Anti-intellectualism and the Political: How are they intertwined?

“Anti-intellectualism” is a buzzword that we keep hearing on different media platforms today. We come across instances where independent scholars, journalists and writers are continuously targeted and harassed for different acts of academic and intellectual expression: all instances that showcase the after-effect of the deteriorating integrity of academia and research. This can be clearly seen in the Academic Freedom Index(AFI) data wherein India has hit an all-time low score of 0.14, lower than several countries under monarchical rule such as the UAE or Kuwait. But why is this term now popular? Why are such happenings common? It is because dictatorship runs on compliance.

Authoritarian regimes survive on unquestioned political narratives. And the cultivation of an anti-intellectual society has been the go-to routine for bigoted governments throughout history: from the physical book burnings in 1930s Germany to the financial strangulation of universities in current day Hungary. We can also note that India and the United States are both well-established and popular examples of the framework today. Coming to definitions, Intellectualism is a blanket term for all kinds of intellectual activity and creative thought. And this activity often promotes free-thinking and questioning the imposition of superficial norms. Intellectuals that are hated by dictatorial governments are primarily those who interact with society in a dynamic, proactive manner, like historian Romila Thapar who faced backlash for critiquing NCERT’s propagandized revision of historical events such as removal of the Mughal era from texts. So, what exactly does anti-intellectualism entail? It is defined as a construct that rejects expert knowledge and it also correlates with the existence of popular but factually false beliefs in various fields. It seems to be a targeted political strategy to stop scientific inquiries, discussions and findings that oppose dominant belief systems propagated strongly by those in power. This is not a phenomenon that appeared in the social scene out of the blue. Anti-intellectualism is becoming increasingly normalized everyday, to the point where it has changed how areas like policy reform, journalism etc. function.

The rise of Anti-intellectualism can be easily correlated with the decline of academic freedom.  In Trump’s America, any research proposal with terms such as “gender”, “racism” and “climate change” will get flagged as “not clean” by the NIH’s (National Institute of Health) screening algorithm. The Trump administration in January of 2025, cut off funding for a long-running program that focused on identifying and monitoring landslide hotspots in Nepal. Though the research itself could not have completely predicted the landslides that happened in the beginning of September this year, it could have been a strong start towards a comprehensive monitoring system being built. Now, this screening and academic censorship by the US government is not based on any academically drawn conclusion. It is simply and utterly political. Why does the Government not want its citizens to have access to good scientific research? What have studies on glaciers melting in a geographic belt or systemic discrimination happening to minorities done to enrage such leaders? It is because when these studies are published, when such research conclusions are accepted and discussed by a wider audience, that then calls for change. Change in policy around carbon emissions by corporate billionaires, change in laws in order to further protect marginalized communities from social inequity or lack of access to public resources. And this change, in simple words, is not in the best interest of the President or the lobbies that fund his campaign.

The culture of challenging power that intellectuals bring forth is what makes authoritative leaders so uncomfortable. The Indian Prime Minister’s “Dimagi Naxal” rhetoric comes at this time where we see a steep rise in branding intellectuals as terrorists or anti-nationals. Why is the term “dimagi” used to describe a militant? Why is the act of not blindly accepting whatever stance the dominant ideology pushes out, an act of anti-nationalism? Why do such narratives of imprinting people with tags seem normal to us, like it’s just another day in this vast democracy? This mob strategy is customized to annihilate the collective consciousness of the working masses, so they remain loyal to a regime that exploits them to extremes. It is this anti-intellectualism that was at work when a silent reading protest in Vastrapur, Ahmedabad was attacked by members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), injuring 8-10 of the silent protesters. They were reading books such as “Why I Am An Atheist”, “1984”, “Bhima Koregaon: Our War Cry” along with “I am Malala” and “The Diary of a Young Girl”. The latter two formed the cause for the protest as those books were dropped out of a local private school’s reading curriculum after uproar from right-wing groups and parents. Why are these groups, or most significantly, the parent community of a private Indian school, so deeply unsettled by a book about a woman who fought for her fundamental rights against a terrorist regime and by a book of a young girl who documented her experience during a genocide as brutal as the holocaust? The issue is that we don’t hear these questions out loud anymore. Political discourse that defies the propaganda of mainstream political thought, are seen solely as the characteristic of shady, lunatic, intellectual circles. Critical reading makes you a target for lynching, and critical thinking lands you behind bars without ever having to see the inside of a courtroom.

When questioning the political landscape of where we live is extrapolated into this violent act, proactive debates, analytical reasoning or understanding the environmental timeline of our lives are all taken away from public discourse. Online propaganda, factually unchecked WhatsApp forwards and algorithm-based political outrage constitute another machinery that further carries out this dumbing down of political thought. Much of this also happens by categorizing or boxing incidents into binaries. Considering an entire political landscape as a left vs. right conversation, the Hindu or Muslim narrative or the loyal party member versus the traitorous free-thinker, are all examples of this binarizing of social issues. This phenomenon makes it easy for communal politicians to mobilize, gather and persuade citizens to fight for a narrow cause. Here again, the opportunity to engage in nuanced debates on climate change, on urban development, on agricultural reform and more, is looted from the larger public, because it is advertised as something meant only for anti-establishment intellectuals, a group that is considered to be homogenous, snobby and demonic. Indian historian and writer Ramachandra Guha rightly points out: “Intellectuals may believe that they are merely writing books or essays, but their enemies on the Right see them as undermining the Nation itself”. This branding is absolutely necessary to the survival of the ruling apparatus.

But despite enormous pressures, the academic community in India has not entirely fallen in line, as observed by Zoya Hasan, Professor Emerita, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Therefore, it then becomes the responsibility of the intellectuals and the greater masses to work together, when there arises a common urge for change, for a revision of the hierarchy imposed that is made to seem inescapable and inevitable.

It is only when these binarized entities interchange ideas, requirements, resolutions and their concepts for reform and a healthy dialogue is established between all corners of the society, can we bring about a united front against the system that has been cracking down on our ability to analyze and question the cards we are dealt. If these conversations are to be normalized and popularized, we need to desperately move away from this stage where national TV networks air episodes after episodes on fictional hate-filled narratives against Indian minorities, PhD scholars and political analysts. Resistance can never happen in isolation, but every little initiative counts. Pushing back against anything that significantly disturbs the constitutional backbone of this nation is most needed. Thus, let us read critically, write with integrity and think apart from the agenda.