Saturday, December 31, 2011

End-of-the-year Ramblings and a Tribute to Democracy and Freedom


They say the year 2011 was the year of protests and revolutions; Time Magazine named the anonymous, face half-covered protester the person of the year. The Arab world witnessed what many have called the Arab Spring and the Jasmine revolution. Wall Street has been occupied by anti-capitalists—the 99 percent, as they call themselves. Back home, many claim we witnessed the second freedom struggle, this one against corruption—of what kind, though, remains ambiguously unanswered. It seems that people were happy rallying around a messiah figurehead, and chanting anti-government slogans. “Politicians are thieves!” said millions of voices. This year has been a year where our concepts of democracy, governance and freedom have been tested, challenged, changed and, rather paradoxically, taken for granted even. A great year for democracy. A great year for revolutions—only, like always, there’s a catch.
About a year or so back, I scribbled these lines in a notebook, unaware of its significance in the context of last year’s protests. It goes like this: ‘neither am I a son of a politician, nor an influential anywho...I am a voice in the crowd...one silent for too long...decided to speak up now. The kind of voice you should be afraid of. Very, very afraid.’ When I saw images of hundreds of thousands assembling in Tahrir Square in Cairo, in Tripoli, in Sanaa, in Damascus, I realised the profoundness of these otherwise meaningless lines. Democracy, it seemed then, was being salvaged from a deep, dark slumber it had fallen into in these regimes of tyranny and decadency. Today, while I still hold that romanticised perspective, I confess, I am a tad cynical. At least when I see democracy being taken for granted in my country.
Take the Parliament proceedings, for example. The Opposition and members of the so-called civil society called it a “midnight murder of democracy”. I beg to differ. I would rechristen the same incident as democracy struggling to fight efforts that stifle it. Make no mistake, I am not a firm believer in democracy; it is, in Rousseau’s words, a system meant for gods. Thus, a democracy for a flawed species like ours can be only that: flawed. And it is also one which my countrymen have taken for granted. And this is the premise of my essay.

The year 2011 may well be the year of protestors, and it may be rightly so, too. But we can hardly feature in the same. India is notorious for processes which subvert the democratic principles on many, many levels; the bureaucracy has come to exist like a sui generis system, existing as a culture industry of sorts, subsuming talent, dissent and everything it can; which is, to all intents and purposes, running the country. People who speak up for rights are labelled as seditionists, anti-nationalists and what not. This is the murder of democracy, or the rape of it, more so. Having my rights trampled by the vociferous advocacy of someone else’s peeves, that is the molestation of democracy. All these are far from homicidal intents. And we should know one thing: the democratic setup is what allows the powered classes to control power. So, for the better or worse, democracy in India is a self-serving, and self-depreciating mechanism simultaneously. It is alive, but crippled. Not murdered, mind you. Not yet, at least.
Which brings me to the next part of my argument: the future of democracy. Anna Hazare’s fast has been declared a revolution, freedom struggle and what not. Truth is: the only true oppression that we have ever seen, collectively, was pre-1947. There have been regional tensions in the past, four major wars, countless attacks, and tens of thousands of lives lost in all kinds of extremist violence. Yet, I think I’ll be brash enough to say that we will never see the same fate as Egypt, or Libya, or Syria. One, because our self-serving and self-depreciating system would not allow for the state to become tyrannical; and two, because revolution has died in the minds of the Indian people. Sure thousands gathered at Ramlila Maidan and protested, sang songs of unity and nationalism. But when push comes to shove—which we, in all probability, would not feel—the sarkar is the maibaap for the people. No matter which party is in power, the government will always be the patriarch of the Indian people. We won’t take to anarchy or revolution because (apart from the need for it not arising, in the first place) we are all too preoccupied with our nine-to-five jobs, and bubbled existence. And the other India—the one which, by government standards earns less than 32 rupees a day—is too busy trying to make ends meet. Self-serving and self-depreciating at the same time. Revolution is too time consuming, too unpredictable. We go to election with fixed, dichotomous results in mind: either the UPA or the NDA. And frankly, is there another option? Unless Team Anna contests the Lok Sabha polls in 2014.
We won’t change the nation because that would mean changing our habits; inviting uncertainty, chaos and a possibility of missing the IPL and our daily dose of Bigg Boss.

This essay, or rambling—whatever you may call this—will not change the nation, nor aid the same in any way whatsoever. Because that is not my prerogative; as Oscar Wilde puts it, an artist’s job is to portray the world as he sees it, not to reform it as we know it. I cannot imagine a “changed” India. And I don’t think the  rest 1.2 billion Indians can do so either. They may go to Ramlila or Azad maidan and protest for a romanticised vision. And I, on my arm-chair—or desk more so—will continue to be cynical about it. We are a paradoxical nation filled with hypocrites and starved souls. And by god, that’s a very morbid reason for which I love India.


Here’s to democracy, to revolution and to a freedom forever taken for granted! Happy new year and have a fantastic 2012!


3 comments:

  1. Clear and provocative as usual.

    However, I'd voice my basic differences once again: first, I think you address a very small group of people. "9-5 jobs, ipl, big bboss" all these are engagements of a very small fraction of our populations (or let's say there are definitely many more who do not fall under their spell). To assume that this fraction has the power to shape things for all of India is somewhat presumptuous. To assume things would stay constant for this class is itself dubious: the occupiers in America largely belong to a class of people disillusioned with this kind of nonsense. But that doesn't obliterate the fact that they were immersed in it till sometime back.

    Just take the assertion that "the only true oppression that we have ever seen, collectively, was pre-1947. ... No matter which party is in power, the government will always be the patriarch of the Indian people." Sounds true for the 9-5 class. But its also because they have actually come to believe they've been benefitting from whatever's happening (at the helm of which is the govt.). But there have been a large group of people who don't think so. and time and again, whatever other sources of culture they subscribe to, have come out against the govt.

    A revolution in India cannot be pictured in terms of a nation-wide upsurge. Anna Hazare's wasn't one. No north-east/kashmir, no addressing of caste/labour issues, no picture for transforming prevailing education, no questioning of party-power/power of local-lords. The only reason why it looks like a pan-India thing is the lack of questions asked about it. Moreover, largely orchestrated by the media, centred in cities, etc. etc. On the other hand, the more lasting, motivated efforts of resistance will be found more locally.

    Hope to keep reading more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Also, at the end of everything is a strong sentiment to keep the status quo unquestioned. Is that so?

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the comments, Pratik, as always, I appreciate them!

      You raise valid points, and I agree, I have offered a rather lopsided, cynical perspective on most of the issues I have cited. But my reason for doing so, was to respond to many absurd claims made by many who claimed, or at least their statements implied, were fighting for an unproblematic conception of democracy.

      And yes, I was primarily addressing a very small group of people, assuming that these were the people I would normally converse with in most discourses. True, there are several issues, indeed ones with more gravity...but those issues really did not seem to fit in this 'rambling'; those, I feel, deserve special attention and a great deal of critical engagement.

      Perhaps you're right about the maintaining the status-quo bit. I think I made it appear so rather consciously, for it reflects the kind of things I've referred to, i.e. complacency, uncriticality and the desire to stay within our comfort zones. I agree, I also share this social location, and thus, am ultimately the subject of my critique.

      Once again, I appreciate your comments. I hope to keep writing more, as well!

      Delete