top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent...

Red Romance

For long, the Naxalite in news was recognisable by the gun. But the more insidious version of Naxalism has never needed a rifle. It has thrived in varsity classrooms and newspaper and magazine columns, fostered by men and women sympathetic to it. These academics and other members of the so-called intelligentsia have long enjoyed their status as ‘respectable dissenters’ even when their politics offered intellectual alibis for Naxals carrying guns. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Independence Day warning about “dimaagi Naxals” should therefore not be dismissed as another political label. His larger point was that an insurgency does not survive on ammunition alone. It survives on ideas and people willing to make violence appear morally fashionable. The most revealing feature of India’s Maoist movement was never simply its brutality. It was the strange attraction it exercised over sections of the metropolitan Left elite. The Naxalite with an AK-47 could be transformed into a romantic revolutionary while the policeman he killed became an instrument of an oppressive state. This was not merely naïveté. At its ugliest, it was the intellectual laundering of political violence. The fantasy of the romantic revolutionary has always been seductive. In this narrative, amplified through sympathetic media priding itself on telling ‘truth to power,’ India was not a constitutional democracy struggling with inequality and corruption but an inherently illegitimate state waiting to be overthrown. In the minds of this elite Left, Maoist violence has often been recast as resistance while attacks on infrastructure as blows against capitalism. The armed overthrow of the Indian republic was the liberation they craved for. Some of India’s most celebrated intellectuals have flirted dangerously close to that moral inversion. The issue here is whether intellectual prestige can be used to sanitise an ideology whose practitioners have murdered civilians, policemen and public servants and terrorised some of India’s poorest districts. A university cannot be the place where Maoist romanticism acquires the legitimacy of a fashionable campus cause. Professors who turn armed insurgents into heroic revolutionaries are not merely exercising academic freedom. If they knowingly excuse violence, they are helping to construct the moral vocabulary that makes violence possible. Let’s be clear here. A professor who criticises the Indian state is not a Naxal while a journalist who exposes state excesses is not an enemy of India. But an intellectual who repeatedly excuses, glorifies or rationalises political violence cannot hide behind the word ‘dissent.’ India has paid an enormous price for the Maoist fantasy. Thousands have died. Entire regions were held back by fear while development was obstructed. The people supposedly being liberated were often the first to suffer. The armed Naxal is now being pushed towards extinction. But the Indian republic cannot afford to leave behind the romantic mythology that made the gun respectable. A democracy can tolerate dissent. It should never be expected to tolerate the glorification of those who seek its violent destruction.

Doing Science, the Boustrophedon Way

In an age of speed and novelty, an ancient pattern shows why science still needs to move methodically and turn back without losing ground.

In the early days of writing, humans had not yet settled on how words should move across a page or a stone surface. Some lines ran from left to right, the next from right to left, and the pattern continued steadily back and forth. This style of writing came to be known as boustrophedon, a word drawn from ancient Greek that means “turning like an ox.” Few people realise that this ancient way of writing mirrors a principle that modern science, with all its computing power, still struggles to follow. The image is simple and vivid: an ox ploughing a field, moving in one direction, turning at the edge, and continuing without leaving gaps or retracing steps.


At first glance, boustrophedon may seem like a historical curiosity. Yet hidden within it is a way of thinking that modern science is quietly rediscovering. Long before laboratories or research grants, this pattern captured a powerful idea that progress is fastest when exploration is steady, systematic and complete.


Historical Pause

Boustrophedon inscriptions appear in early Greek stone carvings from around the seventh century BCE. Writing in those days was physical work. Letters were carved, not printed. Reading was slow and deliberate. Alternating direction allowed the reader to move continuously across the surface, without the mental and physical break of returning to the margin at the end of each line.


Over time, writing systems became standardised. Text began to flow in a single direction, and boustrophedon disappeared from everyday use. But the logic behind it did not vanish. It quietly migrated into other human activities where efficiency and full coverage mattered.


Farmers have always understood boustrophedon paths, even without naming them. A field is ploughed most efficiently by moving back and forth in neat rows, covering every strip of land without overlap or omission. The same pattern appears in painting large walls, weaving cloth, cleaning floors, and surveying land. Most of us use this logic without realising it, whether while organising a cupboard or checking rows in an examination hall.


In recent decades, the idea has gained formal recognition in science and engineering. In robotics, boustrophedon paths are used for tasks such as automated cleaning, crop monitoring, warehouse operations and planetary exploration as this pattern reduces wasted movement, lowers decision effort and ensures that nothing important is missed.


Scientific research faces a similar challenge. The number of questions a scientist can ask, and the ways to answer them, is far larger than it appears at first glance. Exploring this space unevenly is easy. Exploring it well is hard.


Hidden Problem

Many research programmes struggle not because of a lack of talent or resources, but because of uneven exploration. Some questions are examined repeatedly from slightly different angles, while nearby possibilities remain untouched. Fashionable topics attract intense attention, while less visible but equally important areas are neglected.


Funding pressures, publication incentives and risk aversion all contribute to this pattern. Researchers are often encouraged to make quick advances in narrow directions rather than to map the broader terrain. The result is knowledge that is deep in places and thin in others. The same problem appears in everyday life, when we keep revisiting familiar choices while ignoring options that lie just a little beyond our usual path.


This is where a boustrophedon way of thinking becomes useful. What does a boustrophedon strategy mean in science?


Adopting boustrophedon paths in research does not mean working alternately in opposite directions in a literal sense. It means committing to structured, continuous exploration.


A ‘boustrophedon mindset’ encourages researchers to define a clear problem space and move through it methodically. Variables are explored in planned sequences rather than convenient combinations. Assumptions are tested across ranges, not just at selected points.


It also changes how setbacks are viewed. In this approach, turning back is not failure. It is part of the design.


Imagine a laboratory studying the toxicity of a new nanomaterial across size, concentration, and exposure time. Instead of testing a few convenient combinations, the team plans a structured grid and moves through it step by step, changing one factor at a time and reversing direction at defined limits. Patterns emerge faster, repetitions are avoided, and conclusions become clearer because the full field has been explored.


This way of working is not new to science. Much of what scientists call the design of experiments already follows a similar logic. When experiments are planned carefully, conditions are varied in an orderly way so that all important combinations are tested, not just a chosen few. The aim is to reduce bias, avoid guesswork, and ensure that nothing important is overlooked. Seen this way, statistical discipline provides the structure while ‘boustrophedon thinking’ offers a simple reminder to move steadily through a problem.


Modern science generates enormous volumes of data, yet often struggles with coherence. Artificial intelligence can accelerate analysis and suggest new directions, but it cannot compensate for poorly planned exploration. If the underlying search is uneven, advanced tools only reinforce existing blind spots.


Useful Framework

A boustrophedon approach provides a useful framework for combining human judgment with automation. It helps ensure that powerful tools are applied within well-defined paths rather than allowed to wander aimlessly. This is especially important in applied research, large national missions, and policy-relevant science, where completeness and reliability matter as much as novelty.


Perhaps the most enduring lesson of boustrophedon lies in its attitude toward progress. Science does not always advance in straight lines. Turning back is often necessary. What matters is not the direction taken at any moment, but whether the ground has been covered well.


For young researchers especially, this mindset builds patience, discipline and confidence, showing that steady and systematic exploration often reaches scientific goals faster than hurried leaps from one fashionable idea to the next. In an age obsessed with speed and novelty, science may advance faster by remembering how an ox once ploughed a field.


(The author is an ANRF Prime Minister Professor at COEP Technological University, Pune; former Director of the Agharkar Research Institute, Pune; and former Visiting Professor at IIT Bombay. Views personal).

Comments

bottom of page