- Makarand R Paranjape
A fragmented polity and a
vitiated public sphere characterise today's India. The question that is
making the rounds is whether we have become an intolerant nation. On all
the networks, one strident anchor outdoes his or her shrill peer in
raising it. Obviously, there can be no simple 'yes' or 'no' to such a
question; it all depends on the context in which it is posed.
Yes, from the banning of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in the 1980s to Kamal Haasan's Viswaroopam last week, there are innumerable instances of our growing kowtowing to intolerance. At the same time we are tolerant to every sort of crime, corruption, or misdemeanour. That is why, really to understand the problem of waning liberalism in India, we must dig deeper and try to define the issue more precisely: who is intolerant to whom under what circumstances?
The value of re-defining the question and framing the debate more accurately is immediately evident if we notice a fundamental paradox about today's India. On the one hand, anything goes; we put up with anything and everything. You can practically get away with the most heinous crimes, be they murder, rape, corruption of the grossest sort on the most colossal scale, theft, graft, not to speak of the abuse of both law and morality in almost every sphere of life. India is a soft state and no one seems to be punished for his or her wrongdoing.
A soft state is not entirely bad. It provides common citizens an almost unprecedented and unique degree of freedom, unheard of in any other organised society in the world. Weak governance means a sort of anarchy, which is not only astonishingly creative but also infinitely resourceful. People learn to fend for themselves, to survive in the most punishing of circumstances. As long as you are not in the public eye, as long as you pose no threat to the established order, you are likely to be left alone. What is more, this Indian anarchy is by and large functional.
But the problem arises when your rights are violated, when there is loss of life, limb, or property. Then you begin to notice that the system simply does not work. You have no protection. You cannot get justice. Those who browbeat, bully, or trample upon you go scot free while you are left to your own devices, unprotected and frustrated. The functional anarchy suddenly becomes acutely, even traumatically dysfunctional. The hard or callous side of our soft state is evident in each of the much-discussed cases of the intolerance that have been in the news recently. The authorities, instead of protecting the victims, have sided with those against freedom of speech.
Maintaining law and order, it seems, is only an excuse to encourage those who are anti-democratic. In the name of some politically correct or incorrect cause, the rights of the silent majority are curtailed. Any agitating or vociferous group with a bit of political clout or nuisance value can hold the freedom of millions to ransom. The only protection that the victims of such intolerance have is the judiciary or the press. From this brief overview of the facts it is clear that the republic is not as intolerant as it is badly governed. This is a crisis not of tolerance but of governance. The political establishment has failed to uphold the Constitution and the rights that are guaranteed under it. Laws meant to safeguard the weak are often manipulated or twisted to bully or browbeat those who dare to speak inconvenient truths. The powers vacated or abused by an ineffective executive are only partially compensated for by an interventionist judiciary, an over-active press, or a popular uprising like Anna Hazare's.
Instead, from Hussain to Haasan and from Rushdie to Nandy, the State, with all its vaunted powers has chosen to side with anti-democratic forces. Again and again, it has abjectly surrendered or shamelessly pandered to belligerent minorities who are enemies of the open society. On the rare occasions that it has stood up to threats, such as to ensure the release of Shah Rukh Khan's My Name is Khan the state has shown that anti-democratic mobs can and must be controlled. Bowing to threats, on the other hand, is a sign of opportunism not wisdom a sorry camouflage for political perfidy.
One encouraging outcome of the recent fracases is that they have tested the limits of political correctness. So much confusion and corruption struts about falsely championing some pious cause or the other. There is a battle afoot with violent mobs and cynically selfish special interests trying to take over the public sphere while the state abjectly surrenders its authority and fails to protect the republic's fundamental values. It is time that the State ceases to renege on its responsibilities. Rather than constantly tolerating intolerance, we must send a clear message that intolerance will not be tolerated.
The writer teaches at JNU, New Delhi
Yes, from the banning of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in the 1980s to Kamal Haasan's Viswaroopam last week, there are innumerable instances of our growing kowtowing to intolerance. At the same time we are tolerant to every sort of crime, corruption, or misdemeanour. That is why, really to understand the problem of waning liberalism in India, we must dig deeper and try to define the issue more precisely: who is intolerant to whom under what circumstances?
The value of re-defining the question and framing the debate more accurately is immediately evident if we notice a fundamental paradox about today's India. On the one hand, anything goes; we put up with anything and everything. You can practically get away with the most heinous crimes, be they murder, rape, corruption of the grossest sort on the most colossal scale, theft, graft, not to speak of the abuse of both law and morality in almost every sphere of life. India is a soft state and no one seems to be punished for his or her wrongdoing.
A soft state is not entirely bad. It provides common citizens an almost unprecedented and unique degree of freedom, unheard of in any other organised society in the world. Weak governance means a sort of anarchy, which is not only astonishingly creative but also infinitely resourceful. People learn to fend for themselves, to survive in the most punishing of circumstances. As long as you are not in the public eye, as long as you pose no threat to the established order, you are likely to be left alone. What is more, this Indian anarchy is by and large functional.
But the problem arises when your rights are violated, when there is loss of life, limb, or property. Then you begin to notice that the system simply does not work. You have no protection. You cannot get justice. Those who browbeat, bully, or trample upon you go scot free while you are left to your own devices, unprotected and frustrated. The functional anarchy suddenly becomes acutely, even traumatically dysfunctional. The hard or callous side of our soft state is evident in each of the much-discussed cases of the intolerance that have been in the news recently. The authorities, instead of protecting the victims, have sided with those against freedom of speech.
Maintaining law and order, it seems, is only an excuse to encourage those who are anti-democratic. In the name of some politically correct or incorrect cause, the rights of the silent majority are curtailed. Any agitating or vociferous group with a bit of political clout or nuisance value can hold the freedom of millions to ransom. The only protection that the victims of such intolerance have is the judiciary or the press. From this brief overview of the facts it is clear that the republic is not as intolerant as it is badly governed. This is a crisis not of tolerance but of governance. The political establishment has failed to uphold the Constitution and the rights that are guaranteed under it. Laws meant to safeguard the weak are often manipulated or twisted to bully or browbeat those who dare to speak inconvenient truths. The powers vacated or abused by an ineffective executive are only partially compensated for by an interventionist judiciary, an over-active press, or a popular uprising like Anna Hazare's.
Instead, from Hussain to Haasan and from Rushdie to Nandy, the State, with all its vaunted powers has chosen to side with anti-democratic forces. Again and again, it has abjectly surrendered or shamelessly pandered to belligerent minorities who are enemies of the open society. On the rare occasions that it has stood up to threats, such as to ensure the release of Shah Rukh Khan's My Name is Khan the state has shown that anti-democratic mobs can and must be controlled. Bowing to threats, on the other hand, is a sign of opportunism not wisdom a sorry camouflage for political perfidy.
One encouraging outcome of the recent fracases is that they have tested the limits of political correctness. So much confusion and corruption struts about falsely championing some pious cause or the other. There is a battle afoot with violent mobs and cynically selfish special interests trying to take over the public sphere while the state abjectly surrenders its authority and fails to protect the republic's fundamental values. It is time that the State ceases to renege on its responsibilities. Rather than constantly tolerating intolerance, we must send a clear message that intolerance will not be tolerated.
The writer teaches at JNU, New Delhi
No comments:
Post a Comment