The Politican, the Public Intellectual, and the Political Advisor

Recently, the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi lambasted what he called 'revdi' culture at a public event. He was referring to the political practice of enticing voters - especially the poorer and lesser educated variety - with material goods in exchange for votes (revdi refers to a food item).

For anyone who is familiar with Indian politics, this comment (and the political discourse around it) would not come as a surprise.

What does fascinate me however, is the response it elicited from the Indian intelligentsia. Soon after this comment, a plethora of op-eds and articles were published in response across India, both in favour of and against the PM's words/insinuations. These authors of these pieces constitute an impressive list of public intellectuals - they include academicians, lawyers, ex-bureaucrats, journalists, and even a central banker.

I have been of the belief that the role of the public intellectual involves creating and disseminating new ideas to broader public; in effect setting up an 'agenda' that could then perhaps be deliberated, discussed (or even implemented) later.

In this case however, it was the politician who fulfilled this function. The intellectual class, while still seeking to inform public opinion and disseminate its ideas, was restricted to playing a somewhat reactive role.

This is not to suggest that they didn't have new ideas on the matter. Rather, I wonder if I am right to think of public intellectuals as 'agenda setters' in the first place.

Insofar that they are not closely associated with the political class, public intellectuals have little control over policy - at best they can seek to influence public opinion through the press or media.

The role of political advisors (including 'trusted' bureaucrats) therefore, I think is an incredibly over-looked and significant component of both (i) influencing the public agenda, (ii) the actual process of policy-making.