Whether it is allegations of sleaze – remember B.S. Yeddyurappa? - or respect for institutional autonomy – think of Prasar Bharati - or even the use of decent language – Ramzadon vs haramzadon - the BJP has nearly always failed the test. Now, in the Amartya Sen episode, it has touched a new low.

Notwithstanding the Narendra Modi government’s pretence that the delay in renewing the Nobel laureate’s term as chancellor of Nalanda university was due to bureaucratic red-tapism, there will be few takers for the explanation. The reason is not only that the ruling party likes to appoint its own camp-followers to the various institutions, but that its reservations about Sen are no secret.

None had spelt out the BJP’s dislike for the celebrated economist more starkly than one of its M.P.s, Chandan Mitra, when he responded to Sen’s observations against Modi becoming the prime minister by calling for stripping Sen of the Bharat Ratna award.

Although the M.P. subsequently apologized, his initial comments revealed the narrow-mindedness which guides the BJP when he said about Sen, “we know you as an economist who sells (the) Congress line for a living”. Considering that Sen has never concealed his admiration for the Left, he can only be accused of peddling the “Congress line” in the sense that he belongs to the centre-left of the political divide where the BJP is right-wing.

However, since India is not yet a Hindu rashtra where minorities will have second class status as citizens, the perceived advocacy of a leftist line cannot be the justification for taking away an official award. Yet, this is what can be said to have happened a year and a half after that earlier criticism. Although Sen hasn’t yet been deprived of the Bharat Ratna, he has at least been eased out of the chancellor’s post in Nalanda.

In the process, the attitude which the government has displayed is that no one, irrespective of how eminent the person may be in the non-right-wing academic world, will be allowed to hold a position of importance under the Modi dispensation. The message, especially to the bureaucrats who were once told by Modi to be fearless in taking decisions, is that it is advisable to be on the BJP’s right side.

This cautionary signal is not only for the academic world, which has already seen how a Class XII student can become the education minister, but also for institutions like the CBI whose officials have to resign themselves to remaining “caged parrots”, as the Supreme Court once said about them. Since universities are supposed to be autonomous institutions, Sen’s removal cannot but be heeded by all academic bodies.

What will be of interest, however, is the name of the person which will be sent to the President for approval. Already, the government has shown how it regards posts of this nature as sinecures for factotums in the saffron camp. The two well-known examples are the appointment of a virtual nonentity, Y. Sudarshan Rao, as chairman of the Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR) and of a B-Grade filmmaker, Pahlaj Nihalani, as chief of the censor board.

Nalanda, however, is in a different category. If the government selects another hanger-on of the Hindutva brigade as a replacement for the Nobel laureate, it will have egg all over its face. In all likelihood, the government will become a laughing stock all over the world just as it did when its sidekicks posing as scientists told the Indian science congress that there were aeroplanes in ancient India.

While the almost certain decline of research in the ICHR will only become known to the general public after a lapse of time, Nalanda’s reputation is bound to suffer immediately unless a distinguished scholar whose name is known all over the academic world – and not only in the RSS shakhas – is appointed as the chancellor.

But, as is known, not only is the BJP’s cupboard bare where talent is concerned, it also lacks the broadness of mind which is needed to look outside the saffron lobby to make a choice. Nalanda’s location in Bihar makes the BJP’s task all the more difficult, especially in an election year, for there is little doubt that Sen’s ouster because of the BJP’s pettiness will become an issue in the polls later in the year. So will the choice of a patently unworthy person a la Rao and Nihalani.

The party and the prime minister must be realizing that the promise of a high growth rate is not enough to sustain themselves in power. India’s vibrancy is reflected not only in company boardrooms, but also in the calibre of its academics and even film-makers. Any decline in standards in these fields because of the government’s ham-handedness will have a political fallout. (IPA Service)