Opinion | Why political imagination requires a break

Yogendra Yadav has recently highlighted the crisis of political thinkers and political imagination. In response, Peter DeSouza, Salmoli Choudhuri, Moiz Tundawala and Hilal Ahmed provided vivid and substantive insights. These responses have reignited debate about the current state of the political imagination, addressing issues ranging from its absence to its presence in everyday places and actions.

Political imagination is essential to any political community. Several interesting questions arise: Who engages in political imagination? What does this idea entail and what crises do we mean? Is this a crisis of imagination for certain classes learning English and writing for newspapers, magazines or books? Do we limit our imagination to universities or party intellectuals? Can those outside these two realms think in Gramscian terms and contribute to the political imagination? Is it possible to mix several ideas, or does the repetition of a single idea represent imagination? Where is the fraction and what does it mean? Can fantasy arise after a break? And who is willing to risk disruption to foster new imagination?

All of these questions cannot be addressed here. However, under the concept of “risk of imagination,” which touches on these concerns both directly and indirectly, three key themes can be examined: rupture, irrelevance, and political imagination. Taken together, these can be viewed as the Risk of Imagination.

In the truest sense of the word, rupture goes beyond the mere fusion of ideas into a new form. It cannot be uncritical or purely derivative; Instead, it shakes us and tears us out of epistemic and academic conformity. It politely disagrees but proposes radically. Rupture goes beyond the typical debates about past versus future or continuity versus discontinuity. The key point is how we respond to crises in new, innovative ways. Although many approach the same crises without a break, the break itself represents a significant departure from mainstream debates.

It examines crises from a new perspective and offers alternative forms of action. This discomfort is not only intellectual—it stems from epistemic disagreements—but also prompts discomfort in the form of political action. The combination of intellectual discomfort and political action makes the break particularly relevant for political organizations.

Rupture also carries the risk of irrelevance from peer groups and organized and unorganized institutions. Rupture and the danger of irrelevance are actually linked. The idea of ​​rupture cannot originate from the place of conformation; Affirmation inherently resists rupture. Since confirmation is a prerequisite for non-interruption, the risk of irrelevance is eliminated. The idea of ​​irrelevance therefore takes into account not only the epistemic irrelevance of theorists, but also in the form of everyday life and the question of survival itself.

A number of works are deliberately not included in the epistemic area. Issues of caste, class, gender, race and minorities (sexual, religious, linguistic) may go unrecognized, unnoticed, or reduced to insignificance when discourse is “cancelled.” In the realm of organized and unorganized institutions, non-epistemic barriers, such as access to jobs and services, become the main areas of influence.

The process of rupture becomes crucial to the debate about new imagination. The rupture is followed by either a progressive imagination or a dystopian imagination. The risk of a theoretical break lies solely with the intellectuals, and it can lead to short-term irrelevance on the part of colleagues. Are intellectuals ready for short-term or long-term irrelevance? The theory of rupture must be considered irrelevant. This can then provide the avenue of imagination.

Rupture and the risk of irrelevance lead to an expressive self that is not constrained by social, economic and political protocols. Does irrelevance always occur? Maybe not. Should the author or theorist/non-theorist be prepared for irrelevance? Yes, they should. Democratic societies mitigate an author’s irrelevance by engaging epistemologically with the necessary means. The political imagination proposes statecraft for new societies. No matter how good the existing model may be, it cannot remain fixed and unchanging.

Political thinkers question the fallacy of the unchangeable or the retreat into it. This error creates distrust, not trust. There are two correlative concerns: What happens to the author when structures perpetuate the fallacy of the immutable? Would the author be immune to this subsumption? The answer is: authors are those who, despite the control of structures, resist retreating into the unchangeable. The contentious question is how to recognize new political imagination.

If the focus is on the structures and their paraphernalia, it may not give the impression of a new imagination or new political thinkers. There is no indication that structured websites should not be taken seriously. The seriousness should not hinder the imagination available outside the scope of the structure. Is autonomy possible outside of the structure? Maybe yes. This can be voluntary or forced. A voluntary option is rarely available. Forced exclusion may occur. The new imagination and the authors of new political vocabulary can be found here.

A notable example of this is Gandhi’s catalytic speech at the inauguration of the Benares Hindu University in February 1916, which serves as an important marker. This speech represented a break in communication and language and showed remarkable courage in opposing a political class influenced by the colonial empire, landlords and zamindars.

At the invitation of Madan Mohan Malviya, Gandhi delivered his much-anticipated speech on February 4, 1916, during the inauguration of the Benares Hindu University – an event of great significance for all in attendance. Lord Hardinge, the Governor General of India, laid the foundation stone and the security was unprecedented. The Maharaja of Darbhanga presided over the meeting. Amid the highly acclaimed speeches, Gandhi said, “It is not enough that our ears and our eyes be touched, but it is necessary that our hearts be touched and that our hands and feet be moved.”

He also expressed his dissatisfaction with the language of the meeting, stating: “I wanted to say that it is a matter of deep humiliation and shame for us that I am forced this evening to be in the shadow of this great college in this holy city ” to address my countrymen in a foreign language.” Gandhi emphasized the need to work for the poor and make research accessible to the masses, and stressed that practical behavior and substantive speech were essential to achieving self-rule.

Gandhi wanted to “think audibly”. In the context of temples, he questioned the state of cleanliness in Benares. Addressing the wealth of the Maharajas sitting on the dais and in the assembly, he declared: “There is no salvation for India unless you part with this jewelry and keep it in trust for your countrymen in India.” He linked the size of the city’s landmarks to the wealth of the farmers and stated: “Sir, whenever I hear of a great palace coming up in any great city of India, be it of British India or that of our great chiefs ruled India, I immediately become jealous of it and say, ‘Oh, it’s the money that comes from farmers.'”

Gandhi then invoked God and criticized the tight security around the Viceroy: “We all experienced many anxious moments as the Viceroy paraded through the streets of Banaras. Detectives were stationed in many locations. We were horrified. If we trust and fear God, we will fear no one – not the maharajahs, the viceroys, the detectives or even King George.” The underlying message was ethical behavior and equal treatment for all. Gandhi rejected violence and advocated non-violence as a fundamental principle. During his speech, Annie Besant urged him to stop, but his speech remained inclusive even though many left the venue (Speech at Benares Hindu University, February 6, 1916, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. XIII, pp. 210-216 , 1964).

Later, the Maharaja of Darbhanga asked the princes present to disapprove of Gandhi’s remarks, which they greeted with “sadness and pain.” The answer was unanimous: “We all disapprove” (Excerpt from a letter to the Maharaja of Darbhanga, February 7, 1916, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. XIII, pp. 216-217, 1964).

Gandhi later remarked that I did not withdraw or explain anything after I “noticed a movement on the dais and that Mrs. Besant was whispering to the princes who were sitting next to her.” I saw the princes stand up one by one, and when the chairman also left, I could not finish my speech.” However, Besant rejected this claim and stated: “I did not suggest that the princes go” (Interview with API on the “Incident” in Benares, February 9, 1916 , The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol. XIII, pp. 217-218, 1964).

Gandhi gave this speech a year after his successful satyagraha in South Africa. His break was against the affluence, surveillance, sycophancy and splendor of princes and zamindars, the use of a foreign language and the exploitation of the peasants under British rule. Gandhi was at this point almost irrelevant to both the colonial rulers and those who opposed them. This marked the assertion of his Swaraj concept and demonstrated a new political imagination. He countered the danger of irrelevance imposed by both the Empire and its opposition by making his message resonate with the masses. The rupture became a hypothesis and the risk of irrelevance turned into satyagraha.

This debate is compelling because it provokes reflection on the decline of political thinkers and political imagination. It serves as a critical reminder of the precarious state of the contemporary imagination. However, it is also worth noting that many seek to break with conventional norms by becoming irrelevant to their peer groups and institutions. This is not to say that a break can be achieved through irrelevance alone. Rather, the meaning of political imagination can be interpreted differently at points of rupture and irrelevance. Movements also offer spaces for ruptures, the risk of irrelevance and fantasy. Those involved in such movements are themselves political thinkers.

Dhananjay Rai teaches at the Center for Gandhian Studies at the Central University of Gujarat. The views expressed in the article above are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of News18.