Roger Scruton
who passed away recently had a reputation for being eternally politically
incorrect. Individual preferences are an outcome of several factors. In theory,
the right of free speech mandates the protection of these preferences unless it
encroaches through a process of physical or mental harm the exercise of
preferences of another individual. In the
context, individual could mean group too, an aggregate of all individual preferences
in that group. Yet private preferences when expressed in public often create a
storm because ostensibly they are not deemed to be views of educated, polished,
cultural, literate person. To exhibit one’s literacy, polishness, education
etc. individuals are expected to rise above narrow strata of thought, parade their
cognizance of the injustices apparent or real across the world around them and
must be seen to stand for the alleged victims of these professed injustices
being meted out. This is something has come to be termed in popular circles as
politically correct.
In recent times,
thanks to Andrew Doyle and Spiked, a new term ‘woke’ has entered into
socio-political lexicography. Woke in the literal sense demands individuals to
be inclusive and inoffensive to the extreme, hyper-awareness of sensitivities of
other people and extreme care in using the spoken and written language. Implied is irrespective of private
preferences, one has to demonstrate an altered persona in public life taking
care to the extreme of other’s sensitivities. There were practical reasons for
such political correctness to emerge.
For political
leaders, it is essentially a coalition of several constituencies with differing
and often contradictory interests that is at play in determining their election
and subsequently policy making. Electoral calculations and policy making
apparatus are a consequence of a trade-off among these uneven interest groups.
Any statement that is reckoned antithetical to one interest group might conceivably
derail the entire process. Therefore there is all the more incentive to use a
language that does not set off a raw cord among their constituents. Similarly
for large business, to show their large-heartedness, they are expected to rise
above the so called narrow prism of society to understand and defend the
interests of variety of sections in the society. Their employee base, customer
base, vendor base are diverse and hence all the more need to demonstrate woke
culture. The same principle applies to film and arts fraternity. Being woke is a positional good and perhaps a recipe
for upward career mobility. Peer
pressure often drives woke culture than individual judgments.
The practice of
woke might sound good in theory, yet in practice it has evolved into a one way
street. Certain sections of society have been perceived to be historically
marginalised and continue to suffer injustices. There are perpetrators of torture,
physical and mental who continue to do at least in the books of woke. Therefore,
it is imperative, to a woke, to call out these injustices without fear and thus
demonstrate being aware of these asymmetries that pervade the social set-up. In the Western world, the whites and Jews were
deemed to be perpetrators irrespective of economic status. In contrast, blacks,
women, LGBT practitioners were deemed to be victims of social oppression.
Interestingly, Native Americans do not figure so prominently in the scheme of
things. In recent times, the Islamists are added into the lexicon of the
suppressed. Any calling out Islamist terror for instance is instantly branded
as Islamophobe, intolerant and perhaps have to pay a price in terms of his or her
career.
In India,
political correctness developed on similar lines. Historically, the upper
castes meted out injustices to lower marginalized castes like Dalits through
practice of untouchability. Through practice of sati, dowry, child marriage,
widowhood practices, ghoonghat, purdah, etc., Hindu women were allegedly
suppressed by the masculine supposedly following the thoughts of Manusmriti.
Religious reforms occurred sporadically in Hinduism and self-corrective
measures were of visible. The modern impetus came from reformers like Raja Ram
Mohan Roy, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi etc. there
were legislative measures post-independence to reform the evils of Hindu
religious practices. Yet on ground, indubitably, the process is taking far
longer to eliminate certain practices. The barriers are more rooted in
localised socio-economic context than anything with the religious dogma. Alongside,
the narrative of Islamic followers as victims of Hindu persecution gathered
pace. The origins might have been positioned
in the instant import of the Congress to create Hindu-Muslim coalition to defeat
the British. It mandated certain trade-offs like bowing to Muslim wishes
against Vande Mataram etc. The outcome
however, was Partition. Yet despite the pitfalls of political correct culture,
the Partition rather than reversing only intensified the same.
The modus
operandi was simple. The purported Hindu subjugation of Muslims was deemed to
be critical factor for the Partition. It was therefore reasoned a duty of the
current government and socio-political set up to keep those Muslims who chose
to remain in good humour. Woke mandated their sensibilities be respected to the
extent they effectively exercise a veto in the socio-political structure in the
country. Similarly, the upper caste Hindus oppressed lower castes and thus now
a need to accommodate lower caste aspirations. For good part of the first half
century post-independence, this was essentially tolerated to a large degree. There
was large degree of accommodation though varied across geography of the
interests among the lower echelons in the Hindu society. The process continues
today and many lower strata of the society have chosen to remain in Indic
faith. In fact, the rise of many Indic based religious orders was in catering
to market for human spiritual needs hitherto unaccommodated by the mainstream
religious orders. This interestingly is inspite of the massive efforts to
portray lower sections of the society as non-Hindu in culture and practices.
Contrary to a
process of inclusion, woke culture in India as in other countries, descended
into a vilification of Hindu cultural practices. Every practice was deemed
majoritarian and had to be decried. It was supposedly a celebration of Aryan
victories over the weaker Dravidians or their derived groups. So new imagined
subaltern history was to be created and fostered on the minds of the young
Indians. Hindus had to be guilt tripped and this deracinated. The deracination
would turn an average Hindu against his own culture. Every practice of Islam
for instance had to be praised. Artificial divisions in the Hindu society were
manufactured and attempts to construct a so-called Dalit-Muslim unity were
undertaken and continue to be work in progress. The political leadership
undertook a so-called balancing task of keeping leaders on both sides in good
humour with sort of give and take mechanism. Moreover, certain secular non-religious
narratives emerged on the horizon like pollution, animal rights etc. These
narratives around which there was broad consensus was sought to be used to
vilify Hindu religious folk practices like bursting crackers, traditional
animal races etc.
The maliciousness
and deracination might fetch increasing returns yet in many aspects bound to result
in some backlash. It was LK Advani who made the first political challenge to
the same. Hinduism would no longer be seen as being apologetic about. The beginning
of the counter argument in essence began the process of the fight between
Left-Nehruvian complex and the emergent Hindu conservative stream of thought. The
battles have continued till date. The current battles are basically evolving as
a last stand for the erstwhile establishment. To any individual, there would be
certain forbearance of the accusations over historical injustices. There would
be attempts to recompense the same. Hinduism is fairly successful in assuaging
the plight of depressed groups within the religious strata both through
legislative mechanism and internal norms. The process is a continuum and will
gather further progress in the years to come.
However, the
mythical narrative of Ganga-Jamuna Tehazeeb would exasperate beyond certain
level. India experienced Islamic rule of nearly 900 years before the ascendance
of British. Oral history permeates down the generations on difficulties the
ancestors faced in following their religious rituals and practices. It was
understandable to form coalition against the British but having to accept being
an oppressor when it historically it was the other way round was perhaps too
much to ask. Humiliation was perhaps internalised for few decades but cathartic
release was inevitable given the cultural wars launched with impunity on the
core identity of Hinduism
The current bout
of conflict is rooted in the political channelling of the therapeutic relief
rather than individual levels in localised context. Woke perhaps is good in
small doses, yet when turned into one way street, a tool to demonize certain
sections of the society, a smokescreen to exhibit extreme hate against perceived
dominant section, fabricate fairy-tale histories to deracinate a certain group,
allow free passage for shortcomings including violence in the favoured groups
are all recipe for disaster. The Nehru-Marxian complex has been reduced to
advanced road opening parties for Islamists and perhaps Christian missionary
groups and the results are not likely to pleasant.
Comments
Post a Comment