Lessons from the cultural studies

If history moves in cycles, what makes power shift in time and space? There has been renewed discussion between culture and power. Should we move beyond ignorance of past cultural wars and redirect our energies and intellectual capacities toward new cultural studies, particularly those focused on market rationality? For, it is an engagement with new technologies, anti-globalization, ‘the yoking of cultural studies to the creative industries’. This might be incomplete narrative. Its nature is hybridity and interdisciplinary mix of studies. We need to grasp a full story. Although, British cultural studies since 1970s (The Birmingham Centre and London School) produced the trajectories of the cultural studies, it resisted the generalized notion of power, which came as an abrupt shock in the writings of Foucault. For, Foucault, ‘power is the another name of culture, where self is suspended in the significance and meaning of day to day conducts’.

The notion of domination and power appeared to be instrumentalist notion of social life, which both these schools, British and American cultural studies, tried to dislocate. However, the world of 21^st century beset with the threatening existential conditions require explorative research for our future, with value added from the resources of the past. It is a new project that can include not only the political dialects of East and West but include the polemic substance of North and South as well. The search for universal has become a need of our current times. It makes cultural studies defensive, unless it includes the subtleness of sociology. In the close of the previous century witnessed revisiting of cultural studies. Grossberg’s famous essay articulated it, ‘The British school of cultural studies argue that power is a struggle within and over meaning, whereas, American studies make departure, in a sense, treating it as the incorporation of into the moment of signification, culture. It is as an external intervention into the process of culture. Let us understand the ‘undifferentiated inclusiveness’ of power expressed by Madeleine Albright in her speech 2003(quoted by Gibson in Culture and power):

“Today America is at the height of our power. We have a president, who is determined to assert and use that power. And yet if you look around the world, you have to wonder just how much control over events we actually have. In Iraq, we are dependent on the UN, our allies and various internal factions. In fighting terror, we rely heavily on the help of two individuals, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of whom recently been the target of assassination attempts. In Asia, we are counting on, of all nations, China to put pressure on North Korea not to build nuclear weapon. Economically, we depend increasingly on the willingness of Tokyo and Beijing to purchase our skyrocketing debt.”

Since then, what has changed? It is only solidification of culture signification with power. Technology, trade and tariff control could bring wars and end wars, a new notional perception of power and state formation. How shaky it is, how vulnerable and full with triviality it makes humankind journeying under the new kings and autocrats in the name of representative democracy and national interests. The old world has gone everywhere in its political and social landscape. This is new world led by cults and cult politics of virtual perceptions. We celebrate independence day of our nations and pay homage to our fore- fathers, but we refuse to accept the blue prints of their imagination. There is little doubt that a significant portion of people understands it; yet there remains a prevailing sense of indifference, powerlessness and even deep futility in the very act of thinking. Fluidity of world politics changes political alliance on day to day basis. Power is isolated from politics and politics has ignored the masses.

Aftermath of Sindoor occurrence along with the proceedings of the current parliamentary sessions and the unpredictable trajectory of internationalization, should serve as a reminder that our leaders were not merely uninformed but rather men and women of remarkable insight. India lives in pluralism, diversity and difference of opinion is its positive nationalism. Patriotism means protecting of the national interests. We had this majority perception that despite competent and visionary leadership; the closing decades of the previous century witnessed rise of militancy and antinational radicalism. That brought BJP to power. Now, it is the third term of Prime Minister Modi, the nation needs harmony, internal peace improved with ‘sub ka saath sub ka vikas’, by promoting the inclusive narrative. The missing links in this narrative are to be glued. Inclusive politics is in blending moral spaces that makes majority minority relationship secured and assured. Power without understanding cultural nuances and subtleties have created uncertainties and unpredictability.

Our neighbourhood have same civilizational history. There is hardly difference in our DNA. While accepting history’s verdict, we have to try for normalization of our relationships. Neighbourhood has become important in the present day world politics. Pakistan is not the same Pakistan what Jinnah had created in 1947. It is now Bhutto’s Pakistan, a new country which has options to correct its perennial birth problem. It has wasted years since 1971 in marshal laws hybrid politics which could not match with its original civilization traits. There still remains an opportunity to build a new Pakistan - not one defined exclusively as a security state fearing India as its perpetual enemy, but a nation that prioritizes human security and comes to terms with new regional and global realities. India too has changed since 2014.

It is now Modi’s India. While it has cleared the fog of internal feebleness and brought a sense of assured pride, but that does not mean we should toe the line of Pakistan; what it has tried with its minorities and diversities. History has given chance to Modi ji to take country on its civilizational strength and change that suicidal narrative of primordialism and fragmented politics. A variety of false and imagined nationalism, which has weakened our vital institutions, especially our Higher Education. Meritocracy and the rule of law should be obligatory, without any inhibition. The trust deficit can be over with dialogue and distributive justice for all. The key element of this cultural diplomacy is open recognition of cultural difference and continuous dialogue with true representatives of all faiths and parties, so that ideal speech for communicative rationality could be achieved. Our vibrant parliament sessions on vital issues makes us introspective.

The tragedy is there is no complete history of cultural studies. Otherwise, India and Pakistan would not be eye to eye on military gimmicks, that too on ‘borrowed power’. Wars cannot decide anything. It is the understanding that people have diverse cultures. They move on with the repertoire of cultural and social capital, which have origins and blending in common spaces. The cultures cannot be framed and received. The new understanding of cultures from Asian, African and Latin American scholars in exchange with Anglo American cultural studies could bring the alternative notions to military and market dominated current times. Cultural wars are so called, is an incomplete understanding. It cannot be understood in black and white terms, through power locked orbits.

Culture is power. We need it to be identified with scholarship, truthfulness and compassion. Kashmir is not a political dispute between India and Pakistan. It is an ailment of cultural estrangement. It is the loss of the blending moral space of the valley. Pandit displacement was forced instrumentality of culture of power, which is its real ailment. We had culture of compassion and blended common moral sphere given by Lal Ded-Nund Reshi Tradition. That is the real moral cultural capital, which needs to be recognized. Unless both the communities arrive at a solution that upholds mutual security, dignity and the empowerment of each other’s way of life, Kashmir will persist as a site of enduring conflict and despair. India and Pakistan need not remain adversaries, if the real story of Kashmir-long obscured –were to be fully acknowledged and retold. It is its cultural estrangement and loss of blending Pandit –Muslim common moral universe.

 Ashok Kaul, Retired Emeritus Professor in Sociology at Banaras Hindu University