The Many Faces of Dissent - A Counter view to Popular Political Narration

 Indian polity is a cocktail of myriad layers of individualistic aspirations competing with the advent need to challenge the preconceived notions of the society together to emerge as a strong substitute for the brand recall. In all this, a strong condiment is added on time to time basis when personal interpretations and not personal experience forms the part in general declarations of advent of particular event in the nation as the whole.

The latest in the list is the letter and counter letter from intellectuals, self-declared intellectuals, retired, semi-retired and professionals. The idea of 1^st letter by 49 prominent scientists is very clear – listen to us as we are intellectuals and understand what is happening in the society. The second letter of 62 prominent faces is more direct – it is directed not towards idea or the incident but towards the 1^st letter ascribing proper motives in the same. So the net result – an indirect bickering broke out between the two teams on the motives of the letter and not the content of the letter.

Lets understand this dynamic indirect face off from few standpoints –

1.     Selective Aggression

Point – Lynching has increased in the new Government and so the Central Government should make a new law.

Counterpoint – You should not ascribe indirect motives. Lynching are bad but it is a state subject.

In India, class difference has always activated strong reactions at various levels and various forms. Lynching is the direct result of the same. Though now there is major change in projections of the same. Till few years back, this was strictly a state subject and now the prominent voices are asking questions on the same from directly the Prime Minister. It is important to note here that Indian federal structure does not allow for the direct intervention of the Central Government in the State Government sources. Also, if the Government gets involve in the same, these prominent voices will be the first battalion of social voices to oppose the same. So, the real question is to decide – is the conditions deteriorated to the extent where Central Government should directly make laws impacting specific state subject. At this point, the answer is no.

2.     We are just talking with our Prime Minister

Point – We are just talking with our Prime Minister

Counterpoint – No, you are talking with the World in place of your Prime Minister

The idea is very simple. Indulge with me for a second – you want to talk with your father. So what will you do. Option 1 – You will check when your father is free, walk up to him and chat about the concerns. Option 2 – you will get to top of your balcony and from there you shout when all your neighbors in the range about your concerns to your fate. Which option individual chooses shows the result which he is aiming for. Option 2 is dedicated not towards resolution but highlighting concerns to the general. The Open letter concept basically puts the parties in boxes. It is important to highlight that there is nothing wrong in writing the open letters but it is seen that such letters in past have been used more as a publicity material then for the actual causes. These prominent personalities wield enough influence to take an appointment with PM to discuss the issues but the same was routes through an indirect communication model with a public broadcasting mechanism which makes the complete intentions suspect.