Three in a Row

                                                                 Three in a Row

Three major events of the week gone by raise a few important questions for the future of our polity and society. The first was the screening of the documentary on Nirbhaya- India’s daughter- by the BBC and the failure of the Government ban on airing it globally; the second, the lynching of a rapist by a 4000 mob and the third, the internal rift within AAP after its recent unprecedented victory in the Delhi elections. All the three have a significant bearing on the way we tend to perceive ourselves and the way the others (the world) perceive us. As things have unfolded, these events have cast a pessimistic shadow on our understanding and practice of democratic ideals.

It is unwise to write about the Nirbhaya documentary without viewing it. Whatever has been stated in the newspapers and on the TV channels have been by and large off the cuff opinions except for those of a small minority who had seen it. The heated exchanges between those who were for banning and who opposed banning of the documentary hinged on suppression of freedom of expression, the possible effect  on the Supreme Court judges who are yet to hand down their verdict on the plea of the convicts against their conviction, and lastly on the international reactions attacking India for alleged rape culture.

 India is slowly veering towards a fascist mindset that brooks zero tolerance towards anything alleged or perceived to be anti-Hindu/anti -Hindutva /and anti- Indianness. The only caveat is those who are in the forefront of destructive agitation against all forms of representation in art, cinema or literature that  are  even remotely suggestive of  anti-Hindu culture, lack understanding about the essence of Hinduism. Burning of books, vandalizing paintings aided by official banning of such writings and  denying entry permit to those writers and authors not acceptable to  small fringe groups for fear of their unleashing  hooliganism, lawlessness and violence on the streets- all these have become routine happenings in a country which has till now followed a written Constitution that gives the democratic right to every citizen to hold to his/her religious faiths, cultural beliefs and personal views and to express them without fear of  punishment. The loud cry orchestrated by our honourable politicians and a few angry feminists to ban airing the documentary has been in violation of the birthright guaranteed to every Indian citizen by the Indian Constitution. Everyone has a right to hold his/her opinion about the contents of the documentary, but that does not give anyone –least of all the government- the license to prohibit others from viewing the film and making their own informed judgement. The Prime Minister on his maiden entry to the Parliament after his election victory and again recently in his reply to the President’s speech in the Parliament had said that the Constitution was the sacred book to which he and the nation owes primary allegiance.  If in the face of such assertion by the PM, how is it that his Home Minister has called for a ban of this BBC production not only in India, but for a world-wide ban of this documentary . The lachrymose Minister for Parliamentary affairs Venkiah Naidu defended the ban as a fitting response to the humiliation inflicted on the nation by the erstwhile colonizers!  It is disturbing to note how the thoughtlessness behind the ban has made us a laughing stock in the eyes of the world. Not only did BBC air it, it had also gone viral through the You tube for millions and millions to watch it. The government had done a Don Quixotic act of tilting at the windmills of both the BBC and the all too powerful social media. Pandering to the opinions of a few loud women and misjudging them to be the whine of all the Dulcinea del Tobosos  of India , our well meaning Parliamentarian Don Quixotes  preferred to turn it into a courageous shout  of a victor! Can the Indian writ run in Britain or for that matter anywhere in the world? Today one learns that India’s Daughter has been screened in USA and seen by an audience that included Merryl Streep and Friedo Pinto among others. What does this say about our law makers who seem to be sitting in the ivory tower of parliament and behaving like King Canute who attempted to stop the waves? It is apt to quote Theodore Dalrymple referring  to Canute’s story,( without attributing to Canute’s arrogance) in the context of the British reaction to the Ukraine crisis (2014), saying “Political power or office often gives those who possess it the illusion that they control events. That, after all, is the reason why the story of King Canute retains, and will always retain, its relevance to the current political situation.” Little did our government  realize the power of the internet, its “unstoppable tide of information” and this cry for a halt to the documentary  has  shown us to be deficient in understanding while assuming an exaggerated opinion of our  importance and authority. Shakespeare’s Polonius in Hamlet said:” Give thy voice no tongue”- an advice that our elected representatives should have taken heed.

This takes us to the key question as to why voices were raised against the documentary.  The film was about the horrific crime against an Indian young woman as the title itself says India’s daughter But it is not just about an individual Jyoti Singh(who has now become a footnote in the annals of India’s shameful history),  but about one who represents many millions of India’s daughters. It is not about a weak, oppressed woman who was raped to death, but about a brave spirited young woman, who fought her way to a fatal end. Much cacophony has been made about the outrageous comment of the rapist in the documentary and it makes one wonder why such disproportionate importance has been given to a callous remark of a criminal mind as though an oracle had spoken. On the contrary if those comments are carefully analyzed in the context of the documentary, it will be seen to highlight the valiant efforts of Jyoti to fight those hardened criminals. She was a courageous fighter to the bitter end who did not go down with a whimper to remain unsung, unwept and forgotten. The rest of the film is an added  acknowledgement of the valour of the young woman as it mounts a rousing picture  of  the coming together of millions of  India’s daughters and sons,  India’s men and women,  India’s mothers and fathers , India’s brothers and sisters to express their solidarity with Jyoti and resolve to fight the criminal menace as she did. What has  been shown is a united India that raised its chorus against the dregs and thugs of society whose inhumanity is a disgrace to every man and woman in India and in any part of the world. Instead of looking at the documentary as a chronicle of inspiring moments we revel in grinding our nose in wretchedness, filth and sleaziness. By giving exaggeratedimportance to the rapist comment, we have committed an embarrassing faux pas and showed to the world that we are whingers, hypocrites and arrogantly foolish. Had we accepted the documentary as a fight for justice for the Nirbhaya woman, we would have gone high in esteem in the eyes of the world. In fact, we have been stupidly touchy on the rape issue. Rape takes place all over the world but there has never been a Nirbhaya who had displayed rare courage to fight off the assailants, biting three of the six attackers. It is always said that Indians are good at losing from a winning position. The hue and cry about India’s Daughter affirms our genetic trait of turning an hour of glory into an hour of ridicule. We seem to give into mobocracy mistaking it to be synonymous with democracy.

The lynching and killing of a rapist in Nagaland  by a humongous mob is another case of mob as a dominant force in society. This is not the same as the march of millions of men and women marching to seek justice for Nirbhaya. It underlines political and legal control usurped by the mob in violation of the Constitutional provisions that have set up institutions to protect and safeguard law and order, to hold up justice and to regulate discipline and orderliness in society. Democracy gives power to the people to elect those in whom they have trust and who have the talent and ability to govern. Democracy fails if people usurp the power they have given to their representatives and take law into their hands. The line that divides democracy and mobocracy is the line that separates rights and duties. People’s power is sacred when they use it to elect their leaders to govern them. It is their right to choose, but once the choice is made, it is their duty to follow the rules of governance. While democracy gives its citizens the right to freedom of expression and  freedom to follow religious faiths and cultural beliefs, it imposes on every individual the duty to allow others similar freedom to speak, write, voice forth their views and practice their faith. Rousseau’s magnificent aphorism “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” succinctly encapsulates the difference between rights and duties. The 2012 Nirbhaya episode exemplifies the human right to demand justice and to fight the social menace of rape and violation of woman’s dignity while the Nagaland episode shows the bankruptcy of citizens’ duty  to allow without interference the law and order establishment to follow its judicial course. The banning of the documentary (now restricted to Indian viewers after it had been viewed globally) is a close parallel to the denial of freedom of expression which is the fundamental right of every citizen. Democracy fails when it descends to mobocracy. It succeeds when duties and rights are given their assigned space in the functioning of the polity.

The third is the internal dissension in the AAP after their magnificent sweep in the recently concluded Delhi elections. AAP had sprung a surprise by its 67/70 victory reducing the two national parties- the Congress and the BJP to insignificance. This happened because AAP rode on the slogan “Power to the People”. But now with cracks surfacing, questioning the inner party democracy, there is the fear of AAP losing out the very ideal on which it won such a huge mandate. Suppression of the right to express under the guise of duty to serve the party loyally is a sure way of destroying the party. It is hard labour to build an edifice but if cracks surface, they have to be repaired and cemented for the edifice to standstrong and erect. AAP was built around honesty, transparency and inner democracy. It promised people a government that would listen to their voices and work to redress their problems. AAP wanted to win and they gave the people the biggest sop any political party could offer- the freedom to express their voice. Post- elections, AAP must have realized that it would be well nigh impossible to cater to different voices of the people and please them all. The strength of democracy lies in the power of the leaders to govern without being fettered by multiple voices often at variance with each other. The strength of democracy lies in  the right of the people to reject those in governance if they fail to act in the interest of the largest majority- akin to the Benthamite philosophy that seeks the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Power to the people stops at that point when the people transfer that power to the elected representatives they have chosen. To usurp that power back to themselves results in mobocracy. Will the rumblings within the AAP restore inner party democracy or will it lead to the stifling of the right to voice forth views and opinions not necessarily palatable to those who are presently ruling Delhi.

The three incidents -one following the other – are closely intertwined as they raise fundamental questions on the Constitutional propriety with regard to right to freedom and duty to abstain from that freedom when needed. The right to screen Nirbhaya, the duty to allow Constitutional authorities to function and  maintain law and order and finally the right to freedom and the duty to refrain from the exercise of that right are lessons we have to learn.