Minister of Road Transport and Highways, Nitin Gadkari, presented the Ramnath Goenka awards for Excellence in Journalism on March 19 in Delhi. Gadkari delivered a thoughtful address on the occasion. He spoke on the role of the media and how Goenka had stood for his principles during, the emergency in 1975-77, one of the darkest periods in the life of India’s democracy. Goenka had the courage of his convictions which enabled him to swim “against the tide”. Gadkari also said that the media should go beyond becoming the purveyor of information because the people are interested in “knowledge”. He declared that the media had a role in upholding Indian democracy as it was one of its pillars along with the legislature, executive and judiciary. He went on to say “I often think that the way people belonging to these four professions conduct themselves dictates the state of a democracy”. This is an important observation for India’s political class and those who helm independent institutions especially when India is in the process of electing a new Lok Sabha.
Gadkari spoke about the people’s expectation of the media as India went ahead to become the third largest global economy and was seeking to become world class across a range of areas stretching from agriculture and industry to sports. He said “In a country like ours that is rapidly changing, the role of the media is crucial. Most people are disinterested in ‘who said what’ of politics. But the new generation is hungry for knowledge. They want to know all about science and successful international practices and they are concerned about how to protect the ecology and environment”.
At a time when the media is necessarily coming under pressure because of the ideological contestation underway in the country Gadkari’s words on what the media needs to focus on are important. This is especially so because they come from a leader who headed the BJP at one time. The way he recalled the independent spirit of Ramnath Goenka is also reassuring for without scrutiny and, where necessary criticism, of the three pillars of democracy—executive, legislature and judiciary—the fourth cannot perform its true function.
During the course of his speech Gadkari also said “Beyond economic progress, convictions and principles are also important to live by in a democracy. We are all for modernization but there is a difference between modernization and westernization”. Gadkari has embodied a tangle of deep thoughts in these few words. They are relevant especially at a time of great economic development and consequent social and political change in India’s national life. The ideas he has advanced fall in two categories. First: convictions and principles “to live by” in a democracy. Second: the relationship between modernization and westernization. It would be useful to consider both separately.
The principles and convictions that Gadkari has referred to and which he implicitly advocates for the people to follow are all embodied in the constitution. While political parties may have different conceptions of the public culture that India needs to have there can really be no debate that constitutional values have to be upheld for India to continue to proudly proclaim, as it has been rightly doing so far, that it is world’s largest democracy. The essence of Indian democracy lies in its commitment to freedoms and liberties of all citizens, irrespective of their faith and beliefs. Naturally, violence cannot be accepted in any democracy to promote any cause which a citizen or a group believes in, but there can be no bar to spreading one’s beliefs peacefully. That is a solemn commitment which all organs of state need to respect. And, if the executive or the legislature exceed their limits and go against constitutional guarantees then the judiciary is duty bound to intervene.
The relationship between modernization and westernization has been problematic. Gadkari is right in saying that modernization should not mean westernization in societies like that of India. The implication is that a people can shed feudalism and medieval obscurantism and become modern without adopting the manners and customs of the west. This is entirely true for the essence of modernization lies in accepting reason and science and technology as the guides for individual lives as well as that of group behaviour. This does not mean giving up identities which are defined by faith.
The problem in distinguishing between modernization and westernization lies not at the level of the abstract but in the fact that the cultural practices of the more successful countries do attract the less successful peoples. Thus, in matters, for instance of dress, those of the west have now acquired almost a universal status. Immediately after colonized countries became independent their leaderships shunned western modes of dress. This was seen both in India and China. The Chinese male leaders of the Mao generation and even till the late 1980s were never seen in western suits but now they all both wear suits both in China and abroad. Similarly, in India members of the political class never wore western apparel but now many do without attracting any criticism. It would help the people if leaders like Gadkari were to illustrate what they mean by western practices which need to be avoided even while becoming modern. Naturally, gender equality which connotes the right of women to make choices cannot be equated with westernization and therefore to be socially avoided.
Finally, members of the political class will not be amused by Gadkari’s observation “Nowadays we are neither rightist nor leftist—we are all opportunists and that is a serious issue”.