The Tectonic Shift that triggered TsuNamo 2.0

                                       The Tectonic Shift that triggered TsuNamo 2.0

I had written TSUNAMO 2.0, even while the votes were counted. I tried to resist writing again, but could not control the urge to put down my thoughts as I viewed how the elections mirrored the tectonic shift that has taken place in our ideas and attitudes. The elections were fought (and won) on the supremacy in respect of the binary between Naamdars(dynasts)and Kaamdars. The open, no- holds  -barred  criticism targeted those who had the (mis)fortune to be born dynasts and therefore cursed from being  Kaamdars –people who work. What was implied in such averment that had a direct appeal to people was, all Kaamdars hailed from humble origins and all Naamdars never worked. But what this facetious argument missed to note, ( though lapped up by many millions of Kaamdars ,who harboured grudge and envy of Naamdars,)  was the assumption that the  Kaamdars  rising up to the highest position of the erstwhile Naamdars,  had to  compulsorily remain celebates,  for if they reared a family,  their  progenies would have to suffer the ignominy of belonging to a new Naamdar lineage.  This is in sharp contrast to my early days when we were under pressure to carry the torch so well lit by the illustrious ancestors of the family. One was never apologetic about one’s genes. When I was young, I had to study hard to top my class because my father was a brilliant engineer. My husband had similar compulsion because his father happened to be the headmaster of the school where he studied. We were not given any preferential marks because of our lineage, but the demands on our effort, partly self inflicted and partly imposed by society, ever ready to mock at  our inability to keep up the family honour, were incredible. The family pride was in our DNA and we treasured it and worked hard to live up to its standards.

In the present day, it is a sin to be born a dynast. Today the dynast coming up in life has his sin compounded as no one believes he possesses merit and that he can function as a Kaamdar.  If one gets into IAS, the wry comment will be “Oh! His dad, himself an IAS officer must have swung it for him. It is the same even with Bollywood stars where the non dynasts like Kangna Ranaut make similar disparaging statements about fellow actors who seem to come from celebrity families. The modern day attitude towards dynasts has no place for merit and attributes the son- rise solely to family lineage.   This is in stark contrast to the Biblical God’s proud proclamation about his son, Jesus whom he had sent to the earth to cleanse the people of their sins.

 PM Modi’s charge, shared by all his afficionadoes against Rahul Gandhi was that he was a Naamdar. Certainly Rahul’s birth is not his making or his choice. As Heidegger says, we are all ‘ thrown- into existence’ and we have no say as to  when, where and why we are thrown in.. But this has been made out to be Rahul’s sin and therefore he should be banished into political wilderness for trying to rise up in the political arena of his father, grandmother and great grand father.  The dynasty is criticized for committing one sin after another sin by coveting the party’s top post. But the truth is Rahul has been  elected by his  party just as PM Modi is elected by people. What is the sin committed by Naamdar to be accused that his election was flawed? His election as that of our PM rests on the final assessment where the winner takes it all- irrespective of the winner being a Naamdar or a Kaamdar. But this illogical reasoning repeated a million times, resonated well with a very large majority of people who do not have the good fortune to belong to Naamdar family.

This negative bias against the well heeled  group, at times also  referred to as the Lutyens group or the Oxbridge group or at a crass level Khan market gang  prejudiced the voters against  ‘Naamdars’ to edge them out for their twin sins of being born to a dynasty and therefore accursed never to work hard.  Harvard is no substitute for hard work, thundered our PM and the people went hysterical. Siddharth Bhatia writes: “Those who have voted for the BJP – and mainly for Narendra Modi – don’t merely think he will bring them whatever he promised, but also because they see themselves in him. He is not just their representative, he is one of them because he has risen from among them. The chaiwallah story, true or not, is a compelling one, because it not just inspires, it exemplifies the feeling that a humble man has shown the privileged their place.” The first shift is to accept the skewed perception about Naamdars and hail Kaamdars.

The second tectonic shift is seen in the way voters gather information. This is the age of social media- an extension of our attitude towards instant gratification of our senses, mind and intellect, though the last mentioned ‘intellect’ is not given too much importance today. It is a jet age and everything has to keep pace with it. Hence the demand for instantaneity from conception to creation, from idea to act, from emotion to response, from existence to essence has become the ideal. So gather all information from twitter and social media on your phone. It is instant. No one cares for authenticity or reasonableness or cultured discourse. We devour the information without ever realizing we are party to the instantaneous act of garbage in and garbage out. There is no time to sit and think- it is like stuffing and gobbling sandwiches on the run. Nothing sinks in; it is all surface skimming and that is more than enough to live life mediocre size. The new generation is becoming dumber and dumber and the dumbing down suits those who rule over them. The use of demagoguery in place of reasoned discourse by sleazy politicians is in line with gratifying cheap sensational instincts of a generation that shrinks from intellectual debates.

The third tectonic shift is a descent from collective humanity to insular nationalism, to spawning hatred in the name of security and hypernationalism that believes in the superiority of one's nation and its hoary past and seeking to establish a hegemonic society in which its ideology and its supportive religious faith  become so normalized that it is difficult for people to imagine alternatives. The old world values of integral humanism have no place in the war hysteria generated by leaders who are portrayed as the new avatar born to destroy all enemies within and without. The idea of India as a nation for the Hindus who are forced to tolerate  the co- presence of Muslims and Christians, Jews and Parsis is far removed from the earlier idea of an inclusive India.  The orchestrated cry against s(i)cularism and pluralism goes against the basic premise both of Hinduism and our Constitution. The move away from  the broad,  inclusive and pluralist vision of the idea of India has shifted to a narrower, distorted and bigoted idea of India  which has failed to make a distinction between Hindutva(or Moditva as the ‘bhakts’ call it) and Hinduism. Core Hinduism is based on the idea of acceptance while Hindutva seeks a superior role to it over all other faiths. As Shashi Tharoor says: “Hinduism is a very large, eclectic, vastly encompassing religion that has tremendous amount of choice of freedom within it, which is actually one of the greatest strengths of Hinduism. The problem with Hindutva is that it takes this vast all encompassing religion and tries to reduce it to something much narrower and specifically tie it to a political identity." The belligerence of Hindutva and its insistence on being a political ideology violates the basic tenets of Hinduism that believes in co- existence and accommodation of plural faiths, creeds and beliefs. The shift from Hinduism to Hindutva has been a major change in our views on religion and its inherent encompassing power. Hindutva imposes obedience while Hinduism celebrates individual freedom of worship and acceptance of diversity.

That leads us to the next shift in our admiration for muscular strength. Gandhiji, a frail looking man got us our independence through eschewing violence and aggression. His moral strength and fair means were enough to bring down the might of the Colonizer. Today all talk about love, peace, genteel manners, cultured language and civilized demeanour have become passe^’ and it is replaced by aggression, violence, uncultured talk and gestures. People love this display of macho aggression in preference to   soft cultured discourse and dialogue   as they are opposed to Gandhian concept of non violence and gentle persuasion.

This election is remarkable for seeking votes in the name of one individual. The personality cult that it has spawned is at total variance with democratic collective consensus. The shift that is unlikely to be reversed in the near future is an unknowing and unconscious endorsement of democratic dictatorship from the democratic slogan of governance for, by and of the people. Those who questioned the legitimacy of the slogan “India is Indira, Indira is India’ have now shifted to a new slogan )Indiais Modi, Modi is India” It is now Moditva, Modinomics, Modi sarkar and this shift has taken root to endorse authoritarianism behind the façade of democratic sanction.    

One other major shift is the banning of the word ‘loyalty’ from our political ethics. Loyalty is no longer a virtue. One shifts loyalty without the least embarrassment like one changes clothes.  Shifting to the winner’s party s justified as it is done in the larger interest of the nation. Money speaks and money buys. Being loyal is defined as being faithful to one's oath, engagements or obligations. It means being honest and do not make it conditional. Our politicians loyalty is directly proportional to what they can get from those that have the power to throw crumbs. Loyalty, thy name is politician.

Lastly the tectonic shift is seen in our preference for shadow over substance,  for the immediate present, the ‘here’ and the ‘now’ over a sustainable far reaching insight into the future, for existence over essence, for conflict over dialogue, for hype over moderation, for vitriol over geniality and for chauvinistic intolerance to gracious acceptance of pluralistic ideas.

These shifts have taken place. They constitute today’s reality. One has to accept it. The question is  do we dare  to speak about tectonic shift without being labeled a naamdar, an anti national, a  pro liberal, a Lutyen’s votary, a Khanmarket gangster, an angrezi chamcha etc etc? Is silence the best way to protect our sanity or do we continue our inherited culture of being an argumentative Indian and seek  a reasoned dialogue to mirror the tectonic shift that has taken place?