Dr. Burgadda Srinath
India’s intellectual class suffers from a chronic condition—let’s call it the Indian Intellectual Syndrome. It’s marked by a reflexive distrust of the State, a compulsive need to sound contrarian, and a selective sense of morality. These voices dominate panels, seminars, and op-eds—but their contribution to national reform is nil. They critique, but don’t construct. They provoke, but don’t participate. They demand accountability from everyone—except themselves.
Consider the 2019 Pulwama terror attack. Forty Indian soldiers were martyred, and Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammed claimed responsibility. But within hours, India’s intellectual elite redirected the outrage, not toward the perpetrators, but toward the government. Was it an intelligence failure? Was the Balakot airstrike staged? Was it a ploy for votes? Pakistan’s role was conveniently blurred, and the global jihadist machinery behind such attacks was barely mentioned. This wasn’t just misplaced skepticism—it was moral evasion.
Contrast this with the American response to 9/11. There was criticism, yes—but also moral clarity. Terrorism was universally condemned. In India, the clarity vanishes, replaced by conspiracy theories and government-bashing masquerading as intellectual dissent.
This syndrome reaches its peak in cases involving convicted terrorists. When Afzal Guru, mastermind of the 2001 Parliament attack, was hanged after due process, many intellectuals branded it “judicial murder.” Candlelight vigils followed. Sympathies flowed—not for the security personnel who died—but for the man who planned their deaths.
Yakub Memon, convicted for the 1993 Mumbai bombings, received similar treatment. Courts had upheld his conviction, yet India’s intelligentsia framed him as a victim of majoritarian injustice. They organized vigils, questioned the judiciary, and spun sentimental stories—while ignoring the lives shattered by the blasts he helped orchestrate.
Article 370: The Myth of “Autonomy”
The abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu & Kashmir exposed yet another intellectual blind spot. For decades, the region endured terrorism, ethnic cleansing of Pandits, and radicalization. But when the law was repealed, the uproar wasn’t about justice for victims or integration of Kashmiris into the Indian mainstream—it was about the internet being shut down. The focus remained on constitutional formalities, not the lived reality of terror-hit communities.
Here too, many intellectuals chose symbolism over substance. They mourned the “loss of autonomy” but ignored how Article 370 perpetuated isolation and allowed extremist networks to thrive under legal protection.
Contrarianism as Intellectual Currency
In elite circles, supporting national security is uncool. Calling out terrorism is labeled “jingoistic.” Backing government reform—even when necessary—is seen as intellectual betrayal. It’s not about truth anymore; it’s about being contrarian for the sake of it.
This isn’t intellectual honesty. It’s posturing. Real thinkers hold the State accountable and stand firm against threats to national integrity. They critique, yes—but with conscience and balance.
Freedom of Speech or Abuse of Influence?
Democracy defends free speech. But it also demands responsibility, especially from those who shape public thought. When dissent becomes a habit of obstruction, when human rights are invoked only for the guilty, and when free speech is wielded to delegitimize national unity, it ceases to be a democratic virtue and becomes ideological sabotage.
India doesn’t need more noise. It needs thought leaders who inform, inspire, and help build. Those who don’t just tear down institutions, but strengthen them. Those who don’t confuse cynicism with courage.
What This Syndrome Looks Like:
- Condemn the government, never the terrorist.
- Write fiery essays—offer zero solutions.
- Defend the convicted—ignore their victims.
- Preach human rights—forget human loss.
- Debate endlessly—never engage on the ground.
Is this intellectualism—or cowardice cloaked in verbosity?
India deserves better. Not armchair activists, but reformers. Not cynical commentators, but courageous voices. The time has come to reject selective outrage and demand responsible, rooted, and reformist intellectual leadership.
