June 21, 2017 | TOI ,
By : Sagarika Ghose
What’s common between democracy and
Hindu philosophy? A constant search for answers, a quest for knowledge, a
starting assumption that we don’t know everything.
In a democracy parties compete through their respective perspectives
on public welfare, each hoping to convince voters. In Hindu philosophy,
the search is as important as the discovery. The seeker sets out to find
the truth, encounters many answers, but on the brink of enlightenment
is left humbled by the limits of his awareness. Even markets are about a
quest for knowledge: prices are determined by supply and demand of the
moment and a search for the just price.
Yet today India’s government believes it has all the answers and is
the sole repository of knowledge. Self-doubt does not trouble the
Narendra Modi-led dispensation, which firmly believes that it (and only
it) knows what’s good for the people and, rather like Indira Gandhi’s
sterilisation programme, the people have to simply be herded and goaded
into obeying the mai-baap sarkar’s wishes. Any questioning or
disagreement is either plain wrong or agenda-driven or equivalent to
treason.
For example, the Centre’s newly enacted cattle slaughter rules have
sparked controversy. They are seen to dangerously increase the use of
state power, to limit constitutional liberties in the name of cultural
nationalism. Centre may well claim that it’s only following a SC order
but the fact is there was hardly any consultation or dialogue before an
overnight announcement that has affected livelihoods and eating habits
of millions of Indians.
Predictably, opposition ruled states and states with large non-Hindu
populations have stormed into protest, but the message is clear:
government knows best. Dissenting voices are irrelevant; majoritarianism
trumps any other consideration.
On Aadhaar card too, Centre has made an ally of the courts to push
its diktat that Aadhaar is a must while filing income tax returns. But
was Aadhaar ever meant to be an instrument of fear or a device to
dominate citizens’ lives? No, the limited aim of Aadhaar was simply to
ensure better delivery for welfare schemes, not to be a regulator or
inspector or a vehicle of surrendering private information.
The fact that Aadhaar amendments were pushed through as a money bill
to avoid any discussion in Rajya Sabha shows that government had already
made up its mind, was in no mood to listen or introspect or if need be
change course. Like the religious fanatic who lives by absolute
certainties, this government believes its knowledge is absolute.
On triple talaq the PM speaks of the need for a dialogue, yet
government has made no attempt at spurring a detailed conversation with
stakeholders. Here too government is using the courts to declare
executive intention.
In Kashmir any attempt by civil society groups to push for a dialogue
has been deemed as anti-national and sympathetic to separatists. When a
group headed by BJP leader and former finance minister Yashwant Sinha
travelled to the Valley and prepared a report they were effectively
snubbed by New Delhi, with the PM refusing to even meet the senior BJP
leader.
Recently a group of eminent civil servants signed an open letter
expressing their concern about the bludgeoning binary being created
between ‘nationalists’ and ‘anti-nationals’ and the bulldozing of
debate. Typically their views have been disregarded. Even
demonetisation, that epic announcement that changed the life of every
Indian, was reportedly decided on by a very small group; no one, not
even the chief economic adviser, had the chance to disagree.
BJP president Amit Shah recently called Mahatma Gandhi a ‘chatur
bania’ (clever trader). But has the BJP government learnt anything from
the father of the nation, has it learnt the true meaning of his
chatur-ness?
Gandhi never believed he had all the answers, his was a constant
quest. From satyagrahas to non-cooperation to the sheer brilliance of
gigantic mass mobilisation over a humble handful of salt, Gandhi
endlessly explored, sought knowledge and tried to learn from contrarian
views.
Who else but a Mahatma would invite his enemies to the highest
positions, asking staunch critic Jinnah to be prime minister of India or
suggesting to Nehru that another implacable detractor BR Ambedkar be
appointed as head of the Constitution’s drafting committee?
Gandhi realised that the human condition is based on the words, I
don’t know, I don’t have complete knowledge but am trying to know and
trying to find out. In the same spirit, Hindu scriptures debate
endlessly.
None other than the divine Krishna had to explain to Arjuna the need
to go into battle through argument and persuasion in the face of
Arjuna’s constant questions. Did Krishna simply command Arjuna to do his
bidding? Did he issue a diktat and demand it be instantly obeyed? No,
in Indian tradition even divinities must dialogue, debate and persuade,
and listen to opposing points of view.
When a government believes that it has a monopoly on the truth, that
there is no need for any course correction, it inevitably makes every
differing point of view illegitimate and intolerable. It also turns its
back on the Gandhian inheritance, even as it seeks to appropriate
Gandhi’s charkha and spectacles for its various schemes.
Gandhi kept admitting his mistakes and kept searching for what he
called the truth. Today when state power bears down on citizens’ lives
in an unprecedented way, government must hark to the chatur bania’s
quest and ask why exactly Amit Shah has been forced to admit he was so
‘chatur’ (shrewd). That was because Gandhi started with the assumption
that he did not have all the answers and instead sought dialogue with as
many as he could. It’s a lesson Modi sarkar would do well to imbibe.
Source : http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment