or tamil tell

someone this is what's being said he

So it's just the power of English language

language

which masquerades as theory.

Now these as I said are I I did want to

talk about these things not because

these are the best examples. There are

exceptions. There are people who've done

wonderful work. Uh and uh this is not

what every Indian political theorist

falls in. But I did want to say

that an overwhelming majority of what is

called theory, our experience of doing

theory, receiving theory, being

frightened by it, etc. falls in one of

these categories. Theory as story,

theory as social capital, theory as

having said this, I must say

there are very significant exceptions.

Uh, JNU itself has led some of those exceptions.

exceptions.

But I'm not happy even with those exceptions

exceptions

because those exceptions to my mind fall

in two categories.

One is theory as critique.

So in a significant you know I I should

say there are three categories. One is

theory as application. Second is theory

as critique. Third is theory as

supplementation or amendment.

In all these three western political

theory of the day is the political theory.

First type is I applied to India

and as soon as we have applied it to

India we suddenly think we are doing

theoretical work.

So large number of theories thesis in

JNU in my days almost every thesis began

by saying theories of Indian state. So

Ralph Milliban pollas and that kind of

stuff and then it'll go get so applying

western theory to India

is not is is useful interesting

is useful and interesting only if it

begins to tell us what's wrong with that

original theory and why it cannot be applied.

applied.

If we can fully apply it to India, then

there's probably some either we are

dealing with a truly exceptional case or

we are completely wrongheaded about the

way we are doing it.

Second, we have examples of theory as

critique, which is to say many scholars

have offered understanding of have have

picked up western political theory and

said it does not apply in the case of

India for the following reasons. This is

critique. This is very valuable.

But this is not Indian political theory yet.

yet.

It get it begins the foundations of

Indian political theory but that's not

Indian political theory or in some cases

theory as supplementation or amendments.

I pick up a western political theory

tool and I say in India we need to

modify it a bit. You know

that's useful.

So there are these exceptions

but the reason I'm not happy with those

exceptions is or let me put it this way.

I think the theoretical labor of all

these scholars in the recent past and

you would have noticed I carefully

desist from naming anyone have realized

over the years that naming people is one

of the most stupid things you can do

because after that the entire discussion

is only about those names and nothing

else. So therefore I'm avoiding it. If

you have any questions, please feel free

to ask me. But the theoretical labor of

some of these exceptional scholars who

have worked on Indian political theory

have sought to apply

received theory to India, critiqued its

limitations or extended it. To my mind,

it has prepared the ground for political theory.

theory.

But it is not yet Indian political

theory. It's an important thing. It's a

necessary step but not sufficient.

Which brings me to my fourth part.

What's the way forward? What has to be done?

To my mind, what is called for is

nothing short of a massive shift in the

way we teach, research, and do political theory.

theory.

And I'm here basically to call for that.

That's the reason I so happily accepted

your invitation. That's the reason I

insisted that I will speak on this topic

and not on any other topic. Uh because

honestly I'm here with an admission. You

know people of my generation are here. I

can see Takur. I'm here to almost offer

an apology on behalf of my generation.

We people missed an opportunity. You

should not do that. So that's why I'm

here because I see many prospective

political theorists in this room. Please

do not make the mistake that we did. You

can do much better than we did. You can

make a fresh start.

you know instead of going through that

entire journey and maybe that journey

was necessary

maybe you know things that I critique so

harshly today maybe one has to go

through all that in order to reach where

we've reached here but today you should

not make that mistake what can be done

to my mind

here and now is the starting point

for any political theory anywhere in the

world here and Now should be the

starting point which is not to say you

should research on here and now but here

and now desa and kala that's d and kal

is here and now da and kala dictates our

questions what is it that we should be

asking what is it that we want to make

sense of the moment we lose here and now

as the starting point

something goes wrong and I think This is

what went wrong for the last 50, 70, 60

years of political theory in India. It

lost a sense. It's lost its anchoring in

here and now.

They started imagining that they were

living somewhere else. That's a very

harsh way of putting it. But

intellectually I very often think very

placing which is to say placing India at

the center of the enterprise of

I mentioned something about my own

intellectual journey

and when I had done a few years of

political theory, teaching of political

theory and the standard stuff of

teaching western political thought and

you know all the things that any teacher does.

does.

At that point UGC

had formed a committee to think about

how syllabi should be revised.

I had a strange suggestion to make then

and I would like to reiterate that

suggestion 40 years after it was made

namely political theory courses should

be abolished from political science discipline

discipline

which is not courses the only course you

should retain is history of political

thought history of political thought

should be taught because that's a basic thing

when I say political theory courses

should be abolished.

I'm saying

separate courses which detach theory

from everything else

should be abolished and instead there's

a second part to the proposal instead

theory should be inserted in every

study of Indian political science should

begin by focusing on making sense of

And every single course whether it's on

voting behavior or it's on international

relations or it is on cast

should have a theory component built

into it. What it would do is that it

would end this practice of theory as an

exalted and separate activity.

You know theory is almost an alienating

kind of an activity.

it would stop that but you may or may

not accept that particular suggestion

but you understand the spirit in which

Indian political practice at the heart

of study of political science. The

difficulty is that the manner in which

our courses and our research and

everything is structured.

We kind of mentally place ourselves in Europe

Europe

where India happens to be one of the

countries we study and we have one or

two courses on Indian politics and so on

and so forth. That needs to be radically

altered because that's not how American

polit political science teaches about

America. you know in America they have

many of you have better experience but

you know uh everything American is

theory concepts and so on and then the

rest of the world is in a dust bin

called comparative politics

I don't resent it

you know I actually because this is how

I mean as long as they don't pretend it

to be universal political science that's

all right that's how they look at the world

we should not replicate them

partly because it's not the best way of

understanding politics partly because we

are more constituted by external

influences than us may be

but the idea of putting your own

political experience at the center of

your study of politics is a very natural

idea why should we not do it

I've already said that this is not to

claim a privilege for India over other

countries because This applies to every

country. This is also not to claim any

pristine purity for the Indian

experience because Indian politics just

to be clear uh our our political

experience has four layers built into it

all the time. One is a universal layer

because politics all over the world has

some universal qualities. There's a

contest for power. There is you know uh

there's something universal.

Then there is something that we

historically share with many other

countries, many postcolonial countries,

many capitalist countries.

Then the third layer is things that

which are unique to India

and fourth layer is things which are

unique to a region you know which are

called local but I you know it's silly

to call Tamil Nad local. It could be

bigger than many nation states of the

world. So they are regional. All these

four layers are working all the time. I

do not mean to say that the third layer

namely the layer of the nation state has

some privilege. No, I'm simply making a

case that if we focus on our political

practice here and now and you and and

turn the entire theoretical enterprise

in order to make sense of it. In other

words, Indian experience should become

the natural north of our theoretical compass.

compass.

Uh again a word I draw from professor

Kavirj. It's a beautiful expression. He

says in in European theory,

Europe is the natural north of their

that's how what we call political theory

is built unstated way the Europe Europe

is the natural north which is built

there and I fully understand I truly

believe I do not resent it because I

truly believe European modern European

modern social theory modern western

social theory is one of the unique

achievements ments of human beings. It

has it's a great source of learning. The trouble is if we start believing it is

trouble is if we start believing it is my it's a sole source for my learning

my it's a sole source for my learning you know in the and the charm of that

you know in the and the charm of that theory is so much that there's a

theory is so much that there's a temptation to replicate is to is to is

temptation to replicate is to is to is to copy it is to pick it up.

to copy it is to pick it up. What we need to do and that to me if you

What we need to do and that to me if you ask me the real challenge

ask me the real challenge we need to do to India what European

we need to do to India what European social theory has done to Europe

that are that is our central theoretical challenge instead of simply picking the

challenge instead of simply picking the output of European social and political

output of European social and political theory dragging it to India and make it

theory dragging it to India and make it you know you for you there are clouds

you know you for you there are clouds you want to carry those clouds and make

you want to carry those clouds and make them rain in India don't do that uh we

them rain in India don't do that uh we need to that distillation of the

need to that distillation of the European experience that European social

European experience that European social theory has done we need to do similar

theory has done we need to do similar distillation of our political experience

distillation of our political experience that to my mind is our challenge

that to my mind is our challenge if this is called decolonization so be

if this is called decolonization so be it I don't have any quirrel with that

it I don't have any quirrel with that name as long As it is not limited to

name as long As it is not limited to picking holes in the receive theory as

picking holes in the receive theory as long as we are not simply you know a bit

long as we are not simply you know a bit of decolonization is to say this is

of decolonization is to say this is wrong with the west this is wrong with

wrong with the west this is wrong with the west it's all right there's a lot

the west it's all right there's a lot wrong with that but what are you doing

wrong with that but what are you doing you know I really want to focus on that

you know I really want to focus on that bit

bit what would it mean enough of uh abstract

what would it mean enough of uh abstract talk what would it mean in concrete

talk what would it mean in concrete terms

terms one shift in the framing of our research

one shift in the framing of our research questions and priorities

I keep saying pick your answers from anywhere in the world as long as the

anywhere in the world as long as the question is your own. The problem is

question is your own. The problem is that we begin with false questions.

that we begin with false questions. The problem in so much of what passes

The problem in so much of what passes for political theory is that we have

for political theory is that we have answers in search of a question.

answers in search of a question. I know social capital is the answer.

Now to which question in it up is social capital the answer is my research

capital the answer is my research question now that's a completely

question now that's a completely wrong-headed way of thinking about it

wrong-headed way of thinking about it you know so the question should be mine

you know so the question should be mine and and the question should come from

and and the question should come from the real lived political reality

the real lived political reality after that if third century China gives

after that if third century China gives you answer for by all means please go

you answer for by all means please go and learn from them if you find answer

and learn from them if you find answer in arashastra get it If you find answers

in arashastra get it If you find answers in KL Marx's capital, get it. But the

in KL Marx's capital, get it. But the question should arise from our own lived

question should arise from our own lived experience. And I don't see that

experience. And I don't see that happening very often. And this will be

happening very often. And this will be my plea to all of you. You know, get

my plea to all of you. You know, get your the question should be your own.

your the question should be your own. There is that uh

There is that uh little episode about legend. I think

little episode about legend. I think it's not an episode, it's a legend about

it's not an episode, it's a legend about professor JPS over Delhi University.

professor JPS over Delhi University. Some student approached him and said sir

Some student approached him and said sir I want to do research with you. He said

I want to do research with you. He said fine

fine he said

now that's a legend. I wish all of you very good sleep every day. But I think

very good sleep every day. But I think it captures a point. Is there something

it captures a point. Is there something real that troubles us? Or are we

real that troubles us? Or are we searching for questions because we have

searching for questions because we have to fill a few pages because our

to fill a few pages because our professor has asked us to do something.

professor has asked us to do something. That's first the first step towards

That's first the first step towards creating an Indian political theory is

creating an Indian political theory is to get our real questions and after that

to get our real questions and after that search for answers anywhere in the

search for answers anywhere in the world. Please do not allow the

world. Please do not allow the boundaries of nation state or boundaries

boundaries of nation state or boundaries of today or of university to decide to

of today or of university to decide to to to restrict your inquiry.

to to restrict your inquiry. Second, as I said, shift in the syllabi.

Second, as I said, shift in the syllabi. I would really want that to happen. I

I would really want that to happen. I have no hope of being able to do so. I

have no hope of being able to do so. I really think the entire teaching of

really think the entire teaching of political science in India should be

political science in India should be around Indian politics.

around Indian politics. Everything else should feed into that.

Everything else should feed into that. Every should thing else should flow from

Every should thing else should flow from that. All theoretical enterprise should

that. All theoretical enterprise should be around that.

be around that. Third shift in the medium of thinking.

Third shift in the medium of thinking. Now we used to medium of teaching but we

Now we used to medium of teaching but we don't think hard about medium of

don't think hard about medium of thinking.

thinking. I really think that one of the biggest

I really think that one of the biggest problems of our political theory and the

problems of our political theory and the reason why our political theory is so

reason why our political theory is so weak, so detached is because of the

weak, so detached is because of the dominance of English language.

dominance of English language. English language is one of the biggest

English language is one of the biggest curse

curse when it comes to our political theory.

when it comes to our political theory. Now this might sound like a very odd

Now this might sound like a very odd extreme statement because so much of

extreme statement because so much of political theory is about learning

political theory is about learning English you know

English you know but just come to think of it

but just come to think of it is it not an elementary thing that

is it not an elementary thing that any understanding of politics must begin

any understanding of politics must begin by understanding

by understanding the understanding of those who

the understanding of those who participate in it.

participate in it. That's elementary you know in any social

That's elementary you know in any social phenomena we try to understand what that

phenomena we try to understand what that actor or subject is doing.

actor or subject is doing. Now how many political actors in India

Now how many political actors in India think in English language?

Maybe these days I find some of them but maybe 0.01%.

Why is it that our theoretical enterprise

enterprise does not take place in the languages in

does not take place in the languages in which those people actually think?

which those people actually think? How can we circumvent it? Again, I'm

How can we circumvent it? Again, I'm not, as I said, I'm interested in the

not, as I said, I'm interested in the medium of thinking. I'm not interested

medium of thinking. I'm not interested in the medium of writing. Write in

in the medium of writing. Write in English for all I care. You'll get

English for all I care. You'll get degrees. You'll get quick degrees if you

degrees. You'll get quick degrees if you write in English. But how can we not

write in English. But how can we not think through that language?

think through that language? How can we produce books on Indian

How can we produce books on Indian politics where not a single footnote is

politics where not a single footnote is about anything to do with any Indian

about anything to do with any Indian language? I can show you books, big

language? I can show you books, big books, famous books

books, famous books which claim to understand Indian

which claim to understand Indian politics. Not one single footnote

politics. Not one single footnote is from any Indian language.

is from any Indian language. Can you imagine a British political

Can you imagine a British political theorist

theorist who wants to make sense of English

who wants to make sense of English politics

politics who says well I know England very well

who says well I know England very well the only problem is I don't know English

the only problem is I don't know English language

language do you imagine something of that kind

do you imagine something of that kind that would be very odd asana yoga but I

that would be very odd asana yoga but I can tell you nine out of 10 examples

can tell you nine out of 10 examples from India belong to that category

the question of language and at the moment I'm not into the other question

moment I'm not into the other question of language of justice, injustice and so

of language of justice, injustice and so on and so forth. I'm simply into the

on and so forth. I'm simply into the cognitive question. How can we not think

cognitive question. How can we not think through Indian languages?

So just as they do you know if you were to go abroad if you

you know if you were to go abroad if you wanted to do a PhD on China the first

wanted to do a PhD on China the first thing they would say is go do a

thing they would say is go do a six-month course on Mandarin

professor why can't we do that to all Indian

why can't we do that to all Indian students

students you know

you know most of us have some access to one of

most of us have some access to one of the Indian languages. I would imagine

the Indian languages. I would imagine 98% people sitting here would have

98% people sitting here would have access to one of the Indian language.

access to one of the Indian language. Then we come to JNU.

Then we come to JNU. We try very hard to learn English and we

We try very hard to learn English and we try equally hard to forget the language

try equally hard to forget the language that we knew.

that we knew. All of us do that.

As a result, we actually are disconnected from the

we actually are disconnected from the from the subject that we want to

from the subject that we want to understand.

understand. Would it not be a good idea to make it

Would it not be a good idea to make it mandatory for every student of political

mandatory for every student of political science

science to learn one Indian language?

to learn one Indian language? And when I say Indian language, I

And when I say Indian language, I obviously do not mean Hindi. It can be

obviously do not mean Hindi. It can be any language and it need not be

any language and it need not be contemporary language. Get them to learn

contemporary language. Get them to learn Sanskrit. How many political theorists

Sanskrit. How many political theorists in India know Sanskrit?

in India know Sanskrit? Probably two or three.

Probably two or three. Pali not even one. I don't know if

Pali not even one. I don't know if there's any man would tell me but I

there's any man would tell me but I don't know if a single political

don't know if a single political theorist who who understands and reads

theorist who who understands and reads Bali

Bali Persian

Persian Arabic

Arabic classical Tamil

western political theorists know Latin or Greek

or Greek many. They're all taught.

many. They're all taught. Isn't there something radically wrong

Isn't there something radically wrong with it?

with it? You know,

You know, so that's a shift in the medium of

so that's a shift in the medium of thinking. Once again, I have no problem

thinking. Once again, I have no problem if you write your dissertation in

if you write your dissertation in English language.

English language. But how can you not

But how can you not go through the concepts that people have

go through the concepts that people have in their mind when they think about

in their mind when they think about politics and in order to understand you

politics and in order to understand you have to go through their language which

have to go through their language which is your own language.

Fourth is a shift in our cannon. For far too long we have imagined that

For far too long we have imagined that the cannon of western political thought

the cannon of western political thought is our cannon.

is our cannon. Yes, it is. We should not we should

Yes, it is. We should not we should unhesitatingly embrace

unhesitatingly embrace everything in this universe.

everything in this universe. But that should not be at the cost of

But that should not be at the cost of not building our own cannon. We have

not building our own cannon. We have done serious injustice

done serious injustice to

to the intellectual traditions of this

the intellectual traditions of this country.

country. And if someone could give me that power,

And if someone could give me that power, I would say for next 20 years,

I would say for next 20 years, just focus on this,

just focus on this, building our own cannons,

building our own cannons, which is to say paying attention to our

which is to say paying attention to our multiple traditions

multiple traditions of thought.

of thought. Political thinking did not become 20

Political thinking did not become 20 begin 20 years ago. Political thinking

begin 20 years ago. Political thinking did not begin 70 years ago. There have

did not begin 70 years ago. There have been multiple traditions of thinking,

been multiple traditions of thinking, some of high text, some oral,

some of high text, some oral, but developing those cannons in

but developing those cannons in different languages at different points

different languages at different points and cannons which have been eclipsed,

and cannons which have been eclipsed, those traditions of thought which have

those traditions of thought which have been forgotten,

been forgotten, rebuilding them should be one of our

rebuilding them should be one of our principal enterprise.

And fourth and on a lighter note, I think there has to be a shift in the

think there has to be a shift in the image of a political theorist. For far

image of a political theorist. For far too long, political theorists are people

too long, political theorists are people who

who who live in a

who live in a who come from Oxford or Cambridge who

who come from Oxford or Cambridge who speak English with an accent

speak English with an accent and uh who say, "Oh my god, this is what

and uh who say, "Oh my god, this is what happening in India." I think of

happening in India." I think of political theorist as a jolawala who's

political theorist as a jolawala who's walking around who keeps wondering why

walking around who keeps wondering why eastern part of Bhjpur in Uttar Pradesh

eastern part of Bhjpur in Uttar Pradesh and the the the western part of Bhjpur

and the the the western part of Bhjpur in Uttar Pradesh and the eastern part of

in Uttar Pradesh and the eastern part of Bhjpur in Bihar why do they behave so

Bhjpur in Bihar why do they behave so differently in politics the person who's

differently in politics the person who's constantly thinking about that or who's

constantly thinking about that or who's thinking about the impact of Nagarjula

thinking about the impact of Nagarjula on the Canada literary tradition

on the Canada literary tradition for me these are the political theorists

for me these are the political theorists of India the image has to change but

of India the image has to change but that's a lighter note specifically you

that's a lighter note specifically you would recall I began by talking of three

would recall I began by talking of three tasks for political theory

tasks for political theory where should we go where do we stand how

where should we go where do we stand how do we go from where we are to where do

do we go from where we are to where do we stand

we stand on these three I have some suggestions

on these three I have some suggestions and thoughts

and thoughts on normative

on normative that is to say where should we go what's

that is to say where should we go what's an ideal society what's an ideal

an ideal society what's an ideal politics

politics uh

uh I think the important thing is to be

I think the important thing is to be able to articulate a tilos articulate a

able to articulate a tilos articulate a utopia articulate a vision

utopia articulate a vision which is not simply

which is not simply retraveling the path that Europe has

retraveling the path that Europe has taken.

taken. What amazes me is the intellectual

What amazes me is the intellectual timidity of modern Indians

timidity of modern Indians whether it's in economics or in anything

whether it's in economics or in anything else. Somehow our highest ambition is to

else. Somehow our highest ambition is to be able to copy the west properly

be able to copy the west properly including our so-called nationalist

including our so-called nationalist prime minister.

prime minister. You know what's the final dream?

The idea of a developed nation is that the ultimate that so basically

is that the ultimate that so basically the idea is that we should be able to

the idea is that we should be able to somehow relive the experience of Europe

somehow relive the experience of Europe for a certain centuries. Is that all

for a certain centuries. Is that all that we are condemned to doing? Is there

that we are condemned to doing? Is there no higher or different ideal that we can

no higher or different ideal that we can aspire to? To my mind, the principal

aspire to? To my mind, the principal task of political theory is to

task of political theory is to articulate what I call swad dharma of

articulate what I call swad dharma of India.

India. That's my language. Not everyone needs

That's my language. Not everyone needs to accept it. That's my obsession

to accept it. That's my obsession almost. Uh but to

almost. Uh but to which is to say

which is to say you know what is the ideal? What are the

you know what is the ideal? What are the norms implicit in our political practice

norms implicit in our political practice which can be explicated and stated as an

which can be explicated and stated as an ideal.

ideal. What do we do for that?

What do we do for that? One would be paying careful attention to

One would be paying careful attention to premodern traditions of thinking.

premodern traditions of thinking. I think we've just not you know while

I think we've just not you know while none of us blinks an eye when we are

none of us blinks an eye when we are taught Plato and Aristotle which should

taught Plato and Aristotle which should be taught but somehow we don't believe

be taught but somehow we don't believe that uh uh and and you know we don't

that uh uh and and you know we don't worry about the fact that actually the

worry about the fact that actually the connection of modern Europe and modern

connection of modern Europe and modern west to that Greek or Roman legacy is

west to that Greek or Roman legacy is absolutely fraudulent.

absolutely fraudulent. This is there's no connect between the

This is there's no connect between the two. They have invented this connection

two. They have invented this connection and they have sort of illegitimately

and they have sort of illegitimately captured that past which doesn't belong

captured that past which doesn't belong to Europe actually a European

to Europe actually a European civilizational legacy.

civilizational legacy. But we are unable to and unwilling to

But we are unable to and unwilling to explore something in our own past. And

explore something in our own past. And when I say past premodern traditions,

when I say past premodern traditions, I do not limit it only to Sanskrit or to

I do not limit it only to Sanskrit or to Vedas,

Vedas, our Buddhist tradition, Sufis.

our Buddhist tradition, Sufis. Uh I've been reading Buddhafaralam of

Uh I've been reading Buddhafaralam of late and it's so stunning as to how they

late and it's so stunning as to how they encounter this problem of how do you

encounter this problem of how do you what kind of polity do you structure in

what kind of polity do you structure in a country where Islam is not the

a country where Islam is not the dominant religion.

dominant religion. and how they actually change their

and how they actually change their practices

practices uh in order to uh make that adjustment

uh in order to uh make that adjustment and how they change it theoretically.

and how they change it theoretically. Why do we not think about those things?

Why do we not think about those things? Or there is a long tradition of

Or there is a long tradition of pre-colonial Christianity in India to

pre-colonial Christianity in India to which we pay almost no attention.

which we pay almost no attention. Everyone in this country somehow has

Everyone in this country somehow has started believing that Christianity came

started believing that Christianity came to India along with the the British

to India along with the the British colonial rule which is simply not true.

colonial rule which is simply not true. But we have no attention on that issues.

But we have no attention on that issues. So to my mind in order to articulate

So to my mind in order to articulate that normative vision we need to pay

that normative vision we need to pay much greater attention to preodern

much greater attention to preodern intellectual traditions than we have.

intellectual traditions than we have. We need to pay attention in the 20th

We need to pay attention in the 20th century to an almost lost tradition.

century to an almost lost tradition. Uh because for some reason some aspects

Uh because for some reason some aspects of our 20th century intellectual legacy

of our 20th century intellectual legacy of modern Indian political thought have

of modern Indian political thought have become very wellnown.

become very wellnown. uh the left tradition being one of them,

uh the left tradition being one of them, Gandhi being one of them, Neu being one

Gandhi being one of them, Neu being one of them, Dr. Ambedkar now being one of

of them, Dr. Ambedkar now being one of them. But some aspects of that tradition

them. But some aspects of that tradition have been simply lost.

have been simply lost. One of which is what I call the Swaraj

One of which is what I call the Swaraj tradition. U you know look at someone

tradition. U you know look at someone like Casey Bhachara.

like Casey Bhachara. Uh look at Vinobi. Someone I didn't

Uh look at Vinobi. Someone I didn't think much of. I must confess with uh

think much of. I must confess with uh shamef facetedly. I didn't think

shamef facetedly. I didn't think anything of Vininobhave because you know

anything of Vininobhave because you know he supported emergency in my eyes and

he supported emergency in my eyes and that was the end of my dealing with

that was the end of my dealing with Vinobi but over the you know recent

Vinobi but over the you know recent years I've started reading Vininobhave

years I've started reading Vininobhave and what an extraordinary thinker he is

and what an extraordinary thinker he is uh perhaps better scholar than most of

uh perhaps better scholar than most of our university professors but to also uh

our university professors but to also uh someone who's an extraordinary thinker

someone who's an extraordinary thinker to which we pay no attention you know uh

to which we pay no attention you know uh so you know AK saran

so you know AK saran the entire jaipur school where they

the entire jaipur school where they krishna and so on I've been off late

krishna and so on I've been off late trying to read niral warm uh his hindi

trying to read niral warm uh his hindi essays and you know what this so there's

essays and you know what this so there's a long tradition of which someone like

a long tradition of which someone like Ashish Nandi becomes a superstar but

Ashish Nandi becomes a superstar but that's a long tradition that is waiting

that's a long tradition that is waiting to be recovered

to be recovered and I should also

and I should also uh given my own partisan inclination

uh given my own partisan inclination mentioned the Indian socialist tradition

mentioned the Indian socialist tradition while the Indian Marxist tradition got a

while the Indian Marxist tradition got a lot of academic attention. Indian

lot of academic attention. Indian socialist tradition which to my mind was

socialist tradition which to my mind was far more original

far more original uh than the formal orthodox left

uh than the formal orthodox left tradition of India has has received very

tradition of India has has received very little theoretical attention. Someone

little theoretical attention. Someone like Acharendarendrav who said he was a

like Acharendarendrav who said he was a Marxist till the end of his life but was

Marxist till the end of his life but was the most renowned scholar of Buddhism.

the most renowned scholar of Buddhism. Why do we not study Acharendarind's

Why do we not study Acharendarind's interpretation of Buddhism?

interpretation of Buddhism? And it never ceases to amaze me that

And it never ceases to amaze me that this entire academia has learned

this entire academia has learned orientalism,

orientalism, has learned Edward Sed, has learned

has learned Edward Sed, has learned postcolonial language and does not have

postcolonial language and does not have one minute to spare for the Indian

one minute to spare for the Indian thinker who actually started it all,

thinker who actually started it all, namely Ramanor Luya.

namely Ramanor Luya. Loya's critique of euroentricism which

Loya's critique of euroentricism which begins in the 1940s

begins in the 1940s anticipates and in many ways is far

anticipates and in many ways is far ahead of postc colonial theorization

ahead of postc colonial theorization that came much later but we paid almost

that came much later but we paid almost no attention to him. So these are to my

no attention to him. So these are to my mind the kind of uh kind of traditions

mind the kind of uh kind of traditions that need to be recovered in the

that need to be recovered in the normative side.

normative side. The second aspect I said was explanatory

The second aspect I said was explanatory causal political theory where to my mind

causal political theory where to my mind our central challenge

our central challenge is to draw concepts from everyday life

is to draw concepts from everyday life and to con build it into our explanatory

and to con build it into our explanatory frameworks.

frameworks. uh you know uh Coselle this German

uh you know uh Coselle this German thinker has a whole encyclopedia

thinker has a whole encyclopedia of words and how those words have

of words and how those words have changed their meaning over the years.

changed their meaning over the years. I'll keep discussing that with Vive but

I'll keep discussing that with Vive but you know we need to do something of that

you know we need to do something of that kind for India. The word janata or the

kind for India. The word janata or the word public as it is used in India. I

word public as it is used in India. I almost sometimes suggest that we should

almost sometimes suggest that we should use this word with a K to distinguish it

use this word with a K to distinguish it from the English word public. The word

from the English word public. The word public has very different meaning in

public has very different meaning in Indian languages.

Indian languages. Recently Parto Chhaturji has in his book

Recently Parto Chhaturji has in his book has done something truly astonishing. Uh

has done something truly astonishing. Uh he has looked at the word nation across

he has looked at the word nation across at least 10 Indian languages and how the

at least 10 Indian languages and how the the the the you know uh raja desa

the the the you know uh raja desa how they evoke very different normative

how they evoke very different normative universe. how their notion of what a

universe. how their notion of what a nation is is very very different in each

nation is is very very different in each language. I disagree with his

language. I disagree with his conclusions on this point but to my mind

conclusions on this point but to my mind that is the starting point of political

that is the starting point of political theory. You go and ask okay what does

theory. You go and ask okay what does India a India is disham what is disham

India a India is disham what is disham what does it mean what does it sound to

what does it mean what does it sound to you like that has to be the starting

you like that has to be the starting point of political theory uh so uh that

point of political theory uh so uh that to me is a or the concept of hava that I

to me is a or the concept of hava that I talk about very often in elections uh

talk about very often in elections uh these are the kind of things that we

these are the kind of things that we need to uh think about when we come to

need to uh think about when we come to explanatory framework and just to rush

explanatory framework and just to rush through the last one on prescriptions

through the last one on prescriptions what is to be done something that we We

what is to be done something that we We have almost forgotten now to be a part

have almost forgotten now to be a part of political theory because this is done

of political theory because this is done by political you know politicians. But

by political you know politicians. But please remember uh 100 years ago this

please remember uh 100 years ago this used to be a central part of political

used to be a central part of political theory. What is to be done was taught in

theory. What is to be done was taught in political science courses and should be

political science courses and should be taught. So the the the whole

taught. So the the the whole entrepreneur know in the in the in the

entrepreneur know in the in the in the Marxist tradition there was a very

Marxist tradition there was a very important part of it which said a

important part of it which said a significant part of your theoretical

significant part of your theoretical task is to identify those forces of

task is to identify those forces of change.

change. It could be this class or that class or

It could be this class or that class or whatever

whatever that task has simply been abandoned by

that task has simply been abandoned by everyone. That part of the Marxist

everyone. That part of the Marxist theory needs to be brought in. And you

theory needs to be brought in. And you know if someone were to ask okay so here

know if someone were to ask okay so here we face a certain situation in our

we face a certain situation in our country what who are the agents of

country what who are the agents of change how would change come about.

change how would change come about. One more funny thing which you would not

One more funny thing which you would not expect me to say but I find it

expect me to say but I find it interesting.

interesting. You know over the last 10 or 15 years

You know over the last 10 or 15 years electoral consultants have now come in

electoral consultants have now come in India symbolized by PK who's become very

India symbolized by PK who's become very famous. Uh I have looked at this

famous. Uh I have looked at this business with considerable disdain and

business with considerable disdain and uh I have always said that the coming of

uh I have always said that the coming of these electoral uh consultants is a sign

these electoral uh consultants is a sign of decline of politics.

of decline of politics. But when I meet some of these people as

But when I meet some of these people as I'm forced to because they think they

I'm forced to because they think they have something to teach me or to talk to

have something to teach me or to talk to me about, I have been astonished by how

me about, I have been astonished by how much attention and what kind of nuanced

much attention and what kind of nuanced thinking that goes into what is to be

thinking that goes into what is to be done.

done. Political theorists should learn from

Political theorists should learn from it. You know, never say no to learning

it. You know, never say no to learning from whichever source it comes to. Even

from whichever source it comes to. Even if it's consultants who are making lacks

if it's consultants who are making lacks of rupees for every election to listen

of rupees for every election to listen over the last 20 30 years

over the last 20 30 years but today I feel a certain sense of

but today I feel a certain sense of urgency

urgency because what we face today is nothing

because what we face today is nothing short of dismantling of our democratic

short of dismantling of our democratic republic which is happening right in

republic which is happening right in front of our eyes.

front of our eyes. Dismantling of institutions, dismantling

Dismantling of institutions, dismantling of practices

of practices and basically

and basically also dismantling of our constitution

also dismantling of our constitution and as it happens all over the world in

and as it happens all over the world in 21st century style, democracy is

21st century style, democracy is destroyed in the name of people.

destroyed in the name of people. You know that's the 21st century style

You know that's the 21st century style of format of it which is exactly what's

of format of it which is exactly what's happening in our country.

happening in our country. How does it relate to the enterprise

How does it relate to the enterprise that I've been talking about?

that I've been talking about? Because I think it strikes me very

Because I think it strikes me very deeply every time it hits me that we and

deeply every time it hits me that we and by we I do not mean we the socialist or

by we I do not mean we the socialist or we the leftist. No, all those who

we the leftist. No, all those who believe in that constitutional vision of

believe in that constitutional vision of India.

India. We have lost a political battle. We have

We have lost a political battle. We have also lost a cultural and intellectual

also lost a cultural and intellectual battle.

battle. Winning political battle back is not the

Winning political battle back is not the job of political theory. I would not

job of political theory. I would not burden political theorist with that. But

burden political theorist with that. But winning that cultural and intellectual

winning that cultural and intellectual battle is our responsibility.

battle is our responsibility. We have lost

We have lost this country's rationale

this country's rationale to a set of goons.

Frankly, today we do not have conceptual resources while all of us, me and my

resources while all of us, me and my friends, continue to speak as if

friends, continue to speak as if everything is correct with us and those

everything is correct with us and those who happen to be in power are wrong on

who happen to be in power are wrong on all counts, which is usually how we

all counts, which is usually how we think about politics.

As you probably know, I feel passionately about these things. I make

passionately about these things. I make no bones about the fact that I stand in

no bones about the fact that I stand in opposition to the present dispensation

opposition to the present dispensation and the opposition is not light. It's

and the opposition is not light. It's deepest possible opposition because to

deepest possible opposition because to my mind the present dispensation in this

my mind the present dispensation in this country stands against everything that

country stands against everything that is the idea of India or what I call the

is the idea of India or what I call the swadharma of India. What we are

swadharma of India. What we are witnessing is an assault on the swadhma

witnessing is an assault on the swadhma of India. But we do not have moral

of India. But we do not have moral resources.

resources. When this lecture would be put on the

When this lecture would be put on the YouTube, Yogen Jadav spoke in JNU.

YouTube, Yogen Jadav spoke in JNU. All you need to do is to read the first

All you need to do is to read the first 15 comments on that YouTube. Yogend Ju.

So without they would have no idea that what I'm speaking to you. In fact, half

what I'm speaking to you. In fact, half of them would be stunned, surprised and

of them would be stunned, surprised and would be astonished to hear this is what

would be astonished to hear this is what I was saying. But we lose a moral battle

I was saying. But we lose a moral battle before it begins.

before it begins. Ah these people what do they know of

Ah these people what do they know of India? What do they know of Indian

India? What do they know of Indian culture? What do they know of these

culture? What do they know of these things?

There's a certain so what we face is moral illegitimacy.

moral illegitimacy. Those who are carriers of this country

Those who are carriers of this country are assumed to be morally illegitimate.

are assumed to be morally illegitimate. What we face is analytical or

What we face is analytical or explanatory bewilderment.

Every morning we are surprised and what we face is political

and what we face is political helplessness.

This is where political theory comes in. Please remember and that's why I'm here

Please remember and that's why I'm here to speak to you.

to speak to you. Political theory flourishes at the time

Political theory flourishes at the time of crisis.

of crisis. It is only when things go so bad that

It is only when things go so bad that fresh and original thinking takes place.

fresh and original thinking takes place. Unlike people of my generation,

Unlike people of my generation, you have a great opportunity.

you have a great opportunity. You can, you are not burdened by having

You can, you are not burdened by having done something for 30 years or not

done something for 30 years or not having done something for 40 years like

having done something for 40 years like people like me are. You can make a fresh

people like me are. You can make a fresh start.

start. This is a great opportunity

This is a great opportunity to my mind. If we want to response to

to my mind. If we want to response to this sense of moral illegitimacy, causal

this sense of moral illegitimacy, causal bewilderment and sense of political

bewilderment and sense of political helplessness,

helplessness, it must begin

it must begin by

by taking control, a theoretical control

taking control, a theoretical control and making sense of Indian politics.

and making sense of Indian politics. Sitting in this room, you cannot change

Sitting in this room, you cannot change Indian politics,

Indian politics, but you can understand it. You can make

but you can understand it. You can make sense of it with new tools, with new

sense of it with new tools, with new ways, in a new language.

ways, in a new language. Decolonization of political theory is

Decolonization of political theory is not an intellectual luxury. It is a

not an intellectual luxury. It is a political necessity of our times.

political necessity of our times. Recovery of Indian political theory

Recovery of Indian political theory therefore

therefore is a step towards reclaiming our

is a step towards reclaiming our republic.

republic. It is this political necessity that

It is this political necessity that brought me here and I'm very grateful

brought me here and I'm very grateful that all of you heard me. Thank you very

that all of you heard me. Thank you very much.

Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps

Paste YouTube URL

Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript

Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.

Add to Chrome — Free

Works with YouTube, Coursera, Udemy and more educational platforms

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube

←

→

↻

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YoutubeToText

←

→

↻

https://youtubetotext.net/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc

YouTube TranscriptPreparing your results…

YouTube Transcript:A Call for an Indian Political Theory — Yogendra Yadav | JNU Lecture Series

AutoDub

Video Transcript

Summary

Core Theme

Paste YouTube URL

Transcript Extraction Form

Get Our Chrome Extension

Get Instant Transcripts: Just Edit the Domain in Your Address Bar!

YouTube Transcript:
A Call for an Indian Political Theory — Yogendra Yadav | JNU Lecture Series