Just returned from a 3 day trip to two Taluka towns - Akalkot and Karmala - and one village town - Kurduvadi - in Maharashtra. As part of our mission to make excellent education, accessible and affordable, we are bringing LEAD schools to these places.
As I was preparing for the parent meetings, finalizing plans with the school Principals and traveling between these places, it gave me time to reflect on what has been occupying our minds over the last few weeks in India.
There are 3 thoughts that kept flitting through my mind:
1. How we don't know that we don't know. And despite that we operate from a position of certitude. We do not allow for the possibility that we could be mistaken. We do not realise that what we consume in media passes through a filter of 'positioning'. This 'positioning' both shapes and colours the narrative. So what we read is as important as who is writing. And what we see is as important as the channel that is showing it.
2. How we mistake discussion for action. Social media has made it so easy for us to express an opinion. I'm able to write and share this because of that same social media. But it also leads us to lazy forwards and appropriation of others' opinions without deep consideration. And having spent 10-15 minutes debating or arguing with others, we feel that we have contributed. But argement leads to nothing. In fact, in the face of certitude, it merely leads to hardening of our existing positions. How many of us have actually done anything to improve things in this country? In health, education, poverty alleviation, social harmony, civic sense, employment generation or any area that actually moves the nation forward? And how many are content with earning their bread and thinking that 15 minutes on social media, spewing their pre-decided opinions, is enough contribution to nation building?
3. How dialogue has disappeared from public sphere and has been replaced with arguments and shouting. The shrillness in conversations is deafening. Nobody wants to listen. Everyone wants to be heard. Form has overtaken substance. Motives and timing have become more important than the content of allegations. If Ex Home Secretary says, 'PC asked for report that Ishrat Jehan was a terrorist, to be expunged', the erstwhile Home Minister won't say, 'No, I did not ask for any parts of the IB report to be expunged'. Instead, he'll question the timing of the revelation. It is almost as if the timing makes the revelation false! We do not know what is true anymore. And this confusion is exactly what the guilty attempt to create. I now, am not sure whether there was a poster on Durga at JNU. HRD Minister says there was. Someone gets up and says there wasn't. No one has the time to verify the truth. And we use whatever suits us to validate our existing position.
What has happened to create this? In my attempt to answer this question, I'm aware that I bring my biases and leanings. But nevertheless, here's my thesis:
We, as Indians have historically been more content to debate and argue and less inclined to take action. Amartya Sen has described this well in his The Argumentative India. This needs to change. More Indians need to engage themselves socially and politically. We need to go beyond talking to taking action.
That being said, we are seeing the after-effects of the Great Indian elections of 2014. On May 2014, India saw a massive re-alignment in politics. Congress lost its standing as a central pole. It was reduced to the margins. BJP assumed the pole around and against which, all political alignments began to take place. This re-alignment also led to a lot of changes in the lives of the 'beneficiaries' of government largesse. Journalists, who used access to both sniff breaking news and to influence decisions, were by-passed by a Twitter and Mann ki baat oriented PM. Power brokers were explicitly discouraged from roaming the corridors of the various Ministries. Intellectuals who were pampered with plum postings and generous grants suddenly saw a shift in the Govt. inclination.
The Govt. also started flexing its muscles. It asked bureaucrats to actually work. Golfing during office hours went out and swipe card machines came in. It tried to get subsidies to work harder by pushing forward with direct benefit transfers. It tried to market India abroad to get more investment to fuel the economy. It did all this without any corruption scandals.
This leaves the opposition with little to fight. So the next best option is to create issues. Vague, emotional issues are best because they can't be dealt with objectively. Fear is the best emotion to target. So the intolerance debate, the freedom to speech debate, the freedom of minorities and dalits debate, and various other issues are being created. A lot of them are storms in teacups that are amplified by a more than eager media. And further given air by the intellectuals and beneficiaries who now find themselves 'disenfranchised'.
But this is not to say that all this is a mere creation of Congress and the Govt is completely above-board. There is a sub-text to how the sparks created by the opposition have been handled.
The ascend of BJP gave license to those Hindus who had so far felt that the state had been unfair to them in order to appease minorities. Hindu law had been abolished but Muslim law was allowed to continue, ignoring Article 44 of the constitution. Minority institutions are exempt but Hindu institutions have to comply with RTE. Anything written against Muhammad is banned (Taslima Nasreen, Salman Rushdie) but making fun of Hindu gods and goddesses is ok (MF Hussein, various bollywood movies). Hinduism's plurality is used as license to libel while Islam's monotheism is used as an excuse to ban. These grouses have come to a head now because the Hindu who felt discriminated against, thinks he has a voice now. I have empathy for this because I think the the hand of secularism should be equitable for all religions. And a uniform civil code is important for a secular nation.
But these hindus are also vegetarian (mostly). So they don't like beef. They are also anti-gay because it seems un-natural to them. They have a moral code in their mind about how girls should behave. So they are against PDA, mini-skirts and Valentine's Day. They think India had a great past and they not only derive pride out of it, they also want the world to acknowledge India for it. So they espouse theories of Pushpak Viman as a precursor to airplanes and the various 'astra's' as precursors to modern arms. I do not have any sympathy for this because I believe the state should respect individual freedom to eat, love and dress. And the state should desist from espousing claims that are as yet unproven.
The Govt. however, not only thinks that it can't visibly denounce these regressive thoughts, it has people within, who also harbour similar beliefs. Add to that, the Govt. came to power on an agenda of muscular nationalism and finds itself compelled to take action in matters of the nation.
That's why it's silence on Article 377. That's why the beef ban. That's why its 'behind the scene' management (vs. public denouncement) of fringe elements who say 'Pakistan jao' at the drop of a hat. And that's why its disproportionate action in JNU.
That's where my problem lies. I love the Govt.'s clean working because corruption, at least in large deals, has more or less gone. I love their economic agenda in driving growth and investment. I love their focus on renewable energy. I love that our PM works hard and works clean for our country.
But I would love the Govt. to revoke Article 377. I would love it if it pushes forward a Uniform Civil Code. I would love it if it appoints a more educated and visionary HRD Minister. I would love for it to publicly denounce the fringe elements within the party.
Is it too much to wish? I don't know. But I wish those who didn't vote for BJP in May 2014, see it with more open minds. And I wish, the BJP does more to include those who want the equitable growth for our country instead of worrying about losing it's 'hindutva' votebank.
