Why Amartya Sen Dislikes Narendra Modi

<p><em><strong>Sutanu Guru</strong> wonders if Sen makes logic and sense while targeting Modi</em><br><br>When you are a venerated figure who has won a Nobel Prize, it is almost as if you could issue edicts and verdicts without being questioned. If you also happened to be a sealed, stamped and certified “liberal” who thinks savage hordes are plundering the Idea of India since May, 2014 when Narendra Modi of the BJP won a historic mandate, then you get bonus points for being despondent about the future of a “plural” and “secular” India. Professor Amartya Sen is all this and much more. There has never been any doubt about what Sen thinks about Modi. He has reconfirmed what all of us knew: Sen will lose no opportunity to attack and criticize the Narendra Modi led NDA regime.<br><br>The latest promises to be a 4,000 word tirade to be published soon by the<em> New York Review of Books</em>. Eager to share his views with fellow Indians (In any case, how many Indians get to read the New York Review of Books?) before its publication in America, Amartya Sen has shared exclusive details in an interview given to Sagarika Ghose and published today in <em>The Times of India</em>. His interview and his words of damnation have already gone viral; with Modi bhakts and Modi baiters as usual abusing each other on social media platforms. The main charge leveled by Sen against the Modi regime was that he was “ousted” as the chancellor of Nalanda University. In his own words, "I was certainly ousted from Nalanda. Some members of the Board, especially the foreign members were keen on carrying on the battle for me but I stepped aside as I did not want to be an ineffective leader. The government may have held up finances or statues had I continued." For the record, Amartya Sen announced in January this year that he does not want to continue as the chancellor of Nalanda University after his term expires later in the year. George Yeo, the former foreign minister of Singapore was nominated as his replacement.<br><br>These are pretty damning words. And it is no surprise that his allegations have raised a storm even in the midst of the unveiling Vyapam scam. Sen doesn’t stop there. He goes on to accuse the Modi regime of blatantly and brazenly interfering with academic institutions and posing a serious threat to academic freedom and excellence. In his words, again: "Nalanda not a one off incident. Nothing in this scale of interference has happened before. Every institution where the government has a formal role is being converted into where the government has a substantive role."<br><br>Now, there are many points raised about which there can be no argument. There have been persistent charges of attempts to “saffronize” the entire education and academic system ever since Modi became prime minister and intellectuals, academics and activists are right in pointing out any steps made towards that. They are also right in vehemently opposing it. A sanitized and uniform viewpoint will destroy excellence in academics; just as a sanitized Marxist interpretation has destroyed the credibility of Indian academics. But this author wants to raise a few points that pose serious questions about the intentions of Sen. He is one of the most celebrated liberals in contemporary India and has always argued for keeping open minds while examining an issue. Has Sen himself kept an open mind?<br><br>Lets come to Nalanda University first. The fact is that credible people have leveled two allegations about the manner in which the affairs at Nalanda University were run. The first was that Sen was presiding over a cozy club of fellow travelers and doling out patronage. The second was that he was neglecting his primary duties as the founder chancellor by staying away most of the time. Three names were “shortlisted” for the post of vice chancellor. One was Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the respected director of Center for Policy Research; the second was renowned historian Ramchandra Guha and the third was an unknown Delhi University professor called Gopa Sabharwal. Many eyebrows were raised Sabharwal was chosen. Whispers of nepotism were legion. In a column for the Indian Express, Ashok Malik reveals, “This was the arbitrariness that both Kalam and Krishna objected to. The manner of selection of the vice chancellor drew negative comments from the CAG as well. Further, it was questioned in Parliament. The CAG also objected to the propriety and procedure of fixing the salary of the vice chancellor. This was done by the NMG, by then re-designated as the interim governing board. The annual salary was fixed at $80,000 (tax-free)”. It is also known that Sen spent hardly any time at Nalanda in Bihar when the new campus was coming up. In an interview given to Business Standard, Ramchandra Guha says, "It is quite possible that, since he so admires Rabindranath Tagore, Amartya Sen's vision for a new Nalanda was inspired by Tagore's setting up of Visvabharati, a university of the world. If so, he seems not to have recognised that while Tagore based himself in the very town where his university was set up, Sen was directing his own effort from afar."<br><br>Each time someone raised a question, Sen would virtually throw a fit and threaten to leave. An exasperated UPA regime didn’t let him go despite his tantrums. Perhaps that was because Sen had started publicly signaling his preference for Rahul Gandhi as the prime minister of India when Modi became a serious contender!<br><br>So a humble request to Sen. Please accept that you badly botched up your mandate at Nalanda. Don’t mix your administrative indifference or incompetence with the serious ideological war going on about the future of academics in India. That topic, believe me, is far more important than even a Nobel Prize winner like you.</p>