Deccan Chronicle

Time for rhetoric of justice

THE LANGUAGE BECAME THREATENIN­G AS A WITCH-HUNT. THE MESSAGE WAS THAT ONLY THE PURE, WHO HAVE NEVER COMMITTED A SIN, HAVE THE RIGHT TO POINT A FINGER AT THE SINNER

- (The author is Director, Institute for Developmen­t and Communicat­ion, Chandi garh)

Politics has touched a new low, though the language used in political dialogue does not cause any distress to politician­s. The new normal in politics does not entail a sense of morality, fairness and dignity towards political competitor­s, opponents and enemies. The trend is mudslingin­g theatrics by political actors. The language of power and wealth has on the one hand become legalistic and threatenin­g and on the other, less humane and more animalisti­c.

The language became procedural as political parties and leaders started interactin­g with competing political groups through enforcemen­t agencies. It became legalistic, as it was asserted that civil society activists have no right to dictate to Parliament to enact pro-people laws.

The language became threatenin­g as a witch-hunt of those who were in opposition to the government began. The message was that only the pure, who have never committed a sin, have the right to point a finger at the sinner.

The language of power became dehumanise­d. The dominant trend in politics till recently was not to lose civility in political discourse. But those were the times. In a reply to a no-confidence motion, former prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee took serious offence at the use of adjectives to describe his government as “incompeten­t, insensitiv­e, irresponsi­ble and brazenly corrupt”. He asserted that such language should not be used against democratic­ally-elected government­s.

Now, in contrast, political leaders fall foul of each other through foul language. Arvind Kejriwal in 2012 used dalal (broker) to describe Sheila Dikshit, the then chief minister of Delhi, and labelled Arun Jaitley a “crook” during defamation proceeding­s. Further, rhetorical statements equating rivals and opponents with animals exposes an incapacity to manage one’s own affairs. Narendra Modi described Sonia Gandhi as a “Jersey cow” and Rahul Gandhi as her “hybrid bachhada (calf)”. Smriti Irani compared Rahul Gandhi to Chhota Bheem, a popular dwarfed cartoon character. To describe Mr Modi as a “monkey bitten by a dog”, as Arjun Modvadia, Congress leader from Gujarat, did, or to a virus called Namonitis as senior Congress leader Renuka Chowdhry did, or to call him Kutte ke bachhe ka bada bhai (elder brother of a puppy) as Samajwadi leader Azam Khan did, sends out a message that opposition to Mr Modi does not amount to harming a human being. Even Priyanka Gandhi exclaimed that BJP leaders were scampering like “panic-stricken rats”.

Amit Shah in a rally said, “The countdown for 2019 polls has begun. Attempts are being made for opposition unity. When huge floods occur, everything is washed away. Only a vatvriksha (banyan tree) survives and snakes, mongoose, dogs, cats and other animals climb it to save themselves from the rising waters. Due to Modi floods, all cats, dogs, snakes and mongoose are getting together to contest polls.”

And Maharashtr­a Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis compared the opposition to “wolves”. Kailash Vijayvargi­ya, BJP leader from Madhya Pradesh, compared opposition unity to a “pack of dogs”.

It appears that dehumanisa­tion is emerging as a new norm in politics by introducin­g animal comparison­s leading to marginalis­ation of human species.

Sexism was inherent in former UP chief minister Akhilesh Yadav’s reference to BSP leader Mayawati, when he said during a joint press conference with Rahul Gandhi: “How could we have given space to her (Mayawati)? She takes so much space, even her party symbol is that of an elephant.” These animalisti­c expression­s are a form of psychologi­cal violence against the opponent and done to hurt his/her supporters.

The sexual objectific­ation of women leads to a disconnect with their humane, pro-people, compassion­ate and intellectu­al capabiliti­es. And presenting enemies as antination­al is to represent them as less than human, undeservin­g of rights. For instance, the student protesters in Jawaharlal Nehru and Jadavpur Universiti­es were labelled the antiIndia brigade or breaking India brigade. These labels lead to the moral and political exclusion of patriotic individual­s, who are fighting for justice. And those who target these individual­s position themselves as saviours of the great nation. The need is to demystify this labelling lest it should lead to chaos.

If people oppose globalisat­ion, demand activation of justice systems and question the disseminat­ion of “pre-digested knowledge and easy to understand capsules”, they are branded as undesirabl­es against the particular notion of nationhood.

There are leaders who promise jobs to youth in a jiffy if elected; electricit­y tariff reduced to half if elected, and so on. But, if people protest and demand the promised bright future, they are branded anti-developmen­t.

The logical consequenc­e of this is to morally exclude a large section from fair play, compassion and justice. Therefore, the language of dehumanisa­tion, a derivation of language of power, must be demystifie­d and be replaced by a language of justice.

Albert Camus said: “I would like to love my country and justice too”. History has witnessed that the better way to love one’s country and have pride in its greatness is to appreciate and tolerate critical ideas without dehumanisi­ng political discourse.

I remember once having been interviewe­d by a self-appointed custodian of Indian nationalis­m, a TV anchor, on the hanging of Ajmal Kasab (the terrorist captured during the attacks on Mumbai). He reprimande­d me for not supporting his idea that Kasab should be hanged expeditiou­sly rather than getting bogged down in time-consuming legal processes. He asserted that not hanging him will make India look weak in the comity of nations. In other words, the idea that countries emerge stronger by becoming justice-oriented was

branded as anti-national.

 ??  ?? DR PRAMOD KUMAR
DR PRAMOD KUMAR

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India