On the current circumstances...(21/12/2019)

When we say that India is a great country, we say that in a sense that not only is the size of the country great, which it is, and not even describing the huge variety of landscapes, which we also have, but rather the huge amount of lines on which there is work to be done, the huge amount of people whose welfare is to be seen, the huge amount of brainpower required and is available for the same in the vibrancy and vividness of a gigantic talkative democracy. I invite you to look up a word in the English dictionary called ‘sonder’. It essentially means that every individual we see around us, or the ones we don’t see all have as complex a character and life as we have. Democracy is one of the few government systems which try to uphold this unachievable ideal, most other forms mostly reduce the people mere statistic or workforce.  When the sonder is applied to family, we can grasp it, but when the line of sight is compounded to include the entire nation, the concept just flies out of the grasp. When a country as great as India, mind you I am saying ‘great’ on every possible account, is considered, the problems of the country seem really insurmountable. But I digress.

When a government of our country takes a step, in any possible direction, it would be impossible for them to fashion it in such a way that it hurts absolutely no one. There will always be people who will believe, rightly or wrongly so, that it is against them. What shall you say to such people who believe that really deeply? What set of words arranged in what sentences will make them see the big picture? All this while assuming that you yourself might be just as wrong. Are you rebelling without a cause, or for a cause so flimsy it would not sustain more than four questions, or are you supporting a fascist government hell bent on making people’s lives bend to its evil will? No one knows the correct answer. Sometimes rebellions are mere noises which die out just as spontaneously as they started, or they can take ugly forms and hurt everyone around them, innocent or otherwise. And while you are at it, think, do the prosecuted get a divine right to be angry all the time? If so, if I start believing myself as the persecuted, will that take away all guilt of my actions, destructive or not? At what point does one draw the line? Mere sentences can create deep gorges between communities which have co-existed for centuries. Or was there a perpetual gap, which was merely exposed by recent events? Let us assume, since assumption are the only things which are untainted by clueless facts. Assuming that there was no gorge between the currently angry communities, and relative peace was the norm, and communal swords are responsible for the breaking of peace, the carefully constructed leash of the monsters of society, then it makes complete sense to see brothers of different mothers to stand hand in hand against evil lordships. And that does happen, indigenous people standing hand in hand with the invaders to defeat them. But let’s not make this communal. Everyone is as proud of their culture as you are. It would be even safer to assume that they are more proud of their culture than you are of yours. So, let’s go with the other assumption. There has forever been a divide among the people. The divide of people who are indigenous to this country and the invaders, whomever you may count them. So now all the secularism in the world, in the Gandhian sense, will not save either side from flaring up at the smallest spark given the chance. If this argument holds true, then there will be unwarranted bloodshed and mudslinging every time the remotest of difference is observed. Both these assumptions have proofs in the real world, which is true. So, we are faced with another dilemma. Does holding the current generation responsible for the crimes done by their ancestors make sense? If no, then there shouldn’t be a case of reservation system in India, at least not anymore, and then no invading community should feel left out, because they are not held responsible. But if yes, then everyone who shares even a speck of “outside” influence should be thrown out of the country, because it willingly or not hurts the sovereign culture of this nation. I believe both these paths are misguided as they don’t try to capture the entirety of the phenomena. In fact, I would even venture to say that if one holds one or the other opinion, the person has to wilfully be blind to obvious evidences with contradicts his or her opinion.

Let us take this one step even further. If I stand by as a government makes everyone a puppet, creating the entire populace nothing more than a shadow, an empty shell of a great (on all accounts) nation? Will I able to forgive myself for being so spineless? Do I stand by the principles which define me, or I succumb to the first loudmouth I see? Or do I have the moral fortitude to question my own philosophy of life, to make it better, or to make everyone else abide to my principles without assuming its verity? Or worse, am I mindlessly being a pawn for a game I am not aware I am a part of? Is my rebellion hollow and worthless in the long run? Is it merely out of fashion? Now we are caught red handed. What do we make of this mess?

Allow me to help you. There is a good wisdom parted to me by my culture which I tremendously respect, and that is ‘No one or nothing is absolutely perfect.” When I say ‘no one’ I also expect myself to be in that same boat, without assuming that everything I say is golden. But there is some truth in that. I am yet to meet anyone who is perfect for anything. Everyone functions on different levels of correctness. Some people are more right than others for a specific task, some people are less right than others. And since it is extremely difficult to ascertain who is who, instead of putting the blame of making the wrong decision on one person, everyone assumes the responsibility. That is called democracy. Everyone votes according to their temperament and the winner is the one who makes the majority happy. This is full of flaws, the person who is chosen might be the best at simply getting chosen and not actually leading the country, or otherwise. But we collectively take that responsibility. When people vote for someone, many people will vote for the people who will lose. They don’t get their representation, and that is the price we pay for living in a democracy. We can endlessly debate who is the better candidate but it ultimately breaks down into the one who won, and the ones who didn’t. And if the person chosen was a mistake, then that will be broadcasted far and wide in the next election. We are a republic. No one gets power forever. That is the beauty of our country’s democracy. Giants have fallen to the will of the people. Masterminds of politics have perished in front of the people’s mandate. This also works in retrospect. People who come chosen the second time around, must have done something right, or you mean to say that there is no democracy left in the country. Even that argument will falter after a few questions, because if that is true then no one should be able to criticise a non-democratic government. In countries where there is no democracy, people are straight up murdered by the state for speaking against the country, there is no freedom of press, and because of the good graces of our ancestors, we are blessed with a democracy. When the faith of the people wavers in the face of recent developments by the government, it is not the time for fear mongering or irrational speeches. it is time to understand what has led to the current situation and how can we steer out where the majority (of the people involved) are benefitted. Mill should feel pride when it sees Indians stand together for the betterment of the future.

Also, it also not in the best interest of anyone to directly assume that the very Armageddon is onto us. If there is a mistake, it will be rectified by the people, and if it doesn’t the responsibility also will fall to the people. A little discretion goes a long way.