Dissent isn’t a conspiracy against the nation

THIS is not about Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s critical remarks on the state of Indian democracy. Instead, as an ordinary citizen, I feel like reflecting on what it ought to mean to truly care for one’s own country. Or, for that matter, it is equally important to probe the meaning of ‘defaming’ the nation.

Advertisement

In fact, at a time when the might of power and associated noise are allowed to replace the spirit of meaningful conversations and dialogue, and the constant flow of non-reflexive and often irresponsible remarks and comments through press conferences, social media and television channels pollute our mental landscape, it is not easy to be thoughtful, contemplative and truly argumentative.

Yet, as I feel, those who refuse to see themselves as passive spectators of this absurd game of lies and propaganda are endowed with a heavy responsibility. They ought to overcome their silence, communicate with the new generation, and inspire them to distinguish the practice of ethically responsible patriotism from the politics of hyper-nationalism, or democratic thinking from the acceptance of everything that narcissistic political bosses prescribe with the arrogance of majoritarianism.

In this context, there are three points that need special emphasis. First, it is high time we began to articulate confidently and convincingly that a country is not just its ruling party, even if legitimised through the mathematics of electoral democracy. Instead, a country is its people — yes, unknown/ordinary people, and their aspirations, dreams, struggles and resistances. A country, it should by no means be forgotten, consists of all those who might not have won the elections, but are no less concerned about its destiny. In fact, a country is more than its supreme leader, even if his/her popularity is mind-boggling.

Hence, a responsible and factually/intellectually sound critique of the ruling party, or the policies of the government, can by no means be seen as a conspiracy against the country. To take a contemporary example, if you demand an inquiry into the dramatic rise of industrialist Gautam Adani in the Narendra Modi era and associated tales of corporate malpractices, you are by no means defaming your country. In fact, your critique reveals your genuine concern for the country. Or, for that matter, if as a teacher, amid the presence of foreign students I evolve a sharp critique of the violence of caste, patriarchy and religious bigotry still prevalent in our country, I am by no means defaming or conspiring against my country; instead, I am serving the dharma of a seeker of truth.

However, what goes on these days as loud, non-thinking, demonstrative patriotism (I mean saying ‘yes’ to everything the ruling regime does and prescribes, and criminalising all dissenting voices) diminishes the spirit of mature, confident and responsible citizenship. And this indicates the possibility of the ultimate danger: the degeneration of democracy into some sort of electoral autocracy.

Second, let the new generation, intoxicated by demagogues and their loud slogans, be reminded time and again that there is no virtue in the militancy of hyper-nationalism. Instead, it is pathological; it limits our mental horizons and restricts our thinking; it robs us of our creativity; and above all, it fears the liberating power of self-critique. With the madness of hyper-nationalism, we tend to legitimise authoritarianism, militarism, surveillance and the cult of narcissism. It is, therefore, not surprising that the politics of hyper-nationalism fears even the slightest trace of dissent, promotes blind conformity, or moral/intellectual dumbness, and continually breeds conspiracy theories (i.e. the nation is in danger).

To take some striking illustrations from history, Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci truly served the struggling masses of Italy, even though hyper-nationalist and authoritarian Benito Mussolini saw him as a threat, and sent him to jail. Or, for that matter, it is not Russian President Vladimir Putin, but those courageous souls taking an anti-war position and raising their voice who are genuinely serving humanity. Likewise, the US was enriched by Noam Chomsky’s critical voice rather than the madness of Trumpism. And who knows that possibly the entire ‘tukde-tukde’ gang (an abuse coined by the ruling regime to castigate its critics) is serving Indian people more than the troll army, or those shiny television anchors who are never tired of spreading hatred and divisiveness in the name of ‘prime time’ debates? Yes, let it be stated boldly: the ethos of pro-people/life-affirming/self-critical patriotism is one thing, and the noise of intellectually dull and spiritually impoverished hyper-nationalism is quite another.

And finally, you do not need a Rahul Gandhi to defame India in foreign countries. In this globally connected world, the concerned citizens of foreign countries know everything about the sad story: say, India’s steady decline in the global democracy index. You cannot fool everybody by saying that everything is fine here because the BJP continues to win the elections, and Modi’s popularity remains intact.

In fact, it is high time we realised the value of reasoned debate and dialogue in culture, politics and education. We should not forget that the spirit of the freedom struggle was filled with this spirit of debate and dialogue. Rabindranath Tagore didn’t hesitate to disagree with Mahatma Gandhi on the efficacy of the non-cooperation movement. And BR Ambedkar didn’t spare Gandhi as far as the caste question was concerned. But then, Gandhi, despite his mass appeal and charisma, didn’t castigate Tagore or Ambedkar as ‘anti-national’. In fact, the entire nation grew and evolved out of this spirited dialogue.

Who will tell the ruling regime and noisy parliamentarians that they are defaming the country through their refusal to appreciate this basic tenet of democracy?