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 1st 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 1st 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.
Comments
Post a Comment