Dr Karan Singh at least has one redeeming virtue — his immense charm. Most others are bereft of even that. Lacking in even ordinary endearing or entertaining qualities, they show neither depth of understanding of the problems they come to deal with nor any passionate involvement in their subject. All this makes most such lectures at the India International Centre and at similar other institutions look like an exercise in intellectual commerce, which makes it a waste of time for those who go to these lectures with the hope of finding some illumination. Dr Karan Singh is usually not a poor speaker, but that evening all that he did was reel out a few commonplace observations couched in common cliches, and all of these in a tearing hurry.

The most annoying part of it all was his repeated skirting of real issues. Every time Dr Karan Singh reached a critical point in his lecture, he avoided dealing with it in good length, saying. “I don’t want to go into the details." And, on every occasion he came close to an issue which called for penetrating analysis or demanded clear expression of affirmative opinion, he dodged it by saying, "I don't think I should go into it."

If that is so, why invite people to listen to a lecture on the state of the nation? Such a lecture is not an occasion to dodge real issues. The fear of ruffling someone's feathers should not be allowed to overwhelm the lecturer's responsibility to his or her audience. If one's analysis of situation or observations on men and matters can cause a controversy, let them.

One must not seek consensus on such occasions. Consensus, though indispensable to maintain accord in civic life, can be extremely debilitating for the intellect and detrimental to the world of ideas. Mr Karan Singh is fond of referring to the Indian tradition of thought. He should know better than many others that the best Indian minds have always flourished in controversy and whatever little or much is still valuable in the Indian intellectual tradition has all emerged from intellectual controversies and confrontation of ideas. Lord Krishna was a controversialist of the first order and so were Buddha and Mahavir and Ajit Keshkambal. And, in our own times, Raja Rammohan Roy was nothing if not a controversialist as was Derozio and Bankimchandra, Swami Vivekananda and Swami Dayanand, Ambedkar and Gandhi or, in recent times. Rajneesh the Osho or, for that matter, Nirad C Chaudhuri or Girilal Jain.

Reference to Africa
True that one cannot always demand that every time one states out a problem, one must also come out with a solution to it. That is, admittedly, often so difficult to do because suggesting solutions to complex social and political problems is not that easy for anyone at any time. But, at a lecture like this, if one cannot suggest a solution, one can at least attempt to reframe a question or state a problem in a different way so that even if a solution is not suggested, at least the problem itself is illuminated from a different angle.

Sometimes just reframing a problem is useful enough as it can inspire a different line of attack. But, there was no effort to do even that which made the evening utter waste.

Some decades ago when Edward Shils was here to study the Indian intellectuals scene, he had said, "There are many institutions in India which offer lectures to large and small publics, but the lectures are often extremely stilted and the discussion is perfunctory…the quality of literary and intellectuals performance is often no more than mediocre." Many reviewers had at that time raised much hue and cry over his remark. Some had said that India was still a young nation with little material facilities for nurturing liberal intellectual life.

The plea cannot hold today when the Indian intellectual elite, at least in metropolitan cities like Delhi and Bombay, is so well off that many have to keep pulling up their pants all the time to hold them back from slipping down to their feet in public. Therefore, it should not be too much to demand that such lectures be not treated merely as occasions for paying ritual tributes to the dead but for stirring up the slumbering souls of the living.

One last point. It was terribly insolent on part of Dr Karan Singh to have so derisively referred to the two African countries, Rwanda and Burundi, during the course of his lecture. It was more so on the part of his audience to have roared at his scornful remark. I saw the faces of the young JUN student from Africa and his diplomat friend, standing by my side go blue in embarrassment. They must have felt as hurt on hearing his scornful remark as I and my resident and non-resident Indian friends often have in similar situation whenever someone on the podium in a foreign city has made a contemptuous reference to India.