Brian Wong, Editor-in-Chief, speaks to Hindol Sengupta, Indian historian and journalist, and an Editor-at-Large at Fortune India. Hindol and Brian converse over the future of global politics, India under Modi, and Hindol’s personal path.
Global Politics
In our previous conversation we discussed the problems that seem to be proliferating amongst the self-anointed ‘ruling Establishment’ in Western Liberal Democracies – amongst them, what do you see as the primary issue?
We are at a particularly poignant time in the history of the world. The ‘ruling Establishment’ has failed to sell the benefits of liberal values to vast numbers of people around the world, even though ironically many of these people have benefitted from these values. This is partly an economic problem and partly a cultural problem. But many of those who protest liberalism today, and have made the word liberal a slur, do not realize that they are able to do so because they live in liberal countries – or at least countries that share some fundamental values of liberalism like considerable freedom of speech. If they lived in countries which shun the liberalism that they so hate, they would not have the freedom to protest against ‘liberals’ or ‘liberalism’. Liberalism is deeply misunderstood. I am and forever will be a liberal in the truest sense of the word. I stand for freedom for people to think, to speak, freedom for gender rights, sexual rights, rights to choose the life that they want, the government that they want, and I do not forget that in order to enjoy these rights one also has some duties to fulfill as a citizen. I believe most people wish to live in a liberal society – even those who rule authoritarian societies, escape to liberal lands to holiday and for their children to study, indeed for sanity. The problem is that many liberals forgot that you need to share space on the table for liberalism to be maintained. They filled with friends and ‘People Like Us’ and left no room for anyone else. And now, marginalized by the mobs that have risen, they are complaining that things have gone out of hand. But I still believe that the vast so-called silent majority are not radicals of any kind – they simply want to be heard and want a sense that their views are being accommodated somewhere. This is a democratic process and can only be resolved by democracy. One allied point – there is tremendous misuse of technology, for instance, it is unforgiveable that certain kinds of technology allows rampant anonymity which in turn provides the cover to create havoc and spread hate, racism, bigotry, sly (and open) provocation to violence every single day. It is one of the greatest evils of our time and tech companies are solely to blame for this. It has allowed a culture of lynching, figuratively and literally, to thrive. As Foucault taught us, words, you know, are not merely words, they create the reality even as they describe it. You know, in Hindu mythology, there is this wonderful story of the churning of the ocean between the gods and demons, so to speak, though demon is not quite the accurate translation, let’s say non-gods, churn the ocean to reach the nectar of immortality. But what comes out first is the most dreaded poison. I think we are going through a period when the poison is coming out and hopefully in time things will settle down.
There is a bizarre temptation amongst political scientists to seek to account for ‘non-Western’ countries using the frameworks and structures of Western politics – do you see this as a problem, and how could we, as political scientists, seek to overcome this?
Isn’t this division between ‘Western’ and ‘non-Western’ frameworks a little laughable today? Look at Italy, look at America, look at the UK, and compare this with Venezuela and China and Pakistan – there are so many parallels. In fact – scarily – more and more countries around the world are starting to look similar, and not different, from one another. Fundamentally, we are caught in a dilemma. Many liberals sought to use Western ideas to promote concepts like democracy. No one ever stopped to ask how were these perceived in the rest of the world? Today even in the West, these ideas seem imperiled. But instead of participating in this belief that democracy as an idea is flawed, I believe we need more democracy and not less. Why is tech so poisoned today? Because there isn’t enough competition. If I believe – and many sane people do – that Twitter has made our democracy toxic and is pushing us towards mob rule, do I have an alternative platform that I could use? No. That’s the problem. And this is where Arthur Brooks, whose film on reinventing capitalism called Pursuit that I was part of, and I, agree. We both believe that capitalism is misunderstood and has been misinterpreted. Competition brings fairness. Globalisation brings empathy. We have just done these things wrong. We can do better. For that, we need new leadership. A new narrative that will talk about capitalism and globalization in a different way. The world is ready to here this. People are tired on the diatribe of the extreme Left and the extreme Right. The time is ripe to talk about a new vision.
Do you think the future of the world lies with India and China in the medium-term? What are your thoughts on the trade war?
It is fashionable to think that the future, at least the near future, of the world lies with India and China, isn’t it? But in fact, that is far from certain. I think we are at a very delicate juncture in both the Indian and the Chinese economy and we shall have to wait at least another 24 months to accurately suggest where these economies might be going. Also, environmental crisis, especially air pollution and the scarcity of water, will hit India and China much worse than Western economies. When people think of the trade war, they think merely in terms of tariff battles today but there are larger battles up ahead where the countries that have greater natural resources like the ability to produce vast amounts of food or access a lot of clean water would be able to weaponize these things. India and China have great strengths and major access to natural resources. But their societies are going through enormous churn and it is yet unclear what might emerge out of this change. India and China will determine the future of the world in one way or the other – but what this future might be is yet unclear.
Political Theory
What are your thoughts on democracy as a theory of governance; are we practising its best form, or are we neglecting the viability of alternatives to it?
We are definitely neglecting our pursuit of alternatives – for instance, it is clear in India that the current system is highly inadequate for managing the country’s crumbling cities. More local and localized forms of government is the way forward. We have overcentralized government. In this, as an Indian, may I say that Mahatma Gandhi had some fine ideas of reinvigorating village councils as local forms of governance and democracy. The age of the distant bureaucrat and faraway elite leader has brought us only disaster.
There’s the view that a lot of the disillusionment around democracies today can be attributed to material and economic inequalities. Do you see this as an excessively simplistic generalisation, or a fair characterisation?
There is no doubt that inequality is a critical problem. But the issue is that we are always trying to address it by focusing on outcome equality – this is impossible to achieve. We must focus on fixing entry-point inequality. That’s why I favour legislation that makes education and healthcare cheap and generously available. The NHS in the United Kingdom is a wonderful system of healthcare – though of course these days it is struggling because the British economy is struggling. But more effective taxation must go to find projects like the NHS. The problem also is that even the taxes are there are rarely paid by some of the wealthiest companies in the world. Look at the use of tax havens by tech giants and other extremely profitable companies. This kind of thing is fueling a backlash around the world. The new politics must ensure that the fundamental starting points are made equitable for everyone so that there is a genuine sense of competition. The inequality that we need to wipe out is at the starting points – in critical aspects like health, education, sanitation and other fundamentals.
What do you see as the core value in politics? What makes the Political political?
Empathy. A lot of toxicity in politics stems from a lack of empathy. The best politicians understand that everything that is political is in fact driven by (mostly) simple emotions. The emotional therefore is the political and the political, emotional. The best kind of politics is politics that has empathy has a core value. Our world is set to see a period of constant strife as the global system is disrupted by new power centres and balance of power totters and climate change wrecks economies and millions are forced to migrate – in all this if politics lacks empathy, we are bound to see more bloodshed.
Your recent “Polemicist” article for Fortune India noted that Modi’s reforms offered the subaltern in India an opportunity to speak – how do you feel the poor were affected by Modi’s demonetisation reforms in 2016?
I think while there was undoubtedly some pain at the grassroots due to demonitisation, it was sold effectively, and people seem to have understood that the motivation, the intention was good, and while the debate on its efficacy continues, the facts on the ground are that Modi has won decisively even after demonitisation. So it is clear that voters voted for him in large numbers keeping in mind the demonitisation reforms.
Modi has been criticised for his alleged Hindu nationalist fundamentalism – to what extent do you see this as overblown, inaccurate Western misportrayals of Modi, or do you think there is some grain of truth?
There are two things in this. One is Modi himself – and I believe he is far ahead of many who believe they follow him. He is crafting a different agenda for himself and India which is all about a ground-up infrastructure and health transformation of the country – look at his work in sanitation which has, by any stretch of imagination, been revolutionary. Look at his promise on transforming water delivery – again path-breaking if it is achieved. He is embracing the climate change movement and pushing for greater green policies. Also, some of the tough decisions like his decision to reabsorb the state of Jammu and Kashmir fully into the constitutional ambit of India have caused debate and strife but its important to understand that each country is entitled to negotiate the needs of its own sovereignty. The Kashmir decision has very wide support across the country. It is not wrong to point out though that some members of India’s ruling party have made statements that are divisive, and, as I have pointed out in my writings, a blood-soaked war on cattle smuggling continues in India which has sometimes taken religious and sectarian forms which need urgent correction.
Modi’s foreign policy on Pakistan – what are your thoughts there?
Quite simply, Modi is breaking new ground with Pakistan. He realizes that there is small but potent opportunity to break the stalemate that has continued for 70 long years. He is ready to change the status quo. But this should not, I think, be seen as India being a revisionist power. It has more to do with India’s unfinished business of consolidating its sovereignty.
What should be Modi’s key priorities in his upcoming tenure?
It is quite clear that Modi’s two main priorities in the coming years will be getting the economy back in shape (India’s economy has started to struggle considerably) and provide fundamental goods of governance – critically, water, electricity, healthcare and education – to millions of Indians who have never received these basic things in any dignified sustainable manner. This mass delivery of goods and services will have to be coupled with a major push to revive the economy. Without the high growth in the economy, even welfare deliveries would stutter.
Personal Questions
You’re at a unique juncture of being both a journalist and an academic – what role, if any, do you see yourself as playing in making academic theories and ideals more accessible to the public?
I see my role as bridging the gap between arcane academia and the poor-quality diatribe that often passes as public discourse and ‘news’. We live in the best and the worst of time for public information, and I see myself as a checker of facts, a corrector of misinformation, a spreader of the idea that a more nuanced worldview is possible, indeed vital.
There is the worry that many public intellectuals, because of their upbringing and exposure, tend to find themselves more aligned with – as opposed to against – the very structures they seek to critique or examine. Is this a problem you see yourself as potentially incurring, and how have you sought to mitigate/avoid this?
I come from an extremely humble background and faced quite a different challenge early in my career – that of opening doors that might be shut to me. I recognize that through my career I may have gained some privilege and therefore it is necessary for me to consistently remind myself not to become the kind of person who I have spent most of my life critiquing. The task is to open doors to many, many more people like me and in fact much poorer than me. To bring knowledge – at a time of fake news and lies all around us – to the greatest number people is the task I think for me.