55. POLITICS BY HATRED
Should politics be based on hatred?
If we observe the Indian political scenario, especially during election times, we cannot escape the conclusion that politics is not only based on hatred, but no other way of conducting politics is possible. Our politicians know nothing better, or even nothing else.
But hatred reigns in our public life even in normal times.
LATEST US EXAMPLE
We had an example of this in the last US Presidential elections. The leftist crowd and its press made an absolute Devil of Trump, ridiculing him in all possible ways, even questioning his IQ. He was called ' a bully, a racist, a misogynist'. The Conservatives gave it all back, questioning the health, sanity and veracity of Hillary Clinton. They even questioned whether she was not covered by a double! There were several YouTube channels dedicated to this holy enterprise of mutual mud slinging. When Trump triumphed in the elections fair and square,against all expectations, the leftists could not take it with grace, and have not given up their hate games. I think this is the lowest we have seen in the US political behaviour in respect of the polls to the highest office. When someone represents a real change,or threat, the establishment cannot take it!
BLIND HATRED AGAINST BJP
This is what we have been witnessing in India too, ever since the BJP rose to national prominence, winning elections in more states than the Congress ever did. The easiest stick to beat them with is to say loudly that they are communal, even while the Congress is going out of its way to befriend Muslim communal parties and placate the religious minorities in all possible ways.
In Karnataka, it is even planning to create a new 'minority' religious community out of an old Hindu sect just to catch votes. In Kerala, they align unashamedly with Christian groups. But only BJP is communal! No one bothers to criticise them for their economic and other policy contents. There is no informed debate on policies. To call BJP communal is the essence of Indian politics. Even leading English newspapers and media join this charade. How silly it all looks!
TAMIL NADU: MOTHER OF POLITICS OF HATE
But those in Tamil Nadu are used to politics of hatred for over a century now. This hatred was based on the Aryan invasion theory, actively promoted by colonial interests,as part of their divide and rule trick, by which all North Indians were considered Aryan, and the South Dravidian. The South was supposed to be suppressed by the Aryans. But this did not cut much ice outside Tamil Nadu. So, they changed track.
The Justice Party was started to demand more govt jobs for non-Brahmins, as against the dominance of Brahmins. The leaders were well educated persons from the wealthier sections of non-Brahmins, and they were by no means vulgar. They were silently encouraged by the British who too felt that administration had come to depend unduly on the Brahmin employees which was not desirable. They also wanted to foil the rising nationalism among the educated middle class, especially Brahmins, by encouraging non-Brahmin elements loyal to the regime. Justice Party filled the bill admirably as they were totally faithful to the the British, and against the freedom movement. They were in power for 13 years in the old Madras presidency, till they were overthrown in the 1937 elections by the Congress.They could not recover, and the party was dissolved in 1944.
JUSTICE PARTY TO DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM :
REIGN OF HATRED
The main leaders of the Justice Party were non-Tamils. And they were all deeply religious and orthodox in their own way. Indeed their ways were Brahmanical ie based on Hindu scriptures. Gradually, Tamil elements started asserting themselves. The movement was dominated by E.V.Ramasamy Naicker, a Kannadiga, who started the Dravidar Kazhagam. He took off on the anti-Aryan, pro-Dravidian plank. He in fact started the politics of open hatred in Tamil Nadu. The Aryan-Dravidian divide, till then merely academic, was brought to the streets. His politics was based on the hatred of Hinduism as Aryan, , hatred of the Brahmins as custodians of Hinduism and remnants of Aryans in the Tamil land, , denial of God, rejection of the freedom movement under Gandhi and supporting the continuation of British rule. His politics was politics of hatred, A to Z. His hatred did not stop with words; he incited his followers, who indulged in violence by breaking the images of Hindu deities, by cutting the sacred thread of Brahmins, by cutting off their tuft of hair, etc. He went to the extent of saying that the concept of chastity for women was a non-Tamilian concept imposed by the Aryan Hindus, that the mangal-sutra was a sign of slavery and subjection of women, and should be discarded. There was thus no end to the manifestation of hatred in his politics. He made hatred fashionable in speech, and acceptable in practice!. As the Brahmins were a small minority, and not given to retaliation, they were helpless and even the govt did not afford them protection.
[Though E.V,Ramasamy Naicker adopted the label of 'Rationalism' for his anti-God stance, he limited himself to attacking the Hindus, and never dared to criticise the Christians or Muslims. This is the rationalism of the Tamils even today.]
DRAVIDAR KAZHAGAM SPLITS: HATRED CONTINUES
Many of Naicker's young followers left him, appalled by his marriage, at 72 to a 27 year old girl. They were also outraged by the fact that the marriage was mainly to safeguard , by some private arrangement, the wealth he had accumulated, not trusting his followers in the party. They floated their own outfit, the DMK. In course of time, they developed political ambitions and suitably modified their stand. The demand for a separate Dravidastan was given up as it did not find support in other states and as it was unconstitutional.The initial denial of God became denial of many gods and acceptance of 'One God' ; the opposition to Brahmins was restated as opposition to "Brahminism". But in practice it did not make any difference, as the cadres continued to oppose Brahmins in all possible ways, whatever might have been the refinement at some top levels. This continues to be the basic plank of all the outfits which have splintered from the DMK.
Some of them and some new ones call themselves pro-Tamil, instead of Dravidian, espousing separate Tamil nationalism and racism.
Over the years, the idea of politics based on a separate Dravidian identity has not appealed to non-Tamilians in the South. So, the self-styled Dravidian parties really harp on the idea of the Tamils as a separate race, and nationalism based on Tamil identity. However, its practical expression takes the form of opposition to / hatred of other identities, like Brahmins and North Indians. The idea that Tamils are not Hindus is also spread among the youngsters , with the active support of evangelical Christian groups.Thus hatred runs deep in the Tamil psyche, as they have been nurtured in numerous ways in the half century of Dravidian rule. In practice, however, anti-Aryanism is expressed as anti-Brahminism , as if Brahmins alone are Aryans!
As a matter of fact, all social problems in Tamil Nadu today are those among the non-Brahmin communities themselves, and Brahmins are no where involved. Yet, Brahmin-baiting is the staple element in Tamil politics!
INTER-GROUP HATRED
The only new development is perhaps the inter-group rivalry and hatred among the various Tamil outfits. The social media is full of hate messages couched in vulgar, uncivilized language and unrestrained personal attacks full of invective. But they all claim E.V.Ramasamy Naicker as their inspiration even today. And Modi is their common enemy- he is blamed for everything in Tamil Nadu. The groups which do not see eye to eye on most issues, unite against Modi.
DEMOCRATISATION AND DILUTION OF STANDARDS
With democratisation of politics, some dilution of public standards seems inevitable. With the spreading of education (literacy) and wild flare of information of all types, opinions proliferate, and with it quick judgements. Informed decisions are rare. Our media resort to partisan and partial coverage , and a clever mix of news and views that it is so difficult to arrive at the correct position in respect of any matter in public debate. A certain amount of discord is built into the social fabric in this situation. While this is inevitable, should discord necessarily lead to or express itself in and as open hatred?
FREEDOM STRUGGLE:
HATE-FREE POLITICS
Modern India witnessed intense political activity in the first half of the last century, directed against the colonial government. It had three phases: the moderate era of the likes of Pherozeshah Mehta, Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale; the assertive nationalist era of Tilak, Lajpat Rai, Bepin Chandra Pal, Sri Aurobindo; the mass-action era of Gandhi. Each group criticised the colonial govt in ways appropriate to the stage of development of national consciousness. Perhaps the most intense intellectual attack was by Sri Aurobindo, in language which stunned the British so that the Viceroy himself declared Sri Aurobindo the 'most dangerous man' in the empire. But Sri Aurobindo did not preach hatred against the British; he did not write a single word preaching or justifying hatred against them.
Gandhi emerged as the chief tormentor of the colonial power with a mass base for nearly 3 decades. He expressed opposition in strong words and stern action. But he did not preach hatred against the British or anyone else at any stage.Opposition to colonial rule was a principled stand, but brutal hatred of the British was no part of his agenda or vocabulary. Hatred was not his language of political opposition. Even in matters of social reform, he appealed to the conscience of the perceived wrong-doers, and did not incite hatred against them.
HATRED AND VIOLENCE:
WESTERN LEGACY
With these examples before us, why have our politicians ( it will be too much of a joke to call them leaders) plunged into the games of hatred? Why do we have to tolerate them? How have we developed insensitivity to the vulgarity that accompanies this show of hatred?
But then, is there anything at all the ordinary citizen can do in the matter?
NEGATIVE ROLE BY PRESS AND MEDIA
The usual institutions of a democratic society such as the Press, the Academia, the body of senior statesmen, wise elders etc do not carry any weight in India. The press is a party to this hatred, perhaps unwittingly, by reporting every development as it happens, even sensationalising some. A politician is sentenced to prison in a criminal case- that is reported with lot of fanfare. The politician bribes his way to special treatment in prison.That is covered in detail. She comes on parole- that too is widely covered. When she reports back to prison, that too gets prominent space. The same treatment is given to a convicted film star. Thus the press keeps the memory of convicted criminals green in the public mind. It turns the figure into a sort of hero or heroine! This same type of reporting about the politicians who indulge in hate speech gradually insensitises the public to the hatred involved. It becomes a sort of celebration! It becomes the norm. People forget that there were better times, and better people, and better standards! Our youngsters have absolutely no chance to know how things were before the rise of Dravidian politics.
JUDICIARY TO THE RESCUE?
I feel only our Judiciary may have some power to stop this trail of hatred. For that, somebody has to find a legal or Constitutional key to the problem and then move our judiciary. Law will have to stop this hatred, or hatred will swallow the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment