Whose sense of morality?

I spent the last week at home as I had fallen sick with viral and came home to recover fully. While at home, I got hooked to the latest TV series courting trouble, Sach ka Saamna. Just looking at the format and the questions asked, one has to admit that the widespread protests that it has attracted were expected. As mentioned by many of the commentators, even the most liberal among us cannot deny that the show promotes voyeurism of the worst kind and is an absolute delight if you want to have a peek into the life of your next door neighbor.

Most of my informed readers would know that the issue was discussed in Parliament and protest lodged by many MPs who demanded a debate on the appropriateness of telecasting the show. The ministry was prompt in its criticism and summoned the producer of the show to register its displeasure. While all this was happening and the news channels were busy debating a yet another trespass into that oft quoted but seldom-understood ‘freedom of speech’ right, another news report flashed out. This news was about the alleged lynching of a young boy in a village in Haryana who was thrashed and killed apparently at the pronouncement of the village panchayat. The mistake of the boy was to fall in love and marry a girl from the same gotra; following which the panchayat took matters upon itselves and decided to punish the boy so as to bring the honor of the village back. The same MPs when asked to comment on the above lynching advised young people to show respect and refrain from going against the traditions of the society. There was no remorse at the killing, no pledge to bring the guilty to book, no assurance to prevent such killings in future. The media also covered this news story but just as a sidenote to the more important discussion on Mumbai high tide and Sach ka Saamna. There was no special programs, no panel debates and no indignant reporters calling for bringing the guilty to book on the issue.

Today again there was a news item on another honor killing, this time in Punjab. Such are the indignities’ that our Bharat has to face each and every day.

If you read the above para clearly, you would have noticed a clear difference in the response given to both news items (Sach ka Saamna and lynching of youth) by the TV channels and the MPs. At least the MPs are consistent in their parochial viewpoint. But it is the so called liberal representatives of our society who really irritate me with their narrow minded, ignorant and insensitive stance on issues that reiterate the vast gulf that still exists between India and Bharat. My question to the TV channels is this. Do they not realize the vast difference in the sense of morality between India and Bharat? Why don’t we have debate on the question of honor killings? Is right to expression more important than right to live? Do they not understand the various compulsions arising out of the traditional fabric of Indian society or do they just not care when they expect shows like Sach ka Saamna to be screened without obstruction while youth are being killed in the name of honor killing just 100 kms away?

The earlier we Indians acknowledge that the people in India’s hinterland are not just a market that needs to be exploited but also citizens of our country, albeit ones who have a different viewpoint to life, the earlier we would be able to address this vast gulf that separates the two.

The Idea of India

I continue with my discovery of India’s post independence history and must confess that am pretty amazed at our country’s role in the greatest social, economic and political experiment ever undertaken in human history. In this experiment, India is the Petri dish where people of different hues, caste, religion, and language were mixed in abject economic conditions; glued together by the lofty ideals of freedom, equality, democracy and secularism. 60 years hence, the experiment continues. India’s democratic experiment can be considered as the third most important one in the history of world civilizations- after the French and the American; and it might still prove to be the most important of all.

Before progressing further it is important to understand the situation of India at the time of her independence. In 1947, India had all the pre-conditions that make the democratic system unviable. Experts and critics were almost unanimous in their assessment that it is not a question of ‘if’ but ‘when’ the Indian union would break, thereby plunging the country in chaos. One can also question whether such a thing as one ‘India’ has ever existed. India can be essentially considered a union of people who though bound together by shared civilizational history and an exploited colonial past are severely divided along religion, region, language and caste lines. Nationalist leaders like Gandhi, Nehru etc united the entire country in its struggle against the British but the India that emerged at independence was still a divided lot; now that the nationalistic sense of purpose had gone, it was feared that parochialism and regional aspiration would drown any attempt at presenting a united front to the innumerable problems facing the country.

Naturally there were questions asked then, as they are now, on the benefits of a huge state forged by forcibly banding together a Punjabi and a Keralite who have no perceived ties of language, customs, religion or some cases even skin color. Rather than having to constantly firefight (to douse the separatist flames), why not separate out the country into smaller, more homogenous states? The only rationale behind the existence of India (in its present form), in the absence of cultural, linguistic or theocratic homogeneity, seemed to be economic.

Most countries freshly independent after years of foreign domination face an urgent task of revamping their economies but India became independent with not only its economy in tatters but also its social and territorial integrity in question. Partition added fuel to fire and made sure that the demands for a separate Hindu nation, opposed to the Muslim one, gained ground. India’s nationalist leaders, though, had other things in mind. What followed was an establishment of the Indian republic that was based on the guiding principles of parliamentary democracy and equality.  Since then a lot has been said about the constraints that a democracy places in providing fast economic development to its people. Empirical evidence supports the theory that democracy does not seem to be the optimal system for a state with conditions like one in independent India. As country after poor country plunged into the throes of dictatorship, there were calls for India to adopt a more functional even though less liberal system. A poor, hungry person values food more than freedom – it was espoused. The miracle of the East Asian economy reaffirmed this viewpoint further.

So did our founding leaders indeed make a mistake in opting for democracy? Can people of different faiths and ways of life not stay together? Does India require a strong leader like Indira who could concentrate and centralize power thereby making sure that narrow and regional interests do not overwhelm the national ones? Is bread more important than freedom? Is globalization better or self-reliance?

The reason why India is so important to the world history is because it is at the centre of most important debates taking place in world today. A lot of people are observing the happenings in our country to understand the solution to above questions. It is in this context that the past few years of enormous economic growth in India should be seen. India’s success would validate the oft-repeated rhetoric that freedom and democracy can go hand in hand with economic prosperity (the assertion that has till now proved an idle one for the developing and poor countries). How India manages to balance and fulfill the aspirations of its divided and at times warring people is going to determine if these ideas will still hold credence for the billions of impoverished people around the world. India’s failure, on the other hand, would be a boon to all those who believe that the clash of civilizations is unavoidable and centralization of power plus homogeneity in society are the pre-requisites to economic prosperity.  The Soviet model, with its promise of social and economic justice to all, inspired generations of revolutionaries around the world. India’s rise has generated the same optimism for scholars and poor people alike. It is now important that we understand our position in the world history and make sure that we do our best to fulfill our ‘tryst with destiny’.

'Liberty of thought and action is the only condition of life, of growth and well-being. Where it does not exist, the man, the race, the nation must go.' - Swami Vivekananda