The India Habitat Centre in New Delhi has rarely witnessed such a gathering. The line of cars waiting to gain entry snaked around the road and outside the Stein Auditorium, the queue of Delhi’s intelligentsia was long and winding. We were told that never before had such a huge crowd spontaneously turned up to hear a lecture. The occasion was the Penguin Annual lecture, and the speaker, eminent historian and India’s leading intellectual, Ram Guha. Having managed to get inside the auditorium and also find a seat, I looked around me and was amused to see that I appeared to be the only politician present. The subject of the lecture was intensely political namely “India’s political tradition — those who made it and those who did not”. The occasion was also the platform to launch Guha’s new book, Makers of Modern India, an anthology of writings of those who have been, according to Guha, the primary “makers of modern India”.
The lecture was, as always, thought-provoking. Guha talked about the revolutionary thought and actions of pioneers like Raja Rammohun Roy, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Tarabai Shinde, C. Rajagopalachari and others. He spoke of the idea of India, and how the thinking and example of the visionary leaders of those times created the essential unity of our country, and also far-reaching social reforms. Equality of women, harmony between religious groups, administrative transparency, development and grassroot democracy. He spoke about rare men and women who towered above the travails of those times and emerged as powerful and gigantic reformers and leaders. He bemoaned the fact that today’s leaders were simply not of the same stature, and how democracy had lost its way “in the dreary desert sand of dead habit” (and corruption). He spoke of the corruption in modern democracy, of the fact that the corruption and resultant high stakes generated hostility among stakeholders, which was seriously prejudical to national welfare.
Guha gave examples of how leaders of those days were bitter critics of each other, but nevertheless not only admired each other, but were also able to talk and appreciate contrary views. This would never be possible among the leaders of today. Ideas, and the forward march of progress had, therefore, been stopped in their tracks. Guha felt that they saw the big picture and had a revolutionary vision which they then implemented, adding that in recent days, he could not think of any leader with such an overarching vision. He said that the leaders of today were not even willing to learn the lessons of the very legacy which they claimed to represent. For example: the dalit leaders of today had probably never read or understood the thought and works of Dr B.R. Ambedkar, nor had the Congress entirely absorbed the thinking of Jawaharlal Nehru.
At this point, an eminent writer in the audience loudly commented that the leaders of today referred to by Guha had not only failed to read these seminal works, but if they read them, could probably not understand them. I turned around and looked in bemusement at this admittedly eminent writer. He was entirely serious. His cynical dismissal of the entire political class shocked me to the core. What was worse, the entire audience sniggered at the remark. The thought occurred to me whether someone can be considered to have an open mind — be it a good writer or sociologist — if he simply dismisses the entire political class with one demeaning remark.
I have written at great length in the past about the dangers of the growing hostility between the political class and those who are governed in our democracy. A great deal of criticism is entirely and totally justified, but can any fair or thinking person throw the baby out along with the bathwater? In a democracy are only politicians corrupt? What about bureaucrats, judges, teachers, lawyers, policemen, doctors, nurses, bus conductors? Are not even some journalists and media houses and writers corrupt? What, therefore, gave this eminent writer the right to snigger crudely at senior political leaders? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but he should have remembered that all politicians are not illiterate, just as all writers are not necessarily literate. In fact, I have read quite a bit of that writer’s work and have never found it to be much good. How did he think politicians get elected? By being stupid? In fact, electoral politics is the most intellectually and physically challenging of occupations, as any elected MP will tell you. Besides, you live in a fish bowl, get kicked out every five years and have to seek re-election, and you will be sure to lose unless the constituency has been nurtured.
It’s true that politicians have considerable opportunity to abuse the system for personal gains and many of them do. But there are also thinking and sensitive politicians who struggle daily to implement genuine democratic ideals, fighting every day against a hostile and corrupt status quo. To paint the entire political class black is neither true nor desirable. It is not an intelligent assumption and certainly not sustainable. Fortunately for us, the electorate knows exactly what it wants, and when the people of India go out to vote, despite all the odds, they make the choice they perceive to be the best for their needs. It is also safe to assume that they are largely uninfluenced by the cynicism of people like the eminent writer in Guha’s audience.
Guha’s final point was that those extraordinary times produced great leaders, and perhaps today’s more venal time is failing to nurture similar greatness. I venture to disagree. We have many heroes and heroines in our democracy today, fighting quiet battles in every field. Some of them even belong to the political class. In 50 years from now, perhaps another Guha will talk about them.

Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the Rajya Sabha and AICC spokesperson.
The views expressed in this column are her own.