I don’t
know if feedback is the breakfast of champions, it certainly is the breakfast
of writers. Writing is a dialogue with the readers. When I wrote two articles
on India’s new controversial legislation (CAA/NRC), I expected the readers to
join the debate. Other than the anticipated abuse from known and unknown
readers, following are some of the emails I got. These are not excerpts, but
complete responses.
·
I have stopped taking sides on these
issues, so can’t comment whether I agree or disagree.
·
Was trying to know as much about the issue
as possible. An article from you is much valuable.
·
Thanks for your articles. Belated happy
birthday to you.
·
I am completely un-political (sic). I don’t
vote in any election, on principle.
·
For me, have to know enough about something
to have an opinion. And nowadays, as a global phenomenon, it’s very hard to
find someone you trust who can present an unbiased view on things like this.
·
Your study and analysis about the topic are
terrific. I am unable to react as my knowledge is not up to date.
·
Thanks for your last two articles. How do I
pronounce the Russian word you mentioned in your article?
Wow!
What a range of innovative ways to voice their silence. And these
respondents are my friends, some of them PhDs and MBAs.
You
don’t really need years of study to answer questions such as: (a) Do you
approve of the construction of detention centers across India to exclusively
imprison Muslims? Yes/No. (b) Do you approve of imprisoning Muslim
babies because their great-grandfathers were illegal immigrants? Yes/No.
(Mind you, the government manual mandates each detention centre to have a
crèche facility. Have you ever heard of crèches in prisons?).
Answering
these questions requires not a PhD degree but only conscience. It also requires
fearlessness that allows you to express your opinion. Above responses
suggest to me that those readers, all of them Indian citizens, are terrified of
expressing their opinion in black and white. They prefer to stay silent rather than
end up on the wrong side of the debate.
Dictatorship
I have
developed a formula for dictatorship.
Dictatorship=
those who knowingly support minus those who knowingly oppose plus
those who are knowingly silent.
Dictators
always project silence as support. In a corporate board meeting, or even in a
family gathering, the loud mouths usually end up making decisions. The silent
members later fume or protest, privately, for having to abide by the decisions
thrust on them. But it’s too late.
Not
using free speech is like engaging in a battle but refusing to use your
ammunition.
Applying
the formula:
Dictatorship=
Supporters (20%) + Silent (50%) – Opponents (30%) = +40%. Though
opponents (30%) may outnumber the supporters (20%), the silent crowd (50%) becomes
the decision-making force. They crush the opposition with their silence.
The
threat to be imprisoned may prevent people from protesting or expressing their
honest opinion. But the moment they are afraid, they have already entered a prison.
Imprisonment
of minds
Conventionally
speaking, imprisonment is putting someone behind bars. But imprisonment can be
of minds, not just bodies.
Each
and every citizen of North Korea, except Kim Jong-un, is in prison. Most North
Koreans sleep in their own houses and are not chained. But their minds are in
prison. They have absolutely no freedom of expressing their thoughts, and an eternal
fear of saying something wrong. Every day, school children and factory workers must
sing a hymn “We will follow you only” dedicated to Kim Jong-un, in front
of cameras wherever possible. North Korean YouTube (called Uriminzokkiri)
allows condemnation of South Korea and the USA, nothing else. North Korea’s
caste system Songbun classifies citizens into loyal, wavering and hostile. This
is based on ancestry as well as behavior.
North
Korea is an extreme example. In most nations, even democratic ones, people
often speak on party lines (Republicans must support guns and oppose
abortion), family loyalties (my parents vote for Congress, so I do as
well), religion (we are Hindus, so I support awarding citizenship to
Hindu illegal immigrants), employer loyalty (I pay bribes on my
company’s behalf, because our business will not grow otherwise) etc.
If you
can’t think independently, or express your thoughts fearlessly, at least some
part of your mind is in prison.
Trump
can’t be a dictator
Donald
Trump is racist, xenophobic, a liar, a bully and a narcissist thug. And he is
in control of the nastiest nuclear weapons. Other than Lincoln, he is the
tallest president in America’s history. His handshake is made of iron. And yet
he can never become a dictator. Why?
America’s
constitution? More than two centuries old, it talks about
separation of powers, offers safeguards for individual liberties. However,
parts of that constitution are as rigid as the Koran is for Muslims. Despite
perennial rampage killing incidents, the purchase and use of guns is easy. The Second
amendment which allows such man-made tragedies is dated 1791.
America’s
Supreme Court? Not really. For a democratic nation, the USA
Supreme Court is biased. The president nominates the Supreme Court judges, and
several verdicts are given on party lines. Trump managed to appoint Neil
Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh thereby ensuring a conservative majority in the
Supreme Court. In the USA, Supreme Court judges are in office until they fall
dead. Making the SC conservative has been one of Trump’s greatest contributions
to his party.
The
reason Trump can’t become a dictator is not America’s constitution or its
Supreme Court. It is the fearlessness of America’s people. You can see
it in media; CNN is on a relentless anti-Trump campaign since before Trump
became president. On my FB wall, I see my American friends and relatives
trashing Trump tirelessly. Stephen Colbert, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon, Trevor
Noah, Jimmy Kimmel, John Oliver, Bill Maher, and dozens of other comedians have
got a new lease of professional life. They are not shy to use all kinds of
obscenities when addressing their president.
Losing
comedy is Russia’s tragedy
Vladimir
Putin, in physical comparison to Trump, is a midget. If he was not what he is,
you wouldn’t notice him on Moscow’s metro escalator. How did the world’s
largest nation get trapped in the fist of this short man? Twenty one years so
far with no end in sight?
Putin
came into power in 1999, promising law and order, an end to corruption. Little
did the Russians suspect that dictatorship is worse than lawlessness and
corruption. Because under dictatorship, police and courts become
subservient to the dictator. And corruption always becomes worse. The looters
are stronger than before.
Boris
Yeltsin’s regime in the 1990s was chaotic and traditionally corrupt. But Russia
experienced democracy for the first time. Russian people were outspoken. You
could be afraid of the Mafia but not of Yeltsin or his government. Kukli(puppets) was a weekly TV show of political satire. All of Russia, including
the politicians who were ridiculed, loved the show. This weekly comedy came very
close to American openness.
And
then Putin happened. In 2002, Kukli ended. Since then, there is no
political satire on Russian TV. In clubs
and cafes, comedians need to be very careful. Two weeks ago, Alexander
Dolgopolov, a 25-year old standup comedian fled Russia after making jokes about
Putin and Christianity. In America, his anti-Putin lines may have gone
unnoticed: Our population has split into two camps. On one hand there are
those who support Putin, on the other, there are those who can read, write and
are logical. He had also joked about Christ and Virgin Mary. A former
communist atheist, Putin has introduced strict anti-blasphemy laws.
In
Yeltsin’s time, Russians proudly carried the sword of free speech and
used it. In Putin’s time, they hide it in a sheath of silence. And now
with disuse over two decades, they don’t know how to use it, even if they wish
to. They have mastered the art of self-censorship. For Putin’s one-man rule,
the silence of the Russian people is as responsible as Putin himself. “Puppets”
closing marked the end of the Russian democracy.
India’s
stand-up comedians
The
good news for India is that the majority of the CAA-NRC-prison supporters,
Islamophobes, radicalized zealots are not young. They are closer to
crematoriums than to their maternity hospitals.
In the
gym I regularly visit, most members and trainers are in their twenties and
thirties. They don’t give a damn about Ram temple, cow worship, patriotism as
defined by someone else, illegal immigrants or India’s partition (that happened
before their parents were born). Not only that, they virally spread the clips
of the stand-up comedians who ridicule the ridiculous. I am attaching a sample
of performances. Kunal Kamra, known for the recent flight ban controversy,
actually comes to my gym, when he is not performing. His JNU, BJP andMuslims, Abijit Ganguly’s CAA-NRC, Modiji and Amit Shah, Varun
Grover’s Modiji, BJP and cows are top-class acts. Even if you support
Ram-mandir or want to be silent about building prisons for Muslim babies, you
may want to watch these clips. They are great fun. More importantly, they show fearlessness
and sense of ridicule are still present in India. My gym friends
circulating these clips make me believe that none of CAA-NRC-Detention camps
are ever going to happen.
Public
opinion
CAA
legislation passing in both chambers is not the end of the process. Any new
legislation still needs to pass the Supreme Court and public opinion.
Supreme
Court judges don’t have the choice of remaining silent. They are obliged to
form an opinion and to express it.
In any
serious debate, I always consider myself to be a Supreme Court judge. That
allows me to keep a clear mind and judge a particular issue objectively. Muslims
protesting against CAA-NRC is natural; they are the victims of the legislation.
Non-Muslims are also capable of forming an objective judgment. Not only do
Naseeruddin Shah and Shabana Azmi have a right to protest, Deepika Padukone has
it, too. When people in thousands, in millions, abandon their silence, and
voice opinions, it becomes Public Opinion.
If you
support Islamophobia, xenophobia or legislated discrimination, it is fine if
you wish to remain silent. Because your silence is deemed as support anyway.
But if you are against such initiatives, and remain silent, then you are pushed
into the support camp. Politics is different from art, music, Netflix, sport.
You are free not to watch Netflix or not to have any opinion on art or music.
But nobody can be apolitical. Because your taxpaying, house-buying, marrying,
banking, driving, drinking and even whether you should be free or in prison is
decided by politics.
George
Orwell, 75 years ago, wrote:
The
relative freedom which we enjoy depends on public opinion. The law is no
protection. Governments make laws, but whether they are carried out, and how
the police behave, depends on the general temper in the country. If large
numbers of people are interested in freedom of speech, there will be freedom of
speech, even if the law forbids it. If public opinion is sluggish, inconvenient
minorities will be persecuted, even if laws exist to protect them. (“Freedom
of the park” in Tribune: 7 December 1945)
*****
How
incredibly relevant is Orwell’s quote even after 75 years.
Ravi
My dear Ravi,
ReplyDeleteI have invested the last hour catching up with a number of your blog posts (exception being the NRC post which I had read a few days ago).
Very happy to note that you are posting with healthy frequency again.
Lobh,
Aniket.
P.S.: I oppose this governments approach w.r.t. targeting Muslims. Thank yuo for clarifying the nuances.