Dipankar Gupta: Taboos in Indian politics
Now that the 'R' (for Robert) word has been mentioned, another taboo has fallen. Every time a forbidden subject finds public voice, it meets with either suppression from above or euphoria from below. It all depends on the state of the state. In totalitarian regimes, whether under Augusto Pinochet or Hosni Mubarak, those who break the silence barrier are brutally punished. But when these despots lose their power, all taboos are exhaled in one gigantic release. Relieved of their fears, people break out in street carnivals that can last for months, as was the case with the Arab Spring. When scandals pile on scandals even a ragged ruffian finds the guts and stones to attack the palace...
Low politics has thrived on ideological enclosures that are ring-fenced by taboos. In a dictatorship, the lowest of the low, all banned topics are controlled and policed by a single authority leaving no public space to swing a cat or an alternate view. In these regimes there are so many things that one dare not talk, even think, of. In Pakistan, who would chance a discussion on Jinnah's pork-eating and liquor-drinking ways? As dictators and potentates have the monopoly to issue taboos, their behaviour immediately attracts censure from the free world. At the same time, it is not as if poorer countries alone stoop to such ploys. In America, one cannot discuss the Holocaust, in Britain, the Falklands; nor Putin's virility in Russia or King Leopold's African atrocities in Belgium.
But in some democracies, there is an abundance of taboos. In India, for example, taboos are not centralised but distributed liberally among different parties. The Congress may frown when a particular family is a hot topic, but there are others who do the same, though on different themes. For the BJP, cow slaughter is tabooed and so is any reassessment of Mughal rule; for the SP or the BSP, revisiting the caste system is a no-no; for the AIADMK and DMK, any discussion of LTTE terror is near blasphemy; and the list goes on...
Before Gandhi, untouchability and the patriarchal core of the Hindu family were tabooed items. Any dialogue on these practices spelt immediate danger to those who dared to mess with them. Had Gandhi not issued his challenge when he did, these taboos would still be thumping their chests today. In which case, India would be quite indistinguishable from Pakistan and other theocracies around the world. Ironically, 60 years and more of Independence has added to, not subtracted from, the power of taboos in our political firmament. By driving their stakes in these forbidden areas, parties hope to shield themselves from too much public exposure and debate — the stuff of democratic rationality. Instead of an open discussion, which takes time to prepare, it is much easier to strike a pose of indignant outrage.
Consequently, concerns that are central to a maturing of a democracy remain shrouded and starved of the sun. Political sins multiply in such dark and dank quarters as would vermin of various descriptions. Over time, a special cultural gene type evolves within politicians and it is this that gradually separates them from ordinary people. Shivaji is a taboo subject for the Shiv Sena, as is Aurangzeb for the Hindu right, or Vivekananda for Trinamool or Ambedkar for the BSP. Even the "left-leaning" members of the Congress are not above this base tendency. For them MNREGA, is a taboo subject and if it is questioned, then you must be a bootlicker of the rich. No debate needed. For the otherwise-leaning members of the ruling UPA coalition, any talk of equality is tabooed as well: it is just too utopian!
Rained on by these taboos, democracy has little option but to turn inwards and remain stunted. If Gandhi were freed from his sainthood, one would find in his life examples of an undying commitment to anger-free dialogues. Bloodshed was abhorrent to the Mahatma alright, but his notion of non-violence was not limited to just that. For him it was equally reprehensible if a taboo stranglehold throttled free speech. Letting taboos linger undisturbed is dangerous to democracy; as dangerous as letting sleeping dogmas lie.
Read the full article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Our-political-parties-are-throttling-democracy-by-declaring-certain-issues-and-debates-out-of-bounds/articleshow/16786435.cms
Also see: The 'K' factor by Arati Jerath
Low politics has thrived on ideological enclosures that are ring-fenced by taboos. In a dictatorship, the lowest of the low, all banned topics are controlled and policed by a single authority leaving no public space to swing a cat or an alternate view. In these regimes there are so many things that one dare not talk, even think, of. In Pakistan, who would chance a discussion on Jinnah's pork-eating and liquor-drinking ways? As dictators and potentates have the monopoly to issue taboos, their behaviour immediately attracts censure from the free world. At the same time, it is not as if poorer countries alone stoop to such ploys. In America, one cannot discuss the Holocaust, in Britain, the Falklands; nor Putin's virility in Russia or King Leopold's African atrocities in Belgium.
But in some democracies, there is an abundance of taboos. In India, for example, taboos are not centralised but distributed liberally among different parties. The Congress may frown when a particular family is a hot topic, but there are others who do the same, though on different themes. For the BJP, cow slaughter is tabooed and so is any reassessment of Mughal rule; for the SP or the BSP, revisiting the caste system is a no-no; for the AIADMK and DMK, any discussion of LTTE terror is near blasphemy; and the list goes on...
Before Gandhi, untouchability and the patriarchal core of the Hindu family were tabooed items. Any dialogue on these practices spelt immediate danger to those who dared to mess with them. Had Gandhi not issued his challenge when he did, these taboos would still be thumping their chests today. In which case, India would be quite indistinguishable from Pakistan and other theocracies around the world. Ironically, 60 years and more of Independence has added to, not subtracted from, the power of taboos in our political firmament. By driving their stakes in these forbidden areas, parties hope to shield themselves from too much public exposure and debate — the stuff of democratic rationality. Instead of an open discussion, which takes time to prepare, it is much easier to strike a pose of indignant outrage.
Consequently, concerns that are central to a maturing of a democracy remain shrouded and starved of the sun. Political sins multiply in such dark and dank quarters as would vermin of various descriptions. Over time, a special cultural gene type evolves within politicians and it is this that gradually separates them from ordinary people. Shivaji is a taboo subject for the Shiv Sena, as is Aurangzeb for the Hindu right, or Vivekananda for Trinamool or Ambedkar for the BSP. Even the "left-leaning" members of the Congress are not above this base tendency. For them MNREGA, is a taboo subject and if it is questioned, then you must be a bootlicker of the rich. No debate needed. For the otherwise-leaning members of the ruling UPA coalition, any talk of equality is tabooed as well: it is just too utopian!
Rained on by these taboos, democracy has little option but to turn inwards and remain stunted. If Gandhi were freed from his sainthood, one would find in his life examples of an undying commitment to anger-free dialogues. Bloodshed was abhorrent to the Mahatma alright, but his notion of non-violence was not limited to just that. For him it was equally reprehensible if a taboo stranglehold throttled free speech. Letting taboos linger undisturbed is dangerous to democracy; as dangerous as letting sleeping dogmas lie.
Read the full article: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Our-political-parties-are-throttling-democracy-by-declaring-certain-issues-and-debates-out-of-bounds/articleshow/16786435.cms
Also see: The 'K' factor by Arati Jerath
