This is just one of those things you see passing by that makes you pause and think through very many fundamental questions. You are a fence sitter and never really understood political ideologies simply or clearly enough to take sides, leave alone take to the streets to mobilze. QED, you are a coward who lacks courage of conviction to forsake the cosy certainties of life for the sake of youe beliefs. Make no mistake about it, you are very bright, incisive, intelligent and all that-just that you are not confident enough to ask honest, starightforward questions. You get easily intimidated by people who shout hoarse in the name of defending the interests of the downtrodden and in the process lift themselves up way above your reach. You may not necessarily believe that whoever shouts the loudest or cries the most dramatically is telling the truth, but you are unable to convince the starngers and even people you know that you too could be telling something important. You have so far failed to convince the people you have spoken to that you too could be making sense, even though you speak and write in English and was born an upper caste male. They say people with that sort of background are the real villains, and they are just not ready to listen to your reasoned persuations. People only remember you went to an 'elite' college and for all practical purposes to a fairly 'elite' university. They do not want to recall that you spent the first twelve acdemic years of your life in vernacular medium school in an average muffusil town. Perhaps you too have enjoyed that willing suspension of past, perhaps that suppression has helped you break more easily into the charmed circle of opinion makers and all that. QED, you are an opportunist rascal who masquerades his cowerdice with smooth talking and pretentious writing. You are doing well and all that but continue to struggle to live with these painful truths.
One fine morning you are going to one of those famous libraries and archives in the nation's capital, which had in its earlier incarnations housed the Chief of the Army Staff during the raj and later our first Prime Minister. You get down from the bus and there you see a posse of policemen on the other side of the road. They are all armed with wooden shields and lathis but are standing abslolutely meekly, only as some sort of a human cordon, around a handful of dhoti kurta clad, tuft-headed, slogan shouting, poster wielding ,males. What strikes you the most is the absolutely supplicant postures of these enforcers of the law of the land. You have a most important arterial road of the capital blocked by only a handful of self proclaimed representaives of the majority community and these police constables and inspectors were behaving as if they wanted to ensure a safe passage for these minuscule protesters, and not for the general office going public who have to work for a living for a change.
Now that is not all. Just behinf the policemen, again almost in a cordon of sorts stood a string of phoptographers from the print and electronic media, again almost supine in their keenness to transform this band of a handful characters into great, fervent servants and protectors of the majority religuious community of the country, when later in the day they'll air these bytes on national print and televeision. All these makes you seethe in anger and disgust at the trivilisation of democracy; you are reminded of the translation theory of some of the post-modernists. What, you begin to wonder, is democracy exactly? And you get just two answers. Let me rephrease it really. Democracy or democratic debates in India has become just two things. Both are clearly a creation of the media. Democracy in India, in other words, has almost reduced itself to becoming a hostage to the attention of the media.
There are two levels of this media driven charade. One takes place within the studio and the other outside its premises. The one inside the studio usaually has four or five professional politicians representing the major political parties in the country. These would be the most telegenic and articulate people, usually those who speaks impecceable English or Hindi, and can sound very well informed and articulate. Since such men are very rare in Indian public life, this collection is fairly repeatitive and in any case, most of what they say is pretty superficial and to be fair to them, it is not just possible to come up with detailed fundemanetal or even analytical points in such small time. Then there would be a generalist anchor who despite his/her lack of command over the details of the issue would necessarily ask provocative questions and try to evoke either a black and white answer or a provocative quote, for others to respond violently and for the spectators to sms with fervour. Finally, some sort of a yes/no/can't say questions is framed and the audience is asked to send sms and express their their opinion thereby. A thousand or two sms arrive and lo and behold, the anchor glibly announces that India has decided one way or the other. That's how India decides these days, thanks to those innumerable 24 hour news channels and their mad rush to stay ahead of each other in 'breaking' news and opinions. The operative word here is breaking.
The other avatar is what in older times used to be called people on the street in protest. You know Gandhi's hartals and popular mobilizations, stuff in which people came in thousnads and lakhs and millions. These days such mobilizations do happen but they are not the ones that the media has time or initiative to write or telecast about. For they may happen in faraway corners of the land, going where may be slightly risky for the dainty darlings or suited smart alecs of the media. More importantly such protesters might not have an articulate speakers among them, someone who has been to the 'appropriate' schools or colleges. So these remain persona non garata for our mediamen, except a few intrepeid souls who frankly are exceptions. Please come back to this blog once again. I have things to add. Meanwhile, feel free to speak about your own politics.
