Intellectuals often come in packs. Their sense of identity comes from ingratiating themselves with a particular group and the imperatives of holding onto at least that group override intellectual clairvoyance. Even intellectuals who are opposing power and authority can succumb to this temptation. Much of what passes as intellectual life on the Left, with some possible exceptions, has this character. Its incantations seem like so many efforts to maintain a kind of group identity, a kind of dogmatic closure that is as corroding as the powers they oppose. There are of course exceptions: whether you agree with them or not, it is at least admirable that Sumit Sarkar, Tanika Sarkar and Pradip Datta did not make their conscience hostage to party diktat and protested against the state government.

But this is a losing battle. It is still a matter of astonishment that intellectuals have, in the interests of party or veniality, given up discussing their fiduciary responsibilities as professional teachers. The Central government has just engaged in the largest populist buyout of higher education since Independence. To facilitate rapid expansion of the system, necessitated by increased reservations, the government has raised the retirement age of university teachers to 65, with reappointment up to 70. There is an argument to be made that our retirement ages are too low. But this increase could at least have been linked to performance. Or it could have been used to leverage other radical reforms that universities badly need. But get this. The increase in retirement age has also been accompanied by a directive to first fulfil all outstanding quotas in teacher recruitment. What will be the consequence of this directive superimposed upon increase in retirement age? The effects will vary a bit, but its net result will be that there will be almost no new recruitment in the general category for at least five, possibly more, years. All of us believe in some form of affirmative action. But is it desirable the entire university system be made stagnant, just when it needs to be made most vibrant? History will ask Indian intellectuals this question: how did they manage to make the university about everything else but the cultivation of intellect? Party politics, identity politics, venial conniving, moralising self-congratulation trumped everything.

... contd.