In
the last few days there has been some fervent, characteristically abrupt, attention
to invectives, indeed even the parliament was in uproar. Cussing is so common in
streets and around that these elevated concerns make me laugh. Evidently they
want their surroundings to be sanitized, any intrusion into these sacred space
is scowled. Though this blogger will be concerned if the cussing is with the
intent to be divisive or communal, other than that cussing is a reality and
should be treated as such. Though it may be avoided but these exaggerated
concerns are unnerving. My concern would be what is hidden in sanitized subtle
world of Indian elite. Barbaric non violence that sustains and encourages oppressive
system, that demeans humans as tradition, is my immediate concern. In the crude
reality of things cussing is a non issue and yes may be used if the situation
so demands. In the rough world it acts as a vent for common people, these
impotent rage have psychological benefits. The deliberate attempt to make issue
of something that is so common and very much a reality in the lives of common
people is a ploy to showcase the subtle and sophisticated world of Indian elite
wherein what is cleverly pushed under is crude world of nepotism and corruption
much less tacit acknowledgement of oppressive traditional system and not so
subtle indications as beacons over names, as heritage. This insistence of
proper conduct while everything else is putrefied is undoubtedly nothing short of
being an alien. The reason why the construct of ‘purity’ created an assorted
world that this society still reeks in its stink. A civilized person world
would undoubtedly find Indians quite uncivilized, though it may not be apparent
in first instance. It is cloaked in clever and layered deceit. The Sharma family
in Karol Bagh always had atthiti devo
namah at their door, I never went in nor was I ever invited. There was
something quite serene about their demeanor, and cussing was never even
possible, except maybe when their little world is scratched and then you could
hear some shocking use of language. The difference here is that common people’s
world is mutilated on daily basis.
Buddha
deliberated on right conduct, unlike the squatter created world wherein pure
conduct was end in all. Right conduct is an engagement with the world, it is
much nuanced. Pure conduct on the other hand instigates muck and tends to degrade
and alienate the world around. As mentioned, in my earlier blog, squatter’s world
associated itself with power (therefore money/greed) and control, and the powerful
in turn fed and eulogized these degradations. Common people were out of this equation
of culture and heritage herein. They were to be subjugated, and this became the
cause célèbre of elites, they got their understanding from these varied forms
of oppression. The world they constructed constantly seek to define itself from
the point of domination, the reason the philosophies were rarely egalitarian,
if ever reeked of hypocrisy. Also, since these were entitled worldview mediocrity
and irresponsible conduct (however pure) became the mainstay. The reason why, whatever
way one may be talented, it is quite unlikely that it will find much expression;
the reason why Indians rarely reach their potential, and find meaning in
fatalism while the mediocre elite with their lack keeps degrading the institutions.
It pervades into culture, sports,
literature…So much so that even words like democracy become farce. Now that the
mediocrity has shifted to market needs, we have the shift in garb of liberal saviors.
Guptaji
(we eschew beacons on cars…those political goons, power hungry babus, crass
people. But the beacon on the name is always on. Nice. Very nice), Director from
Public affairs and Critical thinking (phew big one that) understandably is
eminently qualified to defend Gandhian worldview. As mentioned in my earlier
blog, Gandhi originates and deals within the power structure, indeed independence
from colonial Britain meant transfer of power. In effect it was struggle to
control power (for the sake of people, of course), and therefore very much
entrenched in squatter’s framework. It cannot work otherwise, this gives legitimacy
and necessary clout. Gandhi assiduously built on it. While the traditions of
saints (also mahatmas, and you will notice they didn’t carry any casteist
reference in their name or actions) was situated in
questioning/denying the oppressive structure, that is, casteism and its barbarity.
Saints were enlightened people who enriched Hindu society; all the egalitarian
values that define this society can be traced to them. The ideas of non
violence (as also vegetarianism) meditative thoughts so on arise from these frameworks.
Squatter’s in the meanwhile first tried to degrade when that didn’t work
manipulated these into squatter’s world view. Gandhi firmly fixating himself in
squatter’s framework therefore cannot claim non violence, indeed that itself
would be violence. Guptaji writes “In
place of a violent display of opinions, Gandhi espoused ‘sweet persuasion’. According
to him, “Anger proves our intolerance,” adding that the “capacity to bear one
another’s criticism is a very important quality of public life.” Bertrand Russell,
another famous pacifist, echoed Gandhi when he said: “If an opinion contrary to
your own makes you angry, that is a sign that you are subconsciously aware of
having no good reason for thinking as you do.”
Sweet
persuasion? Even the sound of it reeks of lack of genuine involvement, a
product of clever mind. It seems to work with coercion that is subtle and comes
with lots of goodness, like what they call diplomacy, meaning getting your party/nations
view across without being much concerned about truth. If you are genuinely
concerned about something then you would try to understand, by logic as also by
use of emotion, and then empathize. You don’t do ‘sweet persuasion’, that is
subverting the issue. Mahatmas don’t do clever tricks (you can leave that to
babas, the scoundrel at Puttaparthi used to do some ash producing tricks, and
stacked money. They didn’t raid him like they have done to Rampal. Point to ponder), they are
genuinely involved. Secondly, one also has to place oneself at the lowest
section of brutal and barbaric oppressive structure (that condemns the moment
you are born, what can be more heinous than that) and then practice ‘sweet persuasion’.
So if it is the truth then it should work at all level. Clearly Gandhi was
speaking from his reality that gave him the power, and what makes it disgusting
is that he denies the realities/forces that work to make the life miserable for
the most oppressed sections. In a civilized world this is known as being a hypocrite;
Gandhians have made it an art in the garb of Christian inspired social work for
poor. This non violent barbarity has to be met with violent decency. Both equally
absurd but mutually compelling worlds.
Quoting
Russell as ‘echoing Gandhi’ doesn’t help the matter for the simple reason Russell
hadn’t placed himself in primitive framework nor does he claims to be a
Mahatma. Gandhi had raised his stakes but he clearly falls short. That these
degradations exist even now, that eat away the soul of the society causing untold
miseries, and instead of being ashamed is relished by mediocre and clever Indian
elite. It has percolated as vicious cycle of aspirational framework, this is Gandhian
legacy that will have to be resisted with all of one’s might. They have
piggybacked, with ‘sweet persuasion’ skills, Gandhi and have influenced west
into this gentleness hiding amazingly barbaric worldview.
Gandhi
tried to be a good Hindu without understanding what it meant, he deliberately stuck
to simplistic version of squatter’s oppressive world and searched enlightenment
herein. His thoughts and ideas when taken out of Indian reality may match
Russell’s or for that matter the best in the world, but the very fact that it
came from the acknowledgement of oppressive system makes it a suspect. It’s like
Nazis talking about human rights or white supremacist referring to empathy. These
may sound wonderful but the reality is stark. Oppressive structure like casteism
embedded in religion doesn’t give it any divine blessing as much as face
covered muslim woman is primitive patriarchy in its brutal form (I bring my
muck you bring yours is not how diversity is understood. It will lead to British
like monarchy hugging crap and export terrorists as part of multiculture
dividend). These cannot be fit in the garb of religious freedom, it has to pass
through the ideas of universal truth. No ‘sweet persuasion’, genuine people don’t
deal in such histrionics. These have worth in market driven deceit, that has taken
human race to its own peril.
Gandhi
was a man who wanted to bring in morality in political discourse, anything more
than this is part of Indian myth making tradition, that Indian elites have a
firm say.
Thus wrote TOI journalist: One of the Jain Bandhu slave
has written about a Doordarshan anchor at Goa IIFI. It is a must watch. It’s hilarious,
the vacuous nature of Homo sapiens that market creates, a statement on the
times we live. The woman wonders and is unable to comprehend that despite “successfully hosting corporate and entertainment
shows since college” she is being crucified. These are the kind of wonders
that only market can create and sustain. Indeed after market invasion, commonly
‘liberalization’ used as euphemism and capitalism invoked as justification,
lots of crude and degrading jobs have come into existence. Already world
renowned for its diversity (a closer scrutiny will make one puke) Indians have
colored it with market choices. The diverse nature of jobs, we are told, is
making the society vibrant. These are only following squatter’s framework in
its market avatar: deceit, mediocrity, clever manipulations, gabbing nonsense
as one goes for emotions so on. That they have been spinning money from nowhere
with least of talent is what makes it compelling (aka Tirupathi aka Cricket).
The slave (also journalist), apart from pointing to serious lack on the part of
anchor (which is so very obvious, again the readers must watch the clip. It’s nothing
different from the crap we watch every day in Indian TV. It’s a Déjà vu feeling)
points to another serious mishap on the part of anchor “…and made the stupid, stupid mistake of asking Prahlad Kakar, how he
felt being ‘here in Goa’. Well, woman, Kakar’s been in Goa as many times as he
has scuba dived. For crying out loud, he even has a house there”. Now I am
wondering who is this fellow Kakar? And why should the anchor know his detail? Indeed
why on the first place he should be even be in the list at IIFI? Then I find
out he is the presiding deity of marketers, and for the slave in the market driven
newspaper, this is moment of reckoning, his way of supplicatiing to the superior
force. The slave pontificates “…so why
she is being laughed at and castigated for? The PM is solemnly heard out when
he says that plastic surgery was rampant in ancient India...A former Uttrakhand
CM and present MP believes that a 2nd century BC sage had conducted nuclear
test…” Good, well taken. Punching politicians is quite common, it also has
this urbane demeanor to it, placing oneself as superior is inbuilt. Many Indian
journalists adhere to this. But the slave at TOI will have to explain on ridiculous
ads that weave puerile worldview, indeed ridiculously juvenile. The other day
they redefined it further: youngsters (obviously successful) are playing golf
using car. All this to sell one kind of brand over other, there are people who are
being sought to be influenced by these!! It surely is black money doing the
round). This is the system that creates the vacuity and celebrates it.
Likes
of Indrajit Hazra are part of this vacuity, the reason why Kakar becomes a
beacon of recognizable excellence, wherein he is just another marketer who helps
manipulating things. Mediocre society values these people. In the last many
years market has helped some really harebrained people to make huge amount of
money and celebrate it too, as the society slips into crudeness with relish. Peddler’s
of foreign brands and assorted worldview is what defines the society and choices
herein. The DD anchor is no anachronism as much as likes of Hazra, just that
these people earn few hundred times more in a day than a rickshaw puller in
Chandni chowk (who puts in hardwork all day long) in a year or so, that is what
is shocking. Now this is comparison of genuine ‘jobs’ in market driven world, I
haven’t even come to money from nepotism, corruption and other family values that
defines this society.
