Right Intent, Opposite Effect

The German philosopher Hegel had proposed a dialectic approach to history of human ideas. He suggested that every idea (thesis) becomes a trigger for the opposite idea (anti-thesis) to emerge. The resultant tension generates a synthesis which can incorporate both sides and becomes the new thesis, which in turn generates its own anti-thesis, and so on. Now imagine a scenario, where no synthesis emerges, then all that one is left with is a continuous oscillation between thesis and anti-thesis. I believe, this process can only be sustained by creating false binaries.

Virtually all spheres of present day life are full of false binaries. While this seems to be so all over the world, it is certainly true in India. Either Tipu Sultan was a great benevolent brave secular ruler ,or he was a religious bigot and a mass murderer. Either there are no difference between men and women except biological or that men are from Mars and Women are from Venus. Every issue is pushed to the extreme-  whether it be the issue  of insipid secularism vs. religious fundamentalism, or self-hate vs. jingoism, or cultural pride vs. intolerance for differences, or state regulation vs. privacy, or discipline vs. individual freedom, it is virtually impossible to find any common ground for dialogue. All you can have in this scenario are Win-lose type of debates in a battle ground.

I believe that one of the main contributors to this state of all pervasive false binaries is non-recognition of difference between Intent and Impact.

Most of us, most of the times operate from the belief that our choices and actions are governed  not just by our own selfish interests but also collective good. We almost take it for granted  that we are working towards enhancing the well-being for ourselves, our kith and kin, our families and organisations and society at large.

For most of us, this belief is crucial for our self-esteem, and hence difficult to challenge. Therefore, when the consequences of our choices run counter to our expectations, we are unlikely to go beyond making some tactical improvements and refrain from asking any serious questions which may shake up the basic foundations of our belief structure. On the contrary, we are more likely to stick to our position with even greater determination. The situation is akin to that of a gambler who after losing, increases the stake, with the firm belief that in the ultimate analysis, things will work out well.

This is where the Hegelian principle comes into play. The more stubbornly a thesis is adhered to, the more space it provides for the anti-thesis to flourish. A stark example of this process was witnessed during the Emergency days. In the early 70’s, it is quite likely that Mrs. Indira Gandhi genuinely believed  that she was acting in the best interests of the country, and a handful of unruly elements were creating unnecessary obstacles and hence needed to be put in their place.  A false binary got created between “discipline” and “protest”. Ironically, the more she tried to enforce discipline, the more “suspect” her “intent” became and eventually she was forced to take an extreme step.

Interestingly, “order and discipline” which were presumably her original intent became the biggest casualty. For several subsequent years, all that we saw was utter chaos. More importantly, in our collective psyche, the false binary between “discipline” and “freedom” continues to call the shots.

Something similar may be happening with the Hindutva brigade. Presumably, they have the honourable  intent of cultural resurgence and national pride. However, the shriller they become, the more they alienate, which in turn causes them to take even more extreme positions. This can only be supported through false  binaries like between “patriotism” and “dissent”. Ironically, in this process ,all that happens is that perfectly honourable notions like patriotism and cultural heritage, become tainted with narrow -mindedness and jingoism . Similarly,  another set of people, who have their own honourable intent,  have ended up ensuring that  terms like secular or liberal, become equated with cultural insensitivity and disdain for tradition.

The net result is that both groups have done more “harm” than “good” to their own respective agendas, and in fact,  should thank each other for keeping them alive. I have often heard people say that the only reason that they support BJP is because they can’t stand Congress, just as I have heard people say that in order to get rid of BJP, they will be willing to support even the Congress.

This is an interesting situation where no thesis can stand on it’s own feet and must derive the legitimacy for its existence from its anti-thesis i.e. becoming anti-thesis to its anti-thesis. Such a situation can only be sustained through false binaries. Imagine a situation ,where dissent is not equated with being anti-national OR where “Bharat Mata ki Jai” is not held with disdain or seen as oppressive. In such a space survival for both Hidutva-wadis and their opponents will become rather difficult.

While these false binaries reinforce each other, they do so by ensuring that no dialogue  can take place and hence no synthesis can emerge. The entire focus shifts to questioning each others’ intent rather than engaging with the gap between intent and impact.

A meaningful dialogue presumes-

a) prima facie acceptance that the intent of the other is honourable, and

b) willingness to accept that there may be a gap between one’s own intent and the impact of one’s choices and action.

The main difficulty in this endeavour is posed by the mother of all false binaries- the  binary between good and evil. In this binary, the intent of the “other” is always suspect, and hence will be  seen as a threat to be eliminated rather than  as a resource which compliments.

Fortunately, the Indian tradition does not place too much emphasis on good/evil binary. Instead our focus has been on Avidya i.e. error/inadequacy of perception and/or interpretation. Thus it is possible to accept that the intent of the other may be as honourable as one’s own and the gaps between intent and impact can be dialogued upon.

There is very little scope for dialogue between good and evil- they can only fight and try to eliminate each other. Acknowledgement of Avidya (both in self and other) opens the door to dialogue and emergence of a synthesis.

I wish we would treasure and embrace this great part of our heritage rather than focus on all the historical hurts and humiliations.

Advertisements

I , Me and We

George Herbert Mead made an important distinction between I and Me. His contention was that all of us are both individualistic and innovative beings (I) and social and relation beings (Me). These two interdependent aspects are part of every human being and create an inevitable dualistic plurality between need for autonomy and need for belonging.

These two orientations have some interesting implications for how we look at “We” i.e. our idea of a collective. Many societies (for example, India) have traditionally placed greater emphasis on the relational (Me) side. In this scenario, “We” acquires an all pervasive presence leaving very little space for I. In contrast, the modern day societies place emphasis on I. In this scenario, “We” becomes essentially a convenient collation of I’s, which must exist primarily to serve the needs of the I,  with no distinct identity of its own. In fact, any assertion of salience on part of the We is often experienced as an intrusion and unnecessary limitation to the freedom of “I” to embrace any identity that it wishes to.

Thus, differentiations based on collective identities(e.g. race, religion, gender, etc.) become problematic. Such differentiations are often seen as (and many times are) discriminatory, prejudicial and stereotypes. Reference to racial/gender differences carry with them the risk of being labeled as racist/sexist. Besides the obvious confusion between differentiation and discrimination, there is also the apprehension of dilution of individual salience. While there is an understandable concern that people should not be seen ONLY in terms of the collective identity of their belonging system, often it manifests itself through a complete denial of the collective identity of the individual.  The underlying belief seems to be that human beings are only I and there is no Me in them. Some of the manifestations of this stance are-

a) human beings have ( or at least should have)  unlimited freedom to chose who they are and who they wish to become,

b) messages and influences received from systems of belonging should not play any part in this process of “individuation” and

c) people should be seen and engaged with only in terms of their “personal attributes” and all references to the codings from their belonging system are necessarily prejudicial.

These beliefs are particularly strong amongst people who Joseph Heinrich has called WEIRD( see my blog piece on “Democratic Condescension). WEIRD is an acronym for Western, Educated,Industrialised,Rich and Democratic). Heinrich’s hypothesis is that a large part of our understanding about human condition is based upon this “statistical minority” , which we then apply to the entire human race..

For the greater part of my life, I have subscribed to this perspective of the WEIRD, and to a large extent still do. In many ways, both my personal and professional lives have been governed by this perspective.  However, I am also becoming aware of the limitations that it has imposed on my understanding of people who do not share this perspective. Rather than acknowledge that the relationship between I , Me and We is configured differently  in them, I have been quick to judge them as immature, dependent, parochial and regressive.

I have also begin to realise that in this process, I have actually not transcended the codings of my belonging system, I have merely shifted my allegiance from one reference group to another. Perhaps real “individuation” does not happen with turning one’s back on Me, but only through the difficult path of co-holding both I and Me.

Do share how you have experienced the relationship between I, Me and We in yourself.

 

 

Cricket and Gender

Post the world cup, interest in women’s cricket has risen exponentially. Undoubtedly the performance of the Indian team has much to do with it, but it is also a fact that this is not the first time that our women’s team has made it to the final. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that at least in part, some non-cricketing factors have also contributed to this  new fascination with women’s cricket.The live T.V. coverage was a big factor, but I think, the whole process began with Maithali Raj’s interview. Several people who had no idea about her or her massive achievements on the cricket field, started taking notice of her.

When Raj was asked by the interviewer as to who her favourite male cricketer was, she retorted with a counter question- would you ever ask a male cricketer about his favourite female cricketer? This was not a plea for Gender Equality- it was an un-ambiguous demand to be recognised in her own right and a refusal to piggy back on men’s cricket. Fortunately she and her team more than justified her stance.

It therefore saddens me when women’s cricket is viewed through the lens of men’s cricket, particularly when it comes from people who wish to support women’s cricket. Today, I came across a comment from  a India player ” This world cup saw women clearing the boundaries convincingly. The standard of batting has improved to another level. Women do have powerful game. All I can say is we can definitely give 60% of what men give.” I have heard same sentiment being expressed by many experts in “support of women’s cricket”

While I sympathise with the intent, I also believe that this propensity to look at women’s cricket through the lens of men’s cricket is counter-productive because it will keep the women’s cricket in a never-ending “catch- up” mode. The 60% will rise to 90 % or 95% but it will still remain behind men’s cricket. The reason for this is very simple- the rules of the game have been laid down by men.

In contrast, I find much more sense in the stance of Sunil Gavaskar who believes that in their essence the men’s cricket and women’s cricket are different games and both are enjoyable in their own right. In his words “men’s game is mostly about power, whereas women’s game leans towards grace”

One may or may not agree with Gavaskar’s view but what it clearly highlights is that the same game can have two very different interpretations and appeals. This can be easily witnessed in case of Tennis. It is meaningless to look at women’s tennis as some kind of an inferior version of men’s tennis. They are two different kinds of games with their unique respective appeal. Personally, I enjoy the long rallies and deft placements of women’s tennis as much, if not more than the quick fire and power packed  serve and volley game of men’s tennis.

When this distinctiveness is not appreciated, we end up with a monolithic interpretation which is essentially defined by men. Since several spaces of human endeavour have been traditionally dominated by men, invariably  women are compelled  to prove themselves in situations where the rules of the game have been laid down by men. This phenomenon is  is not confined to the cricket field only and can be witnessed in virtually all spheres- be it the world of corporate houses or academia or any other field for that matter.

In my work on gender and diversity, I rarely come across people who are willing to see how their notions about managerial effectiveness and leadership have been primarily shaped by the masculine perspective. For most such people the issue of gender equity rarely goes beyond being unbiased and giving equal chance to women to “show their worth”. That the rules of the game are loaded against them is rarely examined. Ironically, when some of the women are able to do so, in spite of this handicap, they are beaten for being “too dominating and aggressive”

Perhaps it is time that the gender narrative moves forward from the usual discourse of bias and prejudice and starts examining how do we value and cherish differences. If we only value what men bring to the table, we will keep the women in a perpetual “catching up” mode. More importantly, we will deprive ourselves of the tremendous unique gifts which they bring. Simply put, we need to enjoy women’s cricket for itself  and recognise that it is a different game and not  60% or 95% of men’s game.

 

Fishing in Troubled Waters

Today, The Times of India, Bengaluru has carried a news item on the first page which mercifully does not even find a mention in The Hindu. The news item is about a couple (Hindu woman and Muslim man) being denied entry by a hotel on “communal grounds”. The hotel staff have a very different story to tell (that the couple refused to show their I.D.) I do not know what actually happened, but it is highly likely that the truth may be somewhere in between. Most hotels are understandably a little suspicious of couples who walk in without any luggage and who want a room only for a “couple of hours” It is possible that the hotel staff may have felt even more alarmed by the fact that the couple belonged to different communities. This may have peeved the concerned couple, leading to an altercation.

Irrespective of what actually happened, the central question is – does it deserve a coverage on the front page of a “reputed” newspaper. Does this not amount to “fishing in troubled waters” in a communally charged situation? Isn’t it obvious that the more one indulges in such fishing, the more trouble is brewed? It is tempting to believe that such “fishing” is only done by politicians, journalists, t.v. anchors and the like. The phenomenon is much wider than what we may think. I think it can be witnessed in virtually all walks of modern day life.

Though a lawyer himself, Gandhi had great reservations about both legal and medical professions. His concern stemmed from his belief that often the practitioners of these professions “fish in troubled waters”. Intervention from lawyers prevents mutual engagement and reconciliation, just as the doctor by taking care of the “troubled symptoms” of the patient, de-facto ensures that the patient can continue to live with his/her unhealthy life style, which had caused the illness in the first place.

If Gandhi was alive today, perhaps he would have been forced to include several other professions in the same category- marketeers, spiritual gurus, therapists, consultants etc. who have mastered the art of selling their wares as solution to all kinds of “troubles” – fairness creams, anti-ageing solutions, interpersonal hassles, inter-group conflicts, self-doubt etc. etc. Just name the “trouble” and there will be someone or other, offering a solution for it.

What makes us so susceptible to “fishing in troubled waters”? I suspect, it has something to do with lack of “aliveness” in modern day living. Thus every “trouble” becomes a reminder of our aliveness and hence acts as a stimulant. Many many years ago, I had come across a statement from Albert Camus which impacted me very deeply. I don’t remember the exact words but its essence was something like this – ” One sentence will suffice to describe the life of the modern man- he fornicated and read the newspaper ”

Several decades later, we seem to have even surpassed that. We have successfully combined “fornication” with “reading newspaper”- today we only watch pornography- not just of the sexual kind but in virtually all spheres of life. It has been found that primates when living in a zoo, develop all kinds of unnatural habits (e.g. masturbation, violence towards each other etc.). Perhaps something similar is happening to us- we are effectively living in a zoo- a very comfortable, sanitised, luxurious zoo which has everything except aliveness. Is there any surprise then that “fishing in troubled waters” becomes are only reminder to the fact that we are alive- otherwise we are condemned to the monotony of living in a zoo.

Aliveness and Alienation are inversely related. Greater the alienation, greater the ennui and lower the aliveness. Ever since Karl Marx, the issue of human alienation from self, work, others, nature etc. has been a prominent theme of academic and literary discourse. Perhaps it is high time that we start recognising the deadly consequences of this alienation.

Aryan centric idea of India

I wonder, if Mr. Tarun Vijay of the BJP realises the full import of his statement about South Indians and black skinned people. More than the underlying prejudice, it betrays a certain idea of India and being Indian that is worrisome. When he says that we have “black people around us” and that “we live with them”, one can not help but ask as to who is this WE that Mr. Vijay has in mind.

It would have been an entirely different matter if Mr. Vijay had said the “we are dark skinned people OR that “we have dark skinned people amongst us ” OR that “we are a multi-racial society”. This may sound like nitpicking and it is tempting to forgive him for poor/misleading phrasing  of an honourable intent. It is entirely possible that his intent may have been honourable, but it also suggests a way of defining who an Indian is, which is worth exploring.

The impression that one gets from his statement is that there is a “we” which is different from the dark skinned people who are around this “we” and the two are living amicably but are not quite the same. Further, this picture of “we” is perhaps highly influenced by presumably fair complexioned Aryans.

The issue becomes even more significant in view of the constituency which his party has been traditionally associated with. Its original constituency was the upper caste Hindus of North India . While the “historical facts” may be debatable, the “history as it exists in the minds” of this constituency is that their lineage is Aryan and there country is  Aryavrata, coupled with a presumed notion of Aryan supremacy.  While from an electoral perspective, BJP has extended its reach significantly, Mr. Vijay’s statement indicates that its notions about Indian-ness are still those of its original constituency.

BJP has often claimed that its notion of Hindutva is not a religious construct but based on the notion of cultural nationalism. However their idea of this cultural nationalism is often defined in terms of their mother constituency i.e. upper caste Hindu north Indians which is highly Aryan centric. Further, in order to expand its reach, it seems keen to invite others to join and participate in this project of cultural nationalism, so long as this Aryan hegemony is accepted. From this position, it can at best include those who do not subscribe to this Aryan supremacy, but never become “one with them”.

Personally, I have no quarrel with the idea of cultural nationalism, though I prefer the term Indian-ness. The main reason for this preference is that Culture is often associated with customs and social practices, whereas Indian-ness essentially refers to civilisational quintessence i.e. psychological predispositions and perspectives. I believe ( and I have very good reasons to support this belief) that beyond the differences of caste, creed, language, religion, customs etc., there is an essential Indian-ness which is shared by all of us. This quintessential Indian-ness resides in our perspective on living i.e. what constitutes meaningful life, what is the nature of human relationships, what is the meaning of Individual freedom, what constitutes ethical conduct, what is the nature of relationship between state and society, what is the relationship between humanity and nature, what is the nature of relationship between human beings and technology, what is the role of religion and faith, and host of such questions.

Many of these perspectives or predispositions transcend differences of region, religion or socio-economic categories. No matter whether a person sees his/her lineage as Aryan or non-Aryan, whether he/she is privileged or oppressed, whatever be his/her theological beliefs, whatever be his/her dietary preferences or other living habits, there is a remarkable similarity in how the Indian mind works and how the Indian psyche looks at self and world at large. This to me is the civilisational quintessence which has been handed over to us both genetically and through processes of socialisation and acculturation.

Sadly, the predispositions of the Indian psyche have never figured prominently in our ideas of  development and modernity. Our essential picture of a progressive civilised society are based on how the Western mind works rather than how the Indian mind works. This is not to suggest a binary of India vs. West, but only to suggest that there are definite nuances which are present in different civilisations, even though essentially they deal with the same human imperatives and dilemmas. Unfortunately most of our frames, including our ways of looking at ourselves, have been borrowed from the West without taking into account  the nuances of our own civilisational quintessence. As Rabindranath Tagore put it, ” we have bought our spectacles at the expense of our eye sight”

The idea of cultural nationalism based on the premise of Aryan supremacy is yet another example of the same phenomenon. It has the same disdainful and patronising attitude towards the “non-Aryan” part of ourselves as our colonial masters had towards the native Indian. It may help in ensuring adherence to a uniform set of customs and practices, but in effect, it alienates us from the essence of our being. It merely replaces one kind of oppression with another.

It matters little, whether the oppressor is external or internal and what is the brand of hegemony that is sought to be imposed, the essential process remains the same. I suspect we will keep replacing one set of oppressors with another till such time that we learn to look at ourselves through our own eyes, understand ourselves in our own way and value ourselves at our own terms.

Democratic Condescension

Recently, I came across an interesting term WEIRD- it is an acronym for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic. The term was used by the psychologist Joseph Heinrich and his associates. Their contention was that it is this small group of statistical outliers that provide us with both the producers and subjects of our contemporary psychological knowledge, which we then go on to happily generalise to the rest of humankind.

Heinrich’s proposition made intuitive sense to me but more importantly, I was struck by the incongruence inherent in the notion of WEIRD- on one hand, it suggests a kind of elitist exclusivity ( western, rich, educated) and on the other an egalitarian inclusivity of democracy. What would be the notion of democracy that such a group will have? A possible answer is suggested by the way election results are analysed by most political commentators, who presumably belong to the WEIRD group.

Elections come and go and each one brings its own set of surprises, but one thing which remains fairly consistent is the reaction of political commentators. If the results are aligned to their preference, then the electorate is commended for its wisdom, and if they are not, then the voter is regarded as a naive recipient of misinformation, false promises or other manipulations. One some times gets the impression that the voter is like a student who is being tested and the commentator is the teacher who is evaluating the performance of the student. If the student has given the right answer then he/she receives a pat on the back for having acted wisely, but if the student gives the wrong answer then the teacher admonishes him/her for having got misled and/or being guided by baser instincts.

For example, if the commentator is a Congress supporter then a congress victory will be interpreted as the intrinsic commitment of the electorate to secular,liberal, pluralistic values; but a congress critic will attribute it to the grip of the feudalistic mai-baap syndrome prevalent in the collectivity. Similarly a BJP supporter will interpret a BJP victory as the voter’s commitment to nationalism and development, but a BJP critic will reprimand the voters for having fallen prey to jingoism and divisive communal polarisation.

Thus the content of what the voter is praised or reprimanded for, will vary depending upon the analyst’s preferences, but the process is identical. Virtually all analysts will either praise the voters for their sagacity and wisdom or subtly reprimand them for allowing themselves to be misled. Needless to say, the praises are more direct and upfront, and the reprimands more subtle and indirect and sometimes even cloaked in the garb of understanding (e.g. people are so frustrated,uninformed and neglected that they become easy targets for false propaganda) Simply put, the WEIRD (in this case, the political analyst) puts him/herself on a platform from where he/she passes judgements on the commoner. The WEIRD is democratic but in a condescending sort of way.

This democratic condescension is visible in virtually all spheres of life. Whenever our personal preferences are at variance with the popular, majority trend, we are likely to feel disdainful towards the majority. In fact, the term populist has a definite derogatory association- as though popular appeal necessarily implies pandering to the baser instincts. This disdain for the majority is often expressed through statements like “you know how people are ..” or ” how can people be /do like this.. “If one were to do a simple experiment of collating all the statements one hears about “human nature” or “people in general”, chances are that the derogatory statements will beat the complimentary ones by a huge distance.

I do not have any substantive evidence to support my hypothesis, but I believe that WEIRDs are particularly susceptible to this condescension towards the majority. I say this, because I think WEIRDs are hyper conscious of their separateness and individualised identity. Consequently, it becomes extremely difficult for them to see themselves as a part of the collective. In contrast, the non-WEIRDs find it easier to see themselves as “one of the many” in a community. Not surprisingly, it is relatively easier to mobilise non-WEIRDS into a collective/political force than WEIRDS. The WEIRDS can voice the concerns of a community and even act on its behalf, but it is not easy for them to become a part of the community.

Given the historical split between the elite and the commoner in India, the issue becomes even more complex. However, the recent events suggest that even in the so called “developed” world, there is a huge disconnect between the WEIRD and the majority. I suspect that while the issue has a socio-economic dimension, it also has a psychological dimension. In case of WEIRDs, the “self-image” of the individual is so heavily governed by a certain idea of being progressive and liberal, that it does not allow any space for aspects which do not fit into it. For example, it is very difficult for a WEIRD to acknowledge any religious/racial paranoia,  gender stereotypes or interpersonal dependencies in him/herself. In contrast, the non-WEIRD has no such problem. He/she is often willing to be quite blasé about them, much to the discomfiture of the WEIRD. In fact, the more flak that he/she receives around these issues that more defiant he/she becomes.

In this scenario, it is easy for the WEIRD to take up the role of some sort of moral guardian of a progressive/liberal perspective and look at the majority as vulnerable children who must be protected from the potential regressive influences of vested interests. This only leads to further alienation of the WEIRDs from the majority. If this vicious circle is to be broken, then the WEIRDs will necessary have to step out of their present frozen notions, acknowledge their own vulnerabilities and anxieties and most importantly learn to grace their part hood and ordinariness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modi- centricity and Moral ambiguities

One of the inexplicable features of the recent elections was the ease with which parties like Congress, SP and BSP allowed the BJP to make the election Modi-centric, especially in UP and Utrakhand. This helped the party considerably in achieving the impressive tallies in these areas. In contrast, my speculation is that in Punjab, the election was not as Modi-centric. The main reason for this perhaps was the availability of an easier target in the form of Badal &Co- where there is no moral ambiguity involved. Morally ambiguous targets evoke strong emotive reactions and hence attract much greater attention and energy which enables them to acquire a centrality which often works to their advantage.

This Modi-centricity is starkly visible in several aspects of contemporary India. Virtually every academic/literary/artistic event that I have attended in the last few years had direct or indirect reference to the changing socio-political scenario in the post Modi era. Even casual social encounters are not free of it- a large part of humour centres around issues like notebandi, surgical strikes, swatch bharat, ghar wapsi, beef-ban, bharat mata etc. etc. It is reasonable to infer that as a society we are going through a huge emotional churn and beneath the churn are some moral ambiguities pushing and pulling us in two seemingly opposite directions. Thus invariably one finds a clear split between Modi bhakts and Modi bashers. Since the issues involved have a strong emotive/moral dimension, it becomes virtually impossible to have any meaningful dialogue between these two groups.

It is therefore important to understand the moral ambiguities that we are confronted with.

For Modi-bashers, Modi is associated with all that is morally repugnant. He is seen as  autocratic, megalomaniac, divisive, intolerant, power hungry, expedient and communal. His success is attributed to his tremendous ability to manipulate and control either through fear and paranoia or through empty promises or through pandering to “baser” instincts of a communal/parochial nature. Not surprisingly, the bashers see him as huge threat to the very idea of a secular, liberal, plural, inclusive, progressive, egalitarian and democratic India i.e. everything that we value and aspire for. They see the Modi bhakts either as gullible fools or as a group of reactionary goons or as self absorbed privileged lot who are completely insensitive to the social inequities in the larger context. Not surprisingly, they fear that if Modi is not checked, we will become a totalitarian, fascist, hegemonic society where there will be no space for dissent and no protection against social/state tyranny.

When I look at Modi through the eyes of his bhakts a very different picture emerges. He becomes a strong, hardworking,honest,selfless, decisive leader who is deeply committed to making India great. He transforms into the torch- bearer of the second independence movement- where we are fighting not against the “white man” but against the “brown sahibs” who have been oppressing this country in all spheres- political, economic and cultural. These brown sahibs have captured all institutions- political parties, corporate houses, government machinery, media, judiciary and academic establishments. Through rhetoric such as secularism, socialism, liberalism etc. they pretend to safeguard the interests of the underprivileged and marginalised but in fact are their biggest exploiters. The bhakts see in Modi as someone of their own who has managed to break the glass ceiling and who will cleanse the system of all accumulated dirt and dismantle the corrupt structure which supports it. Understandably, they see the Modi bashers as people who are either corrupt themselves or at least have a vested interest in the status-quo.

Are these two pictures of Modi irreconcilable with each other? If not, how do we create a dialogue between them. I believe this is a significant question not just from a political and macro point of view but also from a social and personal point of view. The moral ambiguity which is playing out at the macro level is perhaps a reflection of a conflict which resides within ourselves. Talking of myself, one of the things which I hold as very precious is my plurality i.e. the multiple parts of myself. However, this multiplicity also becomes a source of difficulty in experiencing my integrity or wholeness. I am often caught between the pulls and pushes of these different parts of me and then find it difficult to take a stance. It has not been easy for me to recognise that just as my plurality is important, so is the interconnectedness between these multiple parts. Plurality without interconnectedness can only create fragmentation.

Extending this issue to the macro level, I find the same difficulty of co-holding plurality with inter-connectedness. Modi bashers are right in their fear of hegemony and consequent loss of plurality, but the bhakts are equally right in their fear of loss of integrity. Just as dissent and individual freedom suffer under hegemony, so does collective will and strength with loss of interconnectedness. Plurality can be a convenient card for “divide and rule”, just as anti-national can be a convenient card for internal suppression.

Perhaps cliches like “uniformity in diversity” are no longer enough to guide us in this messy path of living with plurality and interconnectedness. This is equally true of other frames like secularism, liberalism, nationalism, cultural heritage and the like. The present churn is a great opportunity for revisiting them and reinterpreting them afresh.This can only be done through   dialogue, which necessitates leaving the comfort zone of moral certitude and entering the messy world of moral ambiguities.