AAP Doubles Down on PM Modi's Degree: Is Asking for Educated Leaders 'Elitism'?

In present-day politics, men and women of letters are derided for being too bookish and cut off from ground reality.

Why should the educational degree of the prime minister be a matter of concern for the country? Why should it be debated if the prime minister is educationally well qualified? Is educational inadequacy a hindrance in running a vast country like India?

Is it disadvantageous for a country of India’s diversity to run smoothly if the prime minister has not attained a degree from a prestigious university or a college of eminence? Does it make a prime minister overwhelmingly dependent on his advisers and they can have a free run if the former is not adequately educated?

Why should it not be said that this entire debate reflects elitism and that educational qualification is not necessary if the leader is sufficiently popular and well-versed in the art of administration and public affairs?

These questions have suddenly become the key talking points in the media and public discourse since Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal raised the issue of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s degree.

The Old Tradition of Educated Rulers

It is not the first time that the issue of PM Modi's degree has been raised but it is definitely the first time that his education has been linked to his competence in taking decisions while running the government. Kejriwal has said that since the prime minister is not sufficiently educated, he has an inherent weakness in understanding the nuances of policy formulations and that is why the country is suffering.

Today, in India, there is no educational bar for a leader or for a voter. Anyone above the age of 18 can vote, and above the age of 25 years can contest elections and become the prime minister if so chosen by the majority party in the lower house of the parliament. But when democracy was introduced for the first time in the city-states of Greece, not everyone was allowed to vote in and contest elections. Only men with property and education were eligible to participate in politics.

One of the greatest philosophers of all time, Plato, then advocated that only a philosopher-king should run the state. In his opinion, only philosophers are morally and intellectually suited to rule. The tradition that rulers should be educated continued during medieval times, with few exceptions, and until recently, in many European countries and in the US.

It was understood that in a democracy, only people with the right to property and education could take well-considered and reasoned decisions. If everyone were to be given the right to vote and contest, then the democracy would turn into a mobocracy. This is why a large section of the population (like women, the poor, slaves, and the illiterate) was denied this right.

So much so that in the 20th century, in many European countries and in the US, universal suffrage was not the rule till the 1960s. Even in India, after the 1935 Government of India Act, when elections took place, only one-third of the population was allowed to vote. The reason was the same. But the Indian constitution is unique because from the very first day, despite massive illiteracy and poverty, it introduced adult suffrage and did not discriminate between the rich and the poor, the literate and the illiterate; and between men and women.

It is also a matter of fact that all the top leaders of the freedom struggle were men/women of letters. The majority of them had degrees from prestigious foreign universities and eminent colleges. Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, Subhash Bose, Tilak, Savarkar, Rajendra Prasad, Vallabh Bhai Patel, Maulana Azad, Chakravarty Rajaji, Sarojini Naidu, Bal Krishna Gokhale, Dadabhai Naoroji, Phirozshah Mehta, and Madan Mohan Malviya among others had admirable educational qualifications. Gandhi, Tilak, and Rajaji had even translated Geeta in their own ways. In fact, Tilak’s Geeta is considered to be a pioneering work.

Nehru’s erudition was world-class. His autobiography, The Discovery of India, and Glimpses of World History put Nehru among the pantheons of great intellectuals of his time.

Azad was an internationally acknowledged scholar of Islam. Ambedkar was not only a legal luminary but also a renowned economist. Dadabhai wrote the first systematic critique of British colonialism in India which paved the way for the rise of modern nationalism in India. Savarkar’s book on the 1857 revolt redefined the history of India’s freedom struggle. Dr Radhakrishnan too was a highly respected philosopher.

Is Asking for Educated Leaders 'Elitism'?

Unfortunately, the same tradition could not be carried forward for long after independence. Politics became a game of slyness. In politics, being educated has become a liability. It is openly said that men of letters are too bookish and theoretical. They are derided for being cut off from ground reality.

In contrast, in Europe and America, an educational degree from a well-established university or college is a matter of open debate and public scrutiny. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama openly flaunted their law degrees from Yale University and Harvard Law School. Their degrees added charm to their candidacy.

But in India, to be a leader of consequence, one must be popular. It is of no consequence if he is literate or not. Education is no qualification to be the president and the prime minister or a minister. He or she has to be a member of the parliament or should become an MP within six months of being sworn in as a minister.

It is ironic that in today’s world, educational institutions like Harvard are ridiculed by the prime minister. Globally respected economists like Amartya Sen and Raghuraman Rajan are disrespected by power ministers for their frank opinions. Great centers of learning like Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Millia Islamia are lampooned by our political leaders as the den of “tukde tukde gangs”. When attempts are made to delete or rewrite history, not based on scholarship but to suit ideological requirements, then to ask that the PM and our leaders should be well educated is, unfortunately, being called elitism.

I am not saying that only education can make a leader great. For example, Akbar. He could neither read nor write, but was instrumental in taking the Mughal empire to greatness. He was not only a great military warrior, but he was also a patron of learning, art, and culture. He used to regularly hold fierce debates between scholars of different religions. He, however, was an exception. Akbar can’t be the rule.

Today, the world is more complex. It needs a more nuanced understanding of different subjects. Leaders with better educational qualifications are more advantaged to lead the nation. At a time when the world is infinitely interconnected and there is an explosion of information, and when artificial intelligence is giving a new twist to the art of learning, then the country needs a leader who can summarize the big picture and distill it for the larger public good. That is only possible if he or she is blessed with a degree that is globally respected. Education can never be elitist; it is a necessity for both citizens as well as for leaders.

(The writer is an author and former spokesperson of AAP. He can be reached at @ashutosh83B.This is an opinion piece and the views expressed above are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses nor is responsible for the same.)