The Statesman: Opinion:
Monday, 07 September 2015.
We Indians take pride in our democratic
credentials, the history of our civilisation, and the culture of co-existence.
And the reasons are justified. It was in India that progressive philosophies,
theories of peaceful co-existence, and several religions had once originated.
The three facets provide a cushion for civilizations in general. Of late,
however, there have been certain distressing developments which go against the
very grain of our vaunted culture of tolerance and respect for divergent
discourses.
Indians appear to be increasingly intolerant of
dissenting perspectives. These trends have the potential to balkanize our
country by warping our nation-building processes. There have been umpteen
instances in recent times when there were attempts at cultural policing by the
self-appointed guardians of Indian culture. This is manifest in the booking of
unmarried couples from Madh Island and Aksa beach in Mumbai, the ban imposed on
857 porn sites, the plan to impose prohibition, to ban books, films, art exhibitions
or Valentine’s Day celebrations. In a word, Indians are increasingly betraying
a regressive mindset.
John Stuart Mill had rightly observed: “My freedom
to move my hand stops where your nose starts.” We may not like a particular
idea or act but there are legitimate ways to express our reservations or
revulsion rather than behave in a manner which shames our existence as a
civilized society. And, all this is often done in the name of stopping people
from hurting the sensibilities of other individuals or communities. After all,
how can one justify prohibiting an artistic expression if the same does not
violate a particular law or rule. The subjective interpretation of the law has
often been the major reason behind cultural policing.
We will go nowhere if there is a surge in Hindu
fundamentalism in response to Islamist extremism. After all, two wrongs never
make a right. Mahatma Gandhi was right when he said, “Eye for an eye and the
entire world will be blind.”
The recent quashing of Section 66A of the IT Act,
which allowed arrests for objectionable online content or striking down by the
Supreme Court of the ban on porn sites is a step in the right direction as both
moves run counter to the fundamental rights of expression or privacy. There
have been other instances of vigilantism when the ‘Group Admin’ of ‘What’s App’
was arrested for undesirable content or the knifing of the ‘Group Admin’ by a
member. The members always have an option to leave the group in case of
revulsion. They can form a separate group rather than indulge in
disproportionate reaction. The recent killing of bloggers in Bangladesh is yet
another instance of increasing intolerance in society.
We call ourselves the proud torch-bearers of an
enlightened civilization, but obscurantist perceptions continue to shape our
outlook. As a result, this has a negative influence on behaviour. Kissing and
smooching in public are frowned upon, but civil society conveniently winks at
domestic violence, including wife-beating on the specious plea that it is a
private affair. We still have intolerant societal reactions to such expressions
as kissing as exemplified by ‘Operation Majnu’.
We are so intolerant and disrespectful of a
divergent opinion that we immediately brand someone to be a quisling. This was
all too apparent recently when the likes of Salman Khan made statements
expressing sympathy with Yakub Memon. No one doubts his culpability, but as an
individual he definitely had his circle of friends who are entitled to an
opinion. Why should a statement of sympathy for a friend perturb a section of
our society? Markedly, this country still has sympathizers of Nathuram Godse,
who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi. A vibrant debate is integral to a vibrant
democracy. It is through a clash of ideas and opinions that truth ultimately
emerges.
As Voltaire once remarked: “I do not agree with
what you say, but I would defend till my death your right to say it.”
As citizens of a democratic country, we have every
right to express our views howsoever wrong they may be as long as the person
concerned does not do something to violate the law. Some Indians were justified
in expressing their disagreement with Salman’s tweet, but they definitely had
no business to agitate against the same by indulging in arson and vandalism.
Society does not agree with the views of many great thinkers; but the fact
remains that we still admire them. As a mature democracy, we need to be more
restrained in our reactions; otherwise we would be no better than those banana
republics, notorious for the kangaroo courts and instant justice like our khap
panchayats.
After the Iraqi journalist, Muntadhar al-Zaidi,
threw shoes at the former US President George Bush in December 2014, several
such incidents were reported in India. A certain Jarnail Singh, representing
the media, once hurled a shoe at a former Union Minister. The faces of
politicians and activists have on occasion been blackened. Violence against RTI
activists or mediapersons reflects an essentially distorted mindset. The perpetrator
is often an innocuous person; but the very fact that such incidents happen
points to the putrid pleasure that some people can yet derive. Such acts would
never occur were it not for the silent societal approval. The extremism of a
minority is often due to the passivity of the majority.
The other factor is society’s permissive system of
values. If corruption, crimes against women or violence against public property
keep recurring, it only means that societal conscience is not stirred. Our
value system somehow approves of speed-money, short-cuts, dowry, violence
against women, nepotism, violation of traffic rules, littering, vandalism of
public property and so on. No wonder such aberrations persist. We continue to
be mute witnesses as long as it does not affect us, but we tend to protest the
moment they start hurting us. So a political party today decries and criticizes
the Opposition for immobilizing the legislature, but would not mind doing the
same if the roles are reversed.
Isn’t it high time that we start addressing such
existential contradictions of our individual and corporate value systems? Most
of these problems would be addressed if rules and laws are duly enforced; the
half-hearted enforcement of our laws is the prime reason behind these societal
aberrations. One just
hopes that these
trends of being mired in history Rs to use the
expression of Francis Fukuyama Rs would fade as we mature as a society. The
government will have to be as vigilant as the citizens to secure their individual
and community rights. Otherwise, we will soon regret the destruction of the
civilisational leviathan called India.
.JPG)
.JPG)
