IndiaParentMagazine

Interview with Rohit Chopra

“Indian democracy has proved its resilience on numerous occasions, having survived the Emergency, for instance.”

ROHIT CHOPRA is Associate Professor of Communication at Santa Clara University and has been Visiting Scholar at the Center for South Asia at Stanford University. His research addresses the relationship between media and culture, new media technologies, and how media shapes political and cultural memory. He is one of the signatories of the faculty statement on Narendra Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley. Excerpts from his interview.

Jenaa Kaisar

India Parent Magazine (IPM): Do you think, under Modi, Digital India might bring serious concerns about abuse of privacy of an individual? But hasn’t this been a concern even under the presidency of Barrack Obama who has been accused of spying and abusing personal information?
Rohit Chopra (RC): Regardless of the party or coalition in power, or the individual who is PM, the concerns are the same. And yes, this is a global phenomenon. But the fact that Obama's presidency might be critiqued on the same grounds does not exempt the Modi government or the previous UPA government from responsibility. I should add here that academics, including those on the list of signatories, have consistently spoken up about a range of issues concerning rights generally in diverse global contexts. Speaking for myself, I have written and taught about serious concerns raised by the Obama administration's policies on drones and surveillance, about profiling various populations, and about the War on Terror more generally.

Each context is different, and India brings with it particular challenges. For one, there are large populations that have been victims of what is called the Digital Divide and lack basic digital literacy. The Indian state has a history of being paternalistic toward subaltern populations, where elites determine what is best for them. Digital India runs the risk of continuing with this troubling legacy.

As for the question of what might change under Modi, my own worry is that this government has shown a distinct lack of respect for institutional procedures, rules, and principles of governance. We have seen this with interference in educational and cultural institutions, for instance. We have also seen absurd statements made by ministers in the government about Vedic science and technology. So some questions that arise for me are: will key figures appointed to manage the Digital India initiative be necessarily competent? Will the initiative be needlessly politicized as a showpiece for the government? How will expertise be mobilized and to what end? These are perfectly legitimate questions to ask.

IPM: As far as the Silicon Valley enterprises are concerned, do you think they are being careful and safeguarding their code of conduct while dealing with not just India but with other various governments?
RC: I cannot speak for them, of course. I understand that any business has to be pragmatic and realistic. The question is how do you balance that with a commitment to human rights. Professor Siva Vaidhyanathan, one of the signatories to the letter, has examined how Google negotiates the realities of doing business in China with its purported commitment to openness and transparency. The same tensions apply in the case of India.

IPM: It’s been 16 months since BJP came into power. What do you think of its progress?
RC: I am not on the ground in India, and I don't specialize in the study of Indian politics. So I can only offer an opinion. I think they have to an extent faced the problems that any Indian government would face. You cannot blame what happens in China and in global markets as a result, on the BJP. Perhaps they have received more criticism because Modi and other figures in the government made very large claims and because people accordingly had unrealistic expectations of them. The government also seems to have stumbled on its plans for the Land Bill and GST, and now appears to be seeking compromise.

For me, where the government has fared worst is in its assault on educational institutions and its hypersensitivity to criticism whether by organizations like Greenpeace or by individual citizens. Again, this is not unique to Modi's government-- figures in the previous UPA administration showed some of these traits too but the scale and scope now is worrisome. Secondly, the much louder voice of right-wing Hindu organizations on issues like Ghar Wapsi and Love Jihad also undermines the credibility of the government. I still think Modi and the government have plenty of political capital and popularity. The Congress seems enervated and lacking a clear identity, plan, or vision of its own.

IPM: Do you think democracy and democratic institutions of India are at risk and the strong notion of the unity in diversity upon which the Constitution of India is based is at risk under Narendra Modi?
RC: Indian democracy has proved its resilience on numerous occasions, having survived the Emergency, for instance. Each such event or phase also does have some immediate and lingering impact. On the whole, though, I don't think Indian democracy or democratic institutions will be done away with anytime soon! I think more than constitutional democracy, it is the spirit of democratic tolerance that is at risk.

IPM: Narendra Modi and the RSS, especially, seem to have some personal agenda against Jawarharlal Nehru. This could be seen in many reforms including the revamping of the Nehru Memorial. Why do you think this is?
RC: The RSS' vision of India as a particular kind of Hindu civilization directly contradicts Nehru's idea of India as a secular, multireligious, pluralistic society. That is pretty much the heart of it. Interestingly, there is a kind of relentless criticism of the notion of the Nehruvian "idea of India" on Twitter.

There have been a couple of very insightful articles about how Modi is, in a sense, competing with Nehru. Here is one by MK Venu (http://www.firstpost.com/india/modi-the-event-manager- why-he-can-never-quite-be-a-chacha-nehru-1700175.html) Nehru becomes the benchmark, the reference point, who Modi needs to emulate in how own distinctive way, and surpass.

Indoor Fool

IPM: The statement of concern is unprecedented both in the number of signatories and also in its openness to condemn a duly elected head of the state. Can you give us your personal views on this?
RC: I am not sure I would use the term 'condemn.' That seems to be an interpretation. It is an expression of concern. The statement identifies the sources of this concern including the Digital India initiative as well as a past record on rights.

Regarding the second part of your question there is a loosely affiliated group of faculty working in South Asia who have raised attention to these issues, in a consistent and principled manner. For example, in 2006 when U.S. based Hindu right-wing tried to push changes through California textbooks, faculty wrote to the California Board of Education, and later submitted two reports as testimony. When the Campaign to Stop Funding Hate (CSFH) did its report in 2002 documenting corporate matching funds from Cisco, Sun Systems, Oracle and other Silicon Valley firms being sent to Hindu nationalist charities in India, 350 South Asian faculty endorsed the report http://www.thehindu.com/2002/11/21/ stories/2002112106141100.htm

Many of those faculty as well as others came together to express shared concern at recent developments.

IPM: My religious sentiments are being hurt” culture seems to be growing in leaps and bounds in India. Several bans took place on food, movies, institutions and so on. Do you think there is a danger of a Majoritarian or Hindutva rule with a militant and terrorist tendency coming up?
RC: There are two separate issues here. There is a longer history of intolerance and bans that predates this government. Yes, there is a danger of Hindutva ideology being imposed on minorities as well as more broadly on anyone who does not agree with it. The danger is that there is constantly a new normal evolving-- sentiments that were clearly considered beyond the pale of everyday civic life are becoming more acceptable. There is also a kind of commonsense narrative that Hindu terrorism is not really terrorism. This creates a double standard and a hostile climate for both minorities and generally for those who don't agree with the tenets of the ideology.