Narendra Modi and the paradox of India's elites
A large, ambitious India can’t progress if control trumps creativity
The geopolitical landscape of the twenty-first century has been characterised by tremendous unpredictability and rapid shifts in power dynamics. This is vividly illustrated by the sudden and dramatic collapse of Assad’s rule in Syria and the unexpected regime change in Bangladesh. These events underscore the complexity and the fast-paced nature of global transformation.
Set against this backdrop, India, the most populous country as well as the largest democracy in the world, faces enormous challenges in every sphere — political, strategic, economic, social, and cultural. The need for competent leadership across these spheres is palpable and should be obvious to any inhabitant or observer. Yet India grapples with a paradoxical situation: a significant competence deficit coupled with a massive competence phobia.
India’s journey through its economic liberalisation, social reforms, and technological advancements has been commendable, yet the nation faces a significant structural issue: excellence and merit often take a back seat to loyalty or pliability. This phenomenon is not new. It is deeply entrenched in the reservation system, which is largely driven by the politics of backwardness and deprivation.
But this suspicion, even envy, of people who are well-trained or good at what they do — except when they are seen as controllable state assets — has seemingly intensified. There appears to be a palpable distrust towards those who are well-educated, particularly those with international exposure and proficiency in English.
More by Prof Makarand R. Paranjape
National loyalties
They have been mocked and pilloried by pejorative epithets such as “Lutyens Delhi,” whose first word often pronounced as “Loot-yens,” harking back to the famous colonial architect, Edward Lutyens, commissioned with building the imperial capital city called New Delhi.
Or the even more offensive sobriquet “Khan Market Gang,” so-called after an expensive shopping district in central Delhi. This deep scepticism extends to a broad swath of the Indian elite, who are often perceived through a lens of suspicion regarding their national loyalties or cultural affiliations.
Whatever the reasons, the standard practice is that well-meaning and well-trained persons are usually sidelined and sacrificed for yea-sayers and pliant puppets. The persistent and pronounced distrust for internationally trained, Western-educated, English-speaking elites seems to signal some deep insecurity that might actually be counterproductive.
Because not all English-speaking, well-educated, internationally exposed, or competent persons are anti-India or Western-oriented. Anyone with even a rudimentary grasp of India’s independence struggle will know how important a role precisely such elites played. In fact, they led the fight not only against British colonialism but also the imperialism of the English language.
Civilisational ambassadors
Historically, India has benefited from its English-speaking elite, who were instrumental in the fight against British colonialism. Leaders like Rabindranath Tagore, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo, Vallabhbhai Patel, Sarojini Naidu, V. D. Savarkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, B.R. Ambedkar, Subhas Chandra Bose — to name only a few in chronological order — were not only well-educated and fluent in English, but also well travelled cosmopolitans who were India’s cultural and civilisational ambassadors.
They were not small or narrow-minded but had deep understanding of both India’s past and the present world situation. They leveraged their education and international relations to craft a vision for a pluralistic, democratic India. All of them, even if they disagreed with one another, were great patriots and nation-builders. Their historical record and context raise questions about the current dispensation’s approach.
BJP government’s apparent wariness towards this demographic can be seen in several policy decisions and administrative appointments where individuals with international education or those fluent in English are often overlooked or marginalised. I am not speaking of the welcome shift in promoting local languages in education and governance or encouraging all kinds of underrepresented groups from contributing to the nation.
Stark identity
No, the competence phobia manifests in much more sinister ways. Roles in critical governmental positions are given only to those perceived as more ideologically aligned with the ruling party. Whether this can compromise the quality of decision-making at both policy and implementation levels is not considered.
In the push towards reducing the prominence of English in education, there is little cognisance of the impact on global employability or intellectual competence. Instead, resentment towards the English-fluent elites result in a false equivalence between linguistic competence, this time in other Indian languages, and the value of an individual. The exact opposite of when knowing English was considered a sufficient yardstick of competence. Institutions remain “headless” and critical appointments are no longer merit-based.
The prevailing narrative equates Western education with Westernisation or, worse, anti-national sentiment. This is not only reductive but also alienates a significant portion of the intellectual community who could contribute to cultural and social development.
The consequences of this approach are far-reaching. India suffers not just in terms of governance but also in its international standing and domestic development. When competent individuals leave the country, the nation loses out on potential advancements in technology, diplomacy, and economic strategies.
Moreover, the irony here is stark. India’s growth narrative has often been driven by its diaspora, many of whom are products of the very educational systems and cultural exposure that are now viewed with suspicion. These individuals continue to contribute to India’s economy through remittances, investments, and the global promotion of Indian culture and business.
To address this paradox, there needs to be a re-evaluation of how competence is perceived and valued. Competence should not be equated merely with cultural or ideological loyalty or betrayal. Building a robust leadership pipeline requires embracing ideological and intellectual diversity in education and experience, ensuring that governance reflects a blend of local insights and global perspectives.