WE, the intellectuals

Even though the connotation is not exact, "Buddhijibi" is the term conveniently used to translate "intellectual" to Oriya. It means some one who earns his livelihood (jibika) from intelligence and/or knowledge. No other parameter is required than your profession. Even after that being an intellectual, pertains to one's own personal claim, in a public forum. Media generally downplays the word intellectual by giving reference to the actual profession (like academic, professional, businessman and politician) but caps all of them as intelligentsia. Without this recognition, to prove him one of them is an individuals own responsibility. And we do it with deepest sincerity.

The first requirement to do this is to distance us from others. Others, who dont have an opinion, or don’t have voice or simply do not have their presence there. They supposedly dont think and suffer totally in oblivion. In a student body meeting, its leader said, "We must not confine our concern among us (the intellectuals), we must carry this to the common people (the others)". Intellectuals often feel obliged to pass on their burden to the common people in the society. Whether it is the burden of their concern over a problem or the burden of (un)realistic solution, it does not matter, what matters is their claim.

And who are these common people? Those who have more serious things to take care of- their daily life, whose personal struggle for a space under the sky is too much to overcrowd any complex brain and who actually gather the strength around our-the intellectuals' opinion by taking it to the streets. So much is the intellectuals' conceit that they would like to siege every zone of activity where they don’t have to move a hair. In a bid to establish ourselves intellectuals we rob off the common people their credit. In a discussion, a social activist suggests, "Consensus can be arrived at amongst Intellectuals. It is not an impossible thing. Certainly, with rationale thinking, we all can agree on some points." Then he proves himself one. What his self- agrandisation deplores is the fact that, reaching a consensus or discussion or rational thinking is not any highbrow ability. Discussion is the commonest form of human interaction and rational thinking is the only practical approach of day to day life. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker’s research suggests that even petty criminals take a rational decision before committing a crime. It turns out; the benefit they get from the crime is higher than the cost of the apprehension of punishment. Neither is consensus result of any intellectual exercise. Execution of a policy action or anything that requires more than one personal to take shape, demands consensus.

Could there be a fine line between the intellectuals and the masses? Can there be someone who is a master of all subjects? Can a nuclear scientist be considered intellectual when he speaks about some of the most penetrating social issues or a social scientist about satellites? In a state where more than half of population is denied the right to decision, by denying basic education and basic information, where do we selfish little creatures of privileges stand to be counted? What is our empty-posturing going to yield? We don’t know, in fact we never bothered. We always stressed our unlimited capacity as intellectuals. One of my friends says about different levels of intellectuals. When asked was it a stratification, he corrects himself, he meant different planes not exactly levels.

It is our strive for intellectuals that we encourage academics to screw the democratic process and get to the highest chair, loyal respect for intellectuals that we let the arm-chaired social activists retain their high-profile social service record, morbid chase for the recognition that we seek to do things that never will have an impact other than winning laurels for us, the same desire that squeezes our world squarely just beneath our feet.