It’s been ages since I last
penned my thoughts on this blog.
Not for want of material –
there’s been plenty.
But I’ve just not had the
motivation to compile my thoughts in a coherent manner and put them up here.
It’s so much easier to just tweet them randomly. I do tweet quite a bit. That
way I get my thoughts out of my system. But I’m not sure this is always the best way to get thoughts across, even if a
topic is well-threaded. I guess, to some extent, it depends on the topic too.
Today I decided I’d take the
“hard” way out on a topic that’s bothering me a bit. So instead of taking the
easy Twitter route, I’m putting down my thoughts here, on this blog post.
I want to talk about the
#NotInMyName protests against mob lynching that took place a a couple of days ago. They
happened in various cities across the country and in London.
Thousands participated in
these protests, despite rain and traffic. Without these hindrances, and had it
been on a weekend, there’s every reason to believe the participation would have
been even higher. People of all age groups could be seen – suggesting the youth
and elderly both felt strongly enough about the issue to brave the odds and be
physically present at the protest venues.
There was physical presence
from the Hindi film industry (Bollywood) too in the form of Shabana Azmi. In
Bangalore, Girish Karnad could be seen in the protests. Others, like Diya Mirza
and Varun Dhawan, expressed solidarity through Twitter. There might have been others – I wasn’t
keeping track of this.
But this post isn’t about who was present, or who supported the
protests.
It’s about those who didn’t.
I believe there is a
significant number of persons who had reservations about the protest and didn’t
support it one bit. Forget their not being present at the venues, they were
fairly vocal in their objection to the protest itself.
I’ve tried to understand the
reasons for this. I even put out a Twitter poll before the event to try to get
a sense of the reasons, but, given my very limited reach, there were only a
handful of responses. Too small a sample size to be of any use.
To my simplistic mind, these
protests were against lynching. So anyone who’s against lynching would
naturally identify with the cause. So even if he or she couldn’t be physically
present, he or she would support it online, or, at least in spirit.
But things are rarely that
simple in the real world, are they? That’s one reason I feel increasingly out
of place here – but that’s a discussion for another day.
Yes, things are usually not black-and-white
in this world – I’ll be the first to concede that. Binaries are not just
simplistic, but even dangerous because they lock you in, without considering
you might not be entirely with, or against, one of the arguments. There are
many intermediate points between two ends of a spectrum, between a Yes and a
No, creating various shades of grey. The world might be becoming digital - but
issues aren’t. They’re still nuanced – and that nuance must be respected.
I get all that, I really do. I
read a fair bit of political and social commentary, hopefully getting different
perspectives on a subject to enrich my understanding of it.
But I wonder whether we sometimes don’t just
overdo it. And, as a result, end up with
nothing to show.
Sure, it makes for fine copy.
You get appreciated for your intellect, and for your analytical abilities. But
what have you really achieved, other than throw another spanner in the works?
So I think it might be useful
to take a step back and look at an idea for WHAT it’s trying to do, instead of
being immediately dismissive of it. Or worse, finding some reason to run it down. Fact is, nothing being perfect,
there will usually be a reason that can be found. Certainly if one searches
hard enough. That’s how critics often make a living.
Let me put this in the context
of the #NotInMyName protests.
Broadly, from what I could
gather, the objections to it took the
following forms:
1.
How dare you use
the #NotInMyName hashtag
2.
All this is a
waste of time anyway, we all know it’s not going to make the slightest
difference
3.
This is all
agenda-driven. These guys are trying to make it look like the situation is much
worse than it really is.
This isn’t an exhaustive list
– they were just the most common reactions I came across. If there were any
other reasons for objecting to it, I’d be
happy to know.
Let’s examine each one now.
1. Use of the #NotInMyName hashtag
I totally agree with those
objecting to it. If you’re against lynching of all types, this doesn’t say it
clearly.
This hashtag, taken at face
value, implies, it’s meant for Hindus to use to protest against “Hindutva”,
which is responsible for recent incidents of lynching of Muslims by Hindu
bigots. That’s what this implies.
Technically, that excludes the lynching of the
Kashmir police officer, Ayub Pandith, because he wasn’t lynched by a Hindu mob.
Technically, that makes Hindutva the target of this
protest, no one else. This, while savarna Hindus themselves have been
responsible for countless lynching of Dalits over centuries. Now they find fault with Hindutva bigots but if they have
look into the mirror, they’re as much worthy of being a target of protests, as
the target they protest against. The
irony of this #NotInMyName tag didn’t escape Dalits.
Personally, I’d have preferred
to use an action-oriented hashtag like #StopLynchingNOW. Yes, it doesn’t have
the ring of a #NotInMyName – but it’s far more inclusive and far more direct.
A #NotInMyName tag says, “I don’t endorse
what’s happening”. A #StopLynchingNow
goes further – it says “I don’t endorse what’s happening AND I want you to stop
it RIGHT NOW”. It demands action – in that sense, it goes a little bit further
than just a “disclaimer” protest.
Maybe this would have caused
less resentment amongst those who objected to the protests because the tag
itself put them off.
Personally, I believe the
protesters didn’t mean to exclude anyone.
They were protesting just as much against the violence towards Ayub
Pandith as they were for Junaid and others. This was even visible in places
where Ayub’s name was specifically mentioned.
But there are enough folks out
there who will exploit every slip you make, however unintentional. Times now
are such (pun entirely intended).
One thing I will say though in
favour of Dalits who rejected the protests. For centuries, they’ve been at the
receiving end of the worst types of atrocities from the upper caste. How many
upper-caste folks have protested at
Jantar Mantar or Town Hall for them, demanding rights for Dalits?
When Dalits do protest in
their own way, every effort is made to quell their protest, as if they’re
committing a crime. In fact, many upper-caste don’t even want to acknowledge
the issues Dalits face.
So maybe at least some Dalits
saw this #NotInMyName protest as being for the right cause, but not with the right people. To be honest, I
can’t blame them. I’d like them to have participated – but the platform
probably wasn’t one they feel comfortable with.
Moving on, to point 2.
2. It’s a waste of time, it’s not going to make a
difference anyway.
This attitude too, I can
understand. I don’t agree entirely with it – protests HAVE made a difference in
the past, though a large number end up being just an expression of discontent,
rather than being a catalyst for change.
The thing is, in a democracy,
apart from casting his vote every so many years (once in 5 years, in India), a
citizen really doesn’t have much power to influence policy just on his own.
Even if he approaches his representative, he’ll most likely be told “get me x
number of signatures to prove there’s a mass demand for this”. That is, if he
is given a hearing at all.
That is why we have petitions
made in public interest, which seek to
get as much public support as possible. The power, and credibility, lies in
numbers.
The same applies to protests
on streets. If there’s a sizeable number on the streets for a cause, there’s a
chance it’ll be considered by those sought to be influenced.
Of course, there’s every
chance it won’t. Much depends on the attitude of the authority. The more
receptive and responsive, the more likely it will work. I leave it to you to
judge how receptive and responsive this government is, with regard to this
particular issue.
(Aside:
PM Modi today made a statement
condemning killing in the name of cows. Some see this as a “victory” of the
#NotInMyName protests. There might well
be some truth in this, especially since
international media like BBC and New York Times covered the protests – and we
know how sensitive the government is to anything that might tarnis its
international “stainless” image.
My own take on this is – I
couldn’t care less.
My skepticism, honed over 40+
years of following politics and listening to politician-speak, makes me reject
all talk, and focus on action. Action always talks louder than words – so, if
you don’t mind, I’ll applaud when I see gau-rakshak violence actually stop.
By the way, I’ve never asked “why didn’t the PM condemn
Dadri or A or B?” I don’t believe in it. What will we get? “Kadi ninda”? We see it ALL the time.
In my entire life, I’ve never seen “kadi ninda” solve any issue –yet it’s the
first thing everyone expects, and leaders often offer, in a situation. Sure, we
shouldn’t drape a criminal in the tricolor, but I think we should have slightly
higher expectations of governance from our leaders than just words. )
Back to this issue.
Even if this particular
protest is seen as futile, the fact that it elicited so much response, ON THE
GROUND, is itself noteworthy. We’re used to armchair warriors, typing
furiously, but reluctant to get out of their armchairs. That this made some of
them actually go on the streets is a victory of sorts in itself.
Was this the right issue to
pursue? Weren’t there better issues that should have been protested more? Like
farmer suicides. Or demonetisation.
Valid questions that were asked.
The thing is, it’s not
either/or. One can protest this AND protest farmer suicides. One doesn’t have
to run down one protest by doing whataboutery with another. Besides, it is
often a series of protests over time that makes an impact, rarely just one
isolated protest.
Moving on to point no.3
3. This is agenda-driven. The situation isn’t as bad
as it is being made out to be.
Maybe I should add a line
“These people are Modi-bashers anyway.”
Maybe another one “Where were
these guys when lynching was happening during UPA? Why were they silent then?”
This point really doesn’t
merit too much discussion. I’m a bit tired of every critique being turned into
an “anti-Modi” accusation. Surely some of us are better than that?
How bad does a situation need to be? How many deaths are “ok” to happen,
before a protest can get their nod?
As for those who say “why
didn’t you protest during UPA-time lynching”, one approach to counter this would
be to show numbers. Indiaspend did come up with numbers to show that cow-based
lynchings have gone up in the last couple of years.
Even so, I’d rather just say “Yes, maybe we should have
protested then too. But you know what? Just
because we didn’t protest then, is no reason not to protest now.” Two wrongs
don’t make a right.
For me at least, it’s not
about a BJP govt or a Congress govt or any party’s govt. It’s about the issue. And we need to keep
raising the bar on ourselves too – if we failed in the past, we need to learn
not to repeat those mistakes again.
This is about lynching – my
simple mind asks, how can any protest against it be wrong?
And THIS is what has been
bothering me. (I did start this post by saying that something was bothering
me.)
I keep asking myself – how can you NOT support a protest against
lynching?
I totally accept the points
made by those against the #NotInMyName hashtag.
I even accept that, as one
standalone protest, this one might not make any difference.
But…but…does that mean the
protest against lynching is wrong?
People are being killed – shouldn’t
we all be united against this killing? So some people want to organize a
protest against it – must we weaken their efforts by running them down?
If power truly lies in
numbers, we’re doing our best to ensure we aren’t united. Guess who wins when
we are not united?
Yes, we have our
differences. Show me one cricket or
football team, with 11 players who are in perfect harmony with each other.
There are differences between players, their background is different, their
conditioning is different, they have egos – and yet, when they have a cause
that brings them together, they keep all that aside. They need to, because they
need to fight for a bigger cause. They need to try and win the game – together
as a team.
We know that those who fought
for India’s freedom from the British had differences between themselves too.
But they didn’t let these come in the way of their collective struggle – the
British would probably have liked to see them break up, and thus break their
resistance.
We have a lot of differences
amongst ourselves – and I don’t mean to trivialize any of these. They might
well be valid too – but there are times when we need to park them aside and
unite for a purpose.
A citizen protest against
lynching (or rape, or any crime) is one such purpose. Unless one supports the crime, this isn’t the
time to let one’s differences come in the way.
Heck, even the US teamed up
with Russia/USSR to defeat Hitler in the Second World War. And we know how
ideologically different the US and Russia/USSR were, otherwise.
Which is why I was
disappointed.
While those in the protest
said they felt exhilarated by it, the protests against the protests showed me,
as if I needed evidence, the fault lines
in our society. The hate, the contempt, the mistrust we have for each other.
Once again, this isn’t about
BJP or Congress or any government.
It’s about us – and how we’re
letting hate into our lives.
There’s a LOT of work we need to do on this front.
And we need to do it NOW.
No comments:
Post a Comment