The facade and insincerity of the political culture in India is too evident, reflected in the ruckus of TV debates and shallow protests outside
Public discourse is abuzz after a spate of horrific incidents of lynching across the country by anti-social elements. It has left hapless citizens worried and has put all nationalist Indians to hang their heads in shame. Such acts have been condemned by the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi and all leading politicians across the political spectrum. Both former President, Pranab Mukherjee as well as new incumbent Ram Nath Kovind have taken note of it and emphasised that such behaviour runs against the basic tenets on which our society and nation are founded. All right-thinking Indians must condemn it in the strongest terms and the elected Government must use all the authority at their command to ensure that such anti-socials are taken to task.
Having said that, it is time to reflect on the shifting definition of what is acceptable and what all are not acceptable in terms of public behaviour. Civilised societies function on the basis of a strong consensus on what is not acceptable. One is reminded of the English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s famous assertion, “The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins”. A civilised society would not allow a person to punch a citizen on his face, whatever may be the provocation. It will come down heavily on those who do not respect such boundaries.
It may be recalled that India witnessed a novel form of protest which went by the name of bandh. It was largely started by the left parties as a way to mobilise citizens to protest certain social or political policies. The left party workers would go around closing shops and offices. large number of people would squat on train lines to ensure that no long distance trains could move. The success of such protests was measured in terms of its effectiveness in paralysing public life. It was successful if all shops were closed and all public transport was off the road; when people did not step out of their homes in fear of being mauled by the marauding party hoodlums. A bandh was successful if it paralysed social life completely.
Is this acceptable behaviourIJ Does it not affect thousands of daily- wage workers who could not practice their trade or professionIJ Did it not affect their right to earn their daily breadIJ Imagine the plight of persons who were sick and could not be taken to a hospital. Imagine the case of a person who is sick and has been waiting for a surgery for months if not years only to be denied his much-awaited surgery on account of the bandh and have to wait all over again for the elusive date. Imagine the case of students who could not go to their schools or colleges to appear for their respective examinations. Imagine the case of young men or women who could not attend a job interview. Imagine the case of a foreign tourist who could not board a flight with his visa running out.
Which are the groups that suffered during a bandhIJ A petty shopkeeper, auto-rickshaw driver, a daily wager, a street hawker , a vegetable seller. They were deprived of their basic right to earn a living. How different is it from the current lynching, where people engaged in cattle trade are being targetedIJ One sees shades of such behaviour in other spheres as well If we look at how we conduct our debates, particularly on national television. The discussions on TV are all about shouting down the other person, all participants speaking at the same time and not waiting for their turn. The winner is the one with the loudest voice and the worst manners. This happens everyday at prime time shows. Young citizens are growing up being trained in such behaviour.
This is the way our Parliament functions as well for most of its working time. There is hardly a session, in recent memory, which has not been washed out by shouting followed by the inevitable adjournment. The happenings in the Parliament are broadcasted to millions of Indians who watch this ugly spectacle day after day. There is hardly any sign of things improving. We, as a nation, have forgotten to air our grievances in a civilised manner. No one is prepared to listen to the other. We are yet to come to terms with the fact that competing view points have to be settled through debates and discussions rather than fist fights.
Bandhs continue till this day and are called by political parties across the political spectrum. TV debates are getting uglier by the day. Parliament continues to be adjourned day after day with legislators rushing to the well or throwing things or a chair. India, as a society or a nation, has still not arrived at a consensus that this is not acceptable social behaviour.Thus mere condemnation of lynching would not let it go. We need to rethink the way we function.
(The writer retired as a senior official with the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India)