This is November 13, 2005 and we are happy to report that we have since moved on. No, ladies and gentlemen, these terrorists will not defeat us. I am not quite sure what "defeat" means in this context, but whatever it is, they will not get it by us. Just two days after the blasts, for instance, we were getting all excited about sticking it good to Sri Lanka in a cricket match. The display of spirit was astonishing. Of course, the fact that nobody I personally knew got their insides splattered over a pavement helped boost my spirit some. I suppose everybody else followed a similar reasoning also to keep their respective morale up.
We are an apathetic people. And it is not the fact that India is a largely poor country that makes us so. It is not purely the struggle to overcome resource constraints and earning three square meals that keeps us busy and blinkered. Not entirely. After all, we do find time to devote entire days at a time to cricket. Even the inane movies we create and consume are double-length, three-hour inquisitions. We lack the time for empathy? I think not.
Two emotions struck me after the explosions. I found the display of concern by Pakistan amusing and the apathy of the media stunning.
Let's take the latter first. Allow me to go off on a tangent and bring up an email that my sister wrote to me after the London blasts. She said this, in effect: Dada, I am sickened by Americans and Brits who moan about 3000 and 57 lives lost to terrorism, respectively, and turn away disinterestedly from a similar loss of Indian and Chinese lives.
I basically agreed with her, but my reponse was as follows, and I quote verbatim:
Why just massacres in India and China? Brits and Yanks are famously callous even when Russian schoolchildren get shot up by Chechens. But what are you going to do about it? They have the media muscle. Now India, Russia, and China have two choices: either build up muscle and lecture back to the Brits and Yanks, or just shut the fuck up.
And besides, why do we blame the Brits and Yanks? Indians themselves have no self-respect. When exactly three Australians die in India, the press goes wild and everybody and his brother beats their breasts about it. We are told their names, what brand of toilet paper they use to wipe their white asses, and also gently informed that the bereaved wife will get a Padmashree the next time around. [You do realize by now that I am talking about Graham Staines, right?]
But when a hundred pilgrims are butchered in cold blood in Amarnath, we take this as normal. Do you know the names of any of the victims of the Kashmir insurgency? Name one, I challenge you.
Don't blame the Brits. They are simply looking after their own. Develop some self-respect first. Others won't do it for us.
I personally think that the media is apathetic because we are apathetic. It is not an accident. The few who take the time to write stupid blog posts and bitch and moan about terrorism do not form a critical mass. How do I know? From a simple observation of cause and effect. If there was critical mass and if we were vocal enough, the situation on the ground would have been different.
Next up on the stand: Pakistans' angst over the explosions.
Immediately after the blasts, Pakistan offered its sympathy and further offered to help us probe into the terrorism. The blasts are quite likely the handiwork of Lashkar-e-Tayiba, a terrorist organization from Pakistan that Pakistan will not break up.
See, it's kinda like this. Suppose I have a deranged son who is a physical menace to all around him. I have repeatedly been asked to commit him but have consistently refused to do so. Part of the reason is because he makes life unpleasant for my neighbour by vandalising his property every once in a while. My hope is that my neighbour will finally tire of it and move, selling his house in a fire sale. This will give me the oppportunity to snap up his property real cheap. One day, my son goes above and beyond the call of duty by raping and then battering to a pulp my neighbour's daughter. Now if I continue to protect and encourage my son, and at the same time send my neighbour flowers and my commiseration, what would I be called? A hypocritical, sadistic, fucking criminal-by-proxy, is my guess.
Now I know how the story goes, okay? I know that given the unfortunate reality that Pakistan has a few nukes, we must play nice with them. We cannot invade the bastards. We cannot even go after the terrorist camps in Pakistan because that may provoke an all-out nuclear war. So we make pathetic, lisping, PC noises when sixty people are vaporized in a Delhi market. Better sixty people once in a while than sixty million in one go, is how the thinking goes, I suppose.
Within the country, we repeal POTA (we do not modify it, we ditch it) because we would rather have a few people go up in smoke once in a while than offend a few potential terrorists and sympathizers.
So I know how the script goes. We must be nice. But can we spineless, thickskinned horse's-asses please, please at least stop playing cricket with these
Those who know me some will also know that I am an atheist. So I deny myself the luxury of prayer. However, on the outside chance that I am wrong and there is really something to this god-hypothesis and reincarnation hooey, I would like to tender this prayer:
Please oh Lord of the Skies, Earth, and All Creatures Great and Small, please let me not be reborn into this pathetic, snivelling, backbone-free, self-loathing culture that I am currently a part and parcel of. Better being born the son of a panhandling bum and a homeless crack whore in a culture with a trace of respect for itself, than the son of a rich gutkha king in a prideless one.
Om.
But wait, no, that doesn't sound quite right. On closer examination, you will notice that there are several things wrong with that prayer. I noticed this too. In fact, I thought about that prayer long and hard. I slept on it. And these are the flaws I discovered with the prayer:
(a) It reeks of escapism.
(b) It does nothing for me. I am asking for a limiting of personal material comforts in my next edition by choosing to be the son of a crack whore. Not a smart move.
(c) It does nothing for my culture. My culture will not miss one petulant individual (namely, me) and therefore the above threat of abandoment will not create an incentive for my culture to change in any fundamental way.
So I thought about it and modified it. Here is the modified prayer:
Oh Lord of the Earth, Skies and Too Many Other Things to Mention Here, please do not let such horrific acts of terrorism transpire on Indian soil in the future. Or any other soil, for that matter.
But if you do--and pay close attention here--IF YOU IN YOUR INFINITE WISOM DO ALLOW THIS, please arrange it so that the next explosion, instead of just taking out nameless, unwept, disposable people who will be written off as a statistical footnote to a proxy war, also takes out the son or daughter of a very important person. Like the son of an influential newspaper editor, for instance. Or the daughter of an extremely important politician.
Let me repeat that oh Lord, in case you've forgotten to take your usual recommended dose of Ritalin today, you attention-impaired son of a bitch. The SON or DAUGHTER of an important person, not the important person himself. Taking out an important person will do no good. A Laloo will be replaced by a Paswan and we will be no better off. The one who gets killed has to be someone who holds great emotional value to an influential person.
You may ask: Why do I ask so of our attention-impa... er, dear Lord? Reason is below.
Premise A: As I write this, India is ruled by uncaring, corrupt politicians. These politicians see no need to do anything fundamental in response to random acts of terrorism. The lives of sixty odd people is negotiated cheaply over the counter without missing a beat.
Premise B: Perverse though this may sound, these same politicians are in a position to make a change. Simply by the virtue of office. You or I will not make a difference. Not in my lifetime at least; there is no criticial mass. So yes, strangely a Laloo Prasad can bring about change. But for that, a Laloo Prasad must himself change. That is a binding precondition.
Premise C: People often change in response to a massively negative external stimulus. In plain English, people react to pain. The language of pain is universally understood.
Conclusion: Those who are in a position to bring about change must suffer a direct loss to be shaken out of their apathy.
You may further ask: Is this prayer too harsh? Not really, if you think about it. All I am asking is that the sixtieth non-entity who is destined to get blown up by an improvised explosive be substituted by the offspring of an important politician. I am not asking for more bloodshed than will happen anyway. At least this way, there is a small but non-zero chance that an important politician will act. Or a newspaper will actually take a stab at forming opinion. Otherwise all you have is a meaningless and needless blood-sacrifice as happened in Delhi on October 29, in the year of our Lord two thousand and five.
7 comments:
Brilliant post.
And amen to that thought.
The English textbook in D.U. (first year) has a story on a similar line.
It's about a conference where world leaders are deciding to go to war, what the war should be about and whom it can be fought against.
Someone (I don't remember who, but possibly a sweeper) proposes that the war *ought* to take place, but that each leader must necessarily lead his own army into battle.
The war is (predictably) called off.
Tom,
Thank you for your comments. You are very kind. What is D. U?
Sougata.
Knowing the Indian psyche, do you think that an executed prayer of the kind you have outlined, will really cause people to care?
The way I see it -
a. The media will cover the death of the important person's son/daughter/pet whatever have you..
b. The important person will perhaps make an honest effort to do something about the situation, but he really cannot because of premise A. And since when have just politicians been able to stop terrorism or suicide bombers??
c. The public's first reaction is "Serves that bastard right. See there is a God whom everyone needs to answer to. How many lives of sons and daughters has this person ruined.. serves him right."
d. Public goes back to worrying about Indian cricket team or Hrithik Roshan / Shah Ruk Khan etc. - Because the rest of the reporters who don't cover front page need a job too and damned if some page one reporter screws their livelihood..
I think we are beyond help.
D.U. - Delhi University
Sorry! I just assumed you'd know that.
You said it. We are an apathetic people. So why do we expect our politicians to be different. The question is are we apathetic because of our politicians or are our politicians apathetic because of us? I know it's cliched to say it: but we get the politicians we deserve.
Balajee says:
Knowing the Indian psyche, do you think that an executed prayer of the kind you have outlined, will really cause people to care?
** pretty good prediction of what will most likely actually happen snipped **
I think we are beyond help.
Sougata's response:
Balajee, I shouldn't have to tell you this, but you know what they tell us to do when the situation seems hopeless, don't you? So what do you think I just did?
:-)
I suppose that there are other ways to get our politicians to wake up. Unfortunately all of them involve prayer. I figured that since I am fantasizing about getting our politicians -- and by negative extrapolation, us -- to grow a backbone, might as well fantasize most directly.
I heard an interesting idea somewhere offered as a solution: Two years of compulsory military service for every Indian involving a required tour of duty in Kashmir was prescribed.
I agree. It will certainly bring the Kashmir problem into everyone's living room, including the politicans'. But who will legislate this into existence? The first political party to do this will find itself out on its ass in the next election. The next ruling party will overturn the law. Witness POTA.
So I took the most direct route and offered this prayer. Now all I have to do is wait for that slow-witted mutha' to decipher what I said and get back to me. Going by past performance, he'll most likely get it hopelessly wrong if not outright back-asswards.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
Ashok says:
The question is are we apathetic because of our politicians or are our politicians apathetic because of us?
Sougata says:
I realize that your question is rhetorical, but let me say this anyway.
Politicians represent a pseudo-random sample drawn from the underlying population. Therefore, there is a better than even chance that the characteristics of the sample will be a good indicator of the characteristics of the population. So if our elected representatives appear foolish, corrupt, and uncaring, there is a good chance that we are also.
Not only do we get the politicians we deserve, we actually create the politicians that we get. It is not an accidental process.
I think that it is quite very safe to infer that the apathy starts with us.
[Note: There is a reason I say pseudo-random sample, and not random sample. The seed is not entirely well-chosen, in my opinion, but it does not distort the argument by much. But more on that later.]
Post a Comment