T.T. RAM MOHAN
REBELS WITH A CAUSE
Famous Dissenters and why they are not being heard
Arundhati Roy, Kancha Ilaiah, John Pilger, Yanis Varoufakis, David Irving, Oliver Stone, U.G. Krishnamurti
Contents
To all those who have had the courage to express dissent when others chose to be silent
Preface
We dont like dissenting voices and we dont like to express dissent.
Authority, in particular, doesnt like to be questioned or challenged. And people dont like to challenge or question authority because they know theres a price to be paid for doing so.
We are exhorted by wise men and women to stand up for what is right and speak truth to fear. We are careful not to heed these exhortations. Our survival instincts tell us otherwise. Its far more rewarding to stay quiet, nod assent or, better still, practise unabashed sycophancy.
One of the fascinating stories from World War II is about Adolf Hitlers architect, Albert Speer. Speer was an accomplished professional, a devout Christian and father of six children. As minister of armaments and a member of Hitlers inner circle, Speer was party to the destruction wrought by the Third Reich. At the very least, he was aware of the deportation and killing of large numbers of Jews.
As the horrors of the Nazi regime came to light, many wondered how somebody like Speer could have been a mute witness to all that went on. Speer answers the question quite candidly in his memoir, Inside the Third Reich. He says that at the age of thirty-eight he was made a member of Hitlers government, one that held sway over much of Europe. That meant something. To have posed difficult questions would have meant losing the coveted prize.
We may profess to be shocked at Speers conduct. However, if we reflect carefully, we will realize that the Speer syndrome is by no means uncommon. In all institutions and in all parts of the world, people understand that there is much to be gained by toeing the line and a great deal to be lost by speaking up.
Go to any official meeting almost anywhere. Watch the tone, actions and body language of the person sitting in the chair and those around him or her. You may see the occasional polite disagreement on relatively inconsequential matters. For the most part, however, you are apt to see deference, acquiescence, a general eagerness to please. I hear and obey is the dominant note amongst subordinates. At many meetings, one may be pardoned for supposing that one was in the midst of audio-vocally challenged people.
In recent years, we have heard a great deal in India about intolerance and the supposed muffling of dissent on the part of the present government. Governments everywhere do try to stifle or manage dissent in varying degrees and in different ways. But the situation is not very different in other spheres of life, such as the corporate world, the bureaucracy, non-government organizations or even academia.
This is truly a sad state of affairs. Dissent is invaluable. We need dissent, whether in government or in the other institutions of society, in order to ensure accountability of those in authority. Dissent is also vital for generating ideas and solving problems. It is only through the clash of ideas that the best solutions emerge. Herd mentality or group think, as it is now called, is the surest recipe for mediocrity and underperformance. Institutions must be designed to protect and foster dissent.
Since dissent is all too rare, its worth celebrating dissenters. In this book, I profile seven of them from different walks of life. Three are Indian. Arundhati Roy is a novelist and activist. Kancha Ilaiah is an academic and intellectual who represents the cause of Dalits and Other Backward Classes. U.G. Krishnamurti (now no more) is best characterized as a demolisher of the spirituality industry.
As for the four who are non-Indian, Oliver Stone is an American film-maker. David Irving is a British historian of World War II. Yanis Varoufakis is a Greek economist and former finance minister of Greece. John Pilger, an Australian, is a journalist and maker of documentary films.
The personalities I have chosen are not necessarily the most famous or the most effective dissenters. The American linguist and intellectual, Noam Chomsky, would have easily qualified. So would the economist and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz. But these are celebrities whose ideas are quite well known. I have chosen to write about individuals whose dissenting ideas may not be known to many. Ideally, I would have liked to meet the individuals in person or at least interview them over the Net. Alas, I had no luck, except with Kancha Ilaiah.
I have not attempted to be comprehensive in my treatment of these personalities and, indeed, lay no claim to being familiar with all of their works. They are all so prolific that whole books could be written about them. Rather, I have focused on some of their works or themes just to capture the flavour of their dissent.
In what ways are these dissenters questioning the mainstream view? What challenges have they mounted to the establishment? How have they managed to shape public perceptions on important issues? These are the questions I have attempted to answer.
The impact the dissenters in this book have had is quite modest. Roy has been able to influence policy on large dams and the rehabilitation of displaced individuals. Stone has contributed to the anti-war sentiment in the US and to the conspiracy theories about the assassination of President Kennedy. Ilaiah has raised awareness of the inequities in the Hindu order but hasnt had much luck in stopping the Hindutva juggernaut. U.G. Krishnamurti has got people thinking seriously about spirituality and the pursuit of enlightenment. Varoufakis languishes on the margins of European politics. Irving is a virtual pariah amongst historians and in the mainstream media. Pilgers journalism thrives mostly on the Net.
The value of these dissenters is to be judged by positing the counterfactual: If it were not for the likes of them, how would the establishment have behaved? These individuals may not have been able to change the dominant narrative. But they have, at times, been able to apply the brakes on it. That is a valuable contribution.
With the possible exception of Irving, the dissenters in this book have been professionally and financially successful. This suggests that despite the hostility of the establishment, there is room in the market economy for dissent of high quality. Indeed, as I note later, it is the celebrity status of these dissenters that acts as a protective charm and keeps them from being trampled on. The moral in todays world seems to be that if you want to express serious dissent, make sure that you are rich and famous enough to be able to afford it.
T.T. Ram Mohan
10 February 2020
Arundhati Roy: Indias Irrepressible Gadfly
In early 2014, Arundhati Roy wrote a lengthy introduction to one of B.R. Ambedkars most powerful works, Annihilation of Caste , published by Navayana, a publishing house in New Delhi. The introduction is not just about the book or even about Ambedkar. A large portion of it is devoted to Gandhi. The Gandhi that Roy portrays is not the champion of the oppressed that we know. He is a spokesman for the haves in society, whether in South Africa or in India. Roys essay takes Gandhi down a peg or two.
