Mood:
cheekyNow Playing: Majority in India approve of hooliganism
Topic: POLITICS OF DANCING
Have you ever realised why BJP will never tire of supporting Ram Sevak Sena who will thrash girls in Mangalore pubs, why Mayawati will support an MLA who has killed an engineer for not contributing enough towards her birthday bash, why Dr Manmohan Singh will repeatedly take a convicted murderer like Shibu Soren as his cabinet minister, why the ruling Congress government in Maharashtra will always support Raj Thackeray and his Bihari-bashing hooligans, why the CPI/ CPM will always support a terrorist like Mahdhani, why the Left will always justify Naxalism (though it is a bigger threat to this country than Islamic terrorism), why the People's Democratic Party and the National Conference will always support the separatist cause, and the very many other political parties supporting their pet issues.
We may all throw a fit watching television news every evening, well, almost all of us. Because many of us who are English educated, modern and given to following a western way of life will still be not against all the abominable actions of political parties. We have our own pet peeves.
On the other hand, English news channels in India may go hammer and tongs against these developments calling it uncivilized and talibanisation but even they make their choices according to their political proclivities. More so, because their constituency is the middle-class, which is the most fickle-minded and hypocritical.
The problem is that civil society in India is almost a non-existent society and democracy is all about majority opinion. When 3-lakh people gathered at the Gateway of India in Mumbai after 26/11 to show their anger against the political class one couldn't fail to notice that the crowd was mostly made up of young boys and girls from colleges around south Mumbai. There was no representation from the suburbs. Most of the youngsters though could speak Hindi with an irrepressible anglicised accent they could not help stop drawing examples of the fight against terror in the US. Many of those young boys and girls might have gone abroad and seen the world. But when Bollywood actors come on prime time news to explain that the days of indifference towards the victims of political violence as seen in Mangalore pubs are over you can't help smile at their naivety and grandstanding.
Howsoever we complain against uncivilised behavior we have to realise that the dice is loaded against the civil society in India. As pointed out in this blogsite earlier, media also would take sides not on merits but on political considerations. The words to describe events and people involved in all these incidents would be carefully chosen.
The best example of Indian civil society’s existential problem is seen in the support for Sanjay Dutt. Eight out of ten (actual survey done in a media house in Mumbai) among us support Sanjay Dutt who has been convicted in the first terror attack on Mumbai. We are same people who would hold candles at Gateway of India in a show of solidarity and our resolve against terrorists. Sanjay Dutt was one of the prime accused in the first terror attack on Mumbai, he was held for storing bombs and ammunition in his house used in the blasts, he was part of the conspiracy and was in the know of the terror plot for over one month since the ammunition was stored in his house, he also desperately tried to get rid of the evidence when the heat was turned on him and he has still kept in touch with the terrorists (Dawood and his minions) after the investigations started. Why all this breast-beating over some Ram Sevaks beating up a few girls in a pub, when we all in the civil society support and sympathise with a hard-core terrorist like Sanjay Dutt.
In a brazen display of hooliganism a few years ago dalits in Mumbai burnt down seven bogies of Deccan Queen after asking petrified passengers to alight midway between stations. Thankfully they didn't repeat Godhra. After that the dalit mobs went berserk the whole day in the almost-Singapore-financial-capital of India. They went into middle-class housing colonies, beat up people, vandalized and rolled out their TV sets and refrigerators while police roamed the streets looking the other way. The police did their best to prevent the middle-class population retaliate when the dalit mobs struck their colonies. The ruling Congress state government had given standing instructions to the police not to take action against dalits. But most of the next day's newspapers put the banner headline (with blown up pictures of the burning train): 'Dalit fury spills on the street'. It was as if dalits were justified in terrorising the city. The ostensible provocation for dalits to run riot in Mumbai was the desecration of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar's statue in Lucknow. Why did the newspapers not have the headline, 'Hindu fury spills on the street' during Godhra riots? Why is high-caste Hindu anger not considered as legitimate as low caste Hindu or dalit anger. The post-Godhra riots were always about genocide, fascism and Nazi leaders in BJP. Though what dalits did in Mumbai is equivalent to what Hindus did to Muslims in Gujarat.
Television news channels during the dalit riots in Mumbai instead of condemning the act tried to corner dalit politicians in Delhi over their inability to control their followers! Poor dalit politicians were lost for words as they were themselves learning about the events watching TV. Again, it was as if the dalits were being misled into hooliganism by politicians.
The truth is that it is the people who force their leaders to do their bidding. In all the cases related above if the political parties took a decision in favour of the civil society they would have lost the next election.
The basic fact is that India still is a Third World country and the disparity in wealth, education, access to basic necessities of life as well as political maturity all contribute to the loaded dice. The defining majority in India belong to the immature, unsophisticated class who think reservation policy, for instance, cannot have any effect on quality of products and services. Rather, they don't even think it is worth their while to discuss issues like quality.
The most damaging and disappointing aspect of today's politics is the way the prime minister has given up on his principles for the sake of political expediency. Shibu Soren has been convicted for murder, that too for killing a Muslim during a Hindu-Muslim riot. He is today out of the Union cabinet not because the prime minister wanted him out but because Soren lost the election. The image of the squeaky clean prime minister is shattered by Shibu Soren's continued existence in the Union cabinet for best part of this government's life. And the second event that really did Dr Manmohan Singh in was the cash-for-votes scandal in the Parliament. The PM did not even institute a nominal inquiry into corruption charges at the highest levels.
But not many are feeling outraged by the goings on. The corruption charges of Rs64-crore against Rajiv Gandhi had almost brought the country to a standstill in the 1980s. People felt betrayed and the election of VP Singh to prime ministership revealed how every community, be it majority or minority, was outraged. It was not just the civil society that picked up the cudgels. All that came to a pass when prime minister Narasimha Rao maintained a studied silence when Harshad Mehta (please give a google search if you don't know who is Harshad Mehta because there is so much to know about him that it could fill a blogsite) accused the PM in an open press conference of taking Rs1-crore bribe (piddly sum by today's standards) from him. Narasimha Rao, clever as he was, clearly knew that his constituency has completely changed. When economic liberalisation took place in mid-80s the civil society simply shrunk. After liberalisation successful crime has become a virtue. Even today every scamster, Harshad Mehta to Ramalinga Raju, has ardent admirers amongst the white collar, highly educated class.
And it is not just about crime, even children are brought up in an environment today where misbehaviour is not considered as a bad attribute. In the 70s parents would spank their children if they behaved badly with their friends. Today such behaviour is considered hip and progressive. And competition has ostensibly made parents to even support their children suffering from AIDS on realty shows with counter-questions like: "you think your kid is not having sex with his girl-friend?"
Now don't get this argument wrong. This is not about right and wrong. It is not about pre-liberalisation being good and post-liberalisation being bad. It is only about tectonic changes that have taken place post-liberalisation. The best example of this change in attitude is seen in the usage of the word 'gay'. In the 1980s any Indian school student would tell you that gay means happy and nothing else. Today a school student will tell you gay means homosexuality and nothing else. Ask any newspaper sub-editor today, he will tell you he does know what else can gay mean.
To sum up, the middle-class in India is witnessing a strange but inexplicable trend in behavioural pattern. In the 1970s and 80s children were told by their parents that good behaviour was the hallmark of their family upbringing and distinctiveness. Any middle-class family would emphasise on its distinct value systems. But in the last two decades there has been a marked change in upbringing. Today's parents practice as well as preach expediency. Dishonest means adopted to score better grades in exams are considered wrongful by parents only if their children are caught. Successful crime is a virtue like never before. That change in attitude and middle-class values has made bad behaviour fashionable. Today a well-to-do corporate executive would behave like a street-corner imbecile, complete with four-letter local language expletives, only to impress his colleagues of his street-smartness. It is in this context that the Mangalore pub incident should be taken. The majority in this country who are uneducated as well as most of us educated in English language, only pretend to belong to the civil society. As most seen on the streets of Mumbai, show of arrogance is macho while polite behaviour is feminine.
Look at the Raj Thackeray's campaign against Biharis. The basic premise of freedom for Biharis to take railway exams anywhere in the country just as any other community or linguistic group as long as they are citizens of this country is being denied. When dalits are asking for equal rights which is considered a perfectly legitimate thing to do why is Biharis' right as a citizen of this country being denied? And there is groundswell of support for Raj Thackeray. People openly make racist comments on Biharis in Mumbai local trains.
Also, if Raj Thackeray is forcing shop owners to change English signboards to Marathi the logic of market forces is defeated in the financial capital of India. A businessman or an entrepreneur knows best when it comes to the language he must use to attract his customers or clients. No businessman would desist from using local language if that would enhance his business prospects. Branding is such an important issue to be competitive today in the global market. By forcing change in language free-market philosophy has been given a convenient go by. Neither Raj Thackeray nor his supporters understand the requirements of today's business though every politician worth his salt would vow to convert Mumbai into a financial hub of the world. But it is striking neither Dr Manmohan Singh nor leader of Opposition LK Advani who are seen as 21st Century leaders have taken Raj Thackeray head on.
Making Mumbai into a financial hub obviously would entail attracting international financial giants, banks and investment companies to set up base in Mumbai. And the obvious comparison for global financial hub is with London or Singapore. But in case of London as well as Singapore international financial companies don't get bogged down in language politics. They are given absolute freedom to build their business. Else, they will go to some other place which is more conducive to their business growth. And these days there are increasing number of cities in Europe and South East Asia trying to woo international financial giants. Look at the number of little known cities in Europe advertising on CNBC TV18 to attract foreign investors.
Where does that leave Mumbai in the race for global financial hub with its constant assault on civil liberties. People should force Raj Thackeray to change his agenda from language politics to providing the city with modern drainage system, transport system, cleaner environment, and efficient utilities and security systems to even qualify for financial hub of the world status. But for that you need Mumbaikars to be as mature and sophisticated as Londoners and Singaporeans.
If movie-stars and news anchors think beating up girls in pubs and parlours actually make the man on the street livid, they are terribly mistaken. There is a huge undercurrent against the pub culture and show of ostentation in the malls. Indians might have left the Hindu way of life far behind but they have miles to go before they can adopt the modern, western way of thinking of freedom, maturity and sophistication. And politicians only do what we the majority voters want them to do. You can bet your life on the fact that politicians, be they from BJP or Congress or the Left, know which side of the bread is buttered.
**************
Posted by Anil Nair
at 12:00 PM
Updated: Saturday, 7 February 2009 10:34 PM
