Chic radicalism is opportunist. It uses the performance of radicalism to prop itself up. Radicalism is another market for the opportunist. It sells. It cultivates an image that is oppositional, and therefore seductive. It brings in new audiences. Branded right, radicalism works wonders.
Chic radicalism is epitomized by the Calcutta antel.
The one to pick up radical causes as career opportunities to markets, professions, and audiences. The next radical cause is the chic radical's career opportunity. The chic radical will make superficial claims to secularism and change to suit her/his purposes, all the while co-opting the transformative capacities of change.
The Calcutta antel's chic radicalism is quickly evident in the cause that he/she will jump to, presenting himself/herself as an agent of change and quick to disappear.
A recent interview of the film-maker Aparna Sen on NDTV captures well the opportunism and selective memory of the chic radical. The interview is set in the backdrop of the Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee getting off her motorcade to shout at Bharatiya Janata Party supporters shouting "Jai Shree Ram." The interview is set as a friendly advice from Sen for her acquaintance, Ms. Banerjee.
Sen is quick to point out on this interview that the Bengal Chief Minister has accomplished a great deal. In recounting the achievements of Ms. Banerjee, Sen goes on to note:
"She has done an excellent job. When I went out scoutiung for locations in West Bengal , I found that the roads are excellent, which had not been that way before.
Note in her convenient narrating of the markers of development, the superficialty of categories drawn upon. After accounting for so-called development initiatives in Bengal spearheaded by Mamata Banerjee, Sen goes on to commend Banerjee for:
"Taking care of the Maoist problem."
Worth noting in this narrative is the selective amnesia Ms. Sen projects in accounting for events. That Ms. Sen herself had been a collaborator with Ms. Banerjee, aligning with the Maoists opportunistically during the protests of Nandigram and Singure remains erased in her narrative account. That the Calcutta Club civil society that she represents were the primary allies of Ms. Banerjee in the reign of terror unleasehed by the Trinamool Congress (TMC) in collaboration with the Maoists remain erased from this narrative. That the very Maoist insurgents then convertecd into the goons of the TMC is conveniently erased. That after collaborating with the Maoists, Ms. Banerjee then turned on them even as she incorporated the Maoist tools of her own party remains erased in Ms. Sen's narrative.
Ms. Sen and her brand of Calcutta civil society are conveniently silent on the TMC orchestrated violence on CPI(M) workers and offices that led to the cultivated erasure of the presence of the CPI(M). Her voice of opportunism is convenient silent on this TMC violence. Her analysis is conveniently ignorant of the politics of accommodation that Ms. Banerjee played with the communal forces.
Sen then goes on to offer a prescription to Banerjee, suggesting she turn to other Calcatian antels for advice:
"She has people like Amit Mitra."
In the same interview, Sen further notes that people from her elite Calcutta antel circuit are turning to the BJP:
"People I know. People like civilized, urban elite middle class. They are all pro-BJP now."
This acknowledgment however conveniently fails to ask the question why the Bengali Calcutta club elite are turning to the BJP. An opportunist class, this elite now sees in the BJP the opportunities for career movement and climbing upward. Devoid of ideology, that this class would turn to the BJP is no surprise. This class was also perhaps the supporter and sponsor of the CPI(M) at the height of its hegemony in Bengal.
In her analysis and so-called anxiety about the rise of the BJP in Bengal, Ms. Sen goes on to note how in her years of growing up, communalism was not a problem in Bengal. Yet, much like her other convenient erasures, she forgets to mention that this climate of secularism was actively upheld in West Bengal by the Left front through an active commitment to fighting communalism.
In a later interview with Rajdeep Sardesai on NDTV, we hear Sen lamenting how the Left is a beautiful ideology in opposition although it is not practical. She points out how it has not worked anywhere in the world. Once again, this vacuous (neo)liberal ideology stinks of cliched opportunism, devoid of evidence. That some of the strongest human development indicators globally are evident in the Left-governed socialist democracies of the world is a fact that convenient skips Sen. In her politics of convenience, she would rather see the Left as an oppositional force that keeps communalism at bay, while the reactionary right wing TMC rules with its brute tactics of violence.
The vacuity of the neoliberal class brings to fore its emptiness in ideologically challenging communalism. It is only the forces of the progressive Left in India that can mount substantive challenges to the culture of communalism, violence, and hatred bred by the Hindutva forces. In this journey though, the Left must first recognize that the Calcutta opportunist is not her.his ally. Never was, and never will be.