Where does one draw the line? When does it become possible to be so repelled by something that one is able to condemn it unequivocally, without qualification or sly justification, avoiding the usual , ‘but what about such-and-such done by the other side in the past’, and refraining from keeping a cunning and calculative silence. Or is it that there is now no such line that we can take for granted, and that everything will necessarily become subject to a process of competitive desensitization?
These are relevant questions in today’s India. The Dadri lynching should have been easy to condemn and be horrified by, no matter what one’s beliefs. Even if one felt that Hinduism was under threat, that media was engaged in a conspiracy against the current regime, that the historically entrenched purveyors of liberal ideology were running the glorious traditions of the country to the ground, that Muslims were a pampered lot that received a slew of unfair advantages at the cost of the Hindus, that the cow is sacred to the Indian imagination and must be protected using the full might of the law- even if all this were to be accepted as true, it should still have been easy to say, ‘you cannot get together in a mob and stone a man to death because of what he eats. It is wrong’.
Why is acknowledging the barbarity of what is in any case an isolated action so difficult? After all, barring the absolute lunatic fringe, which is hopefully more visible than real, few on the right are suggesting that this be the preferred mode of action when it comes to dealing with those are found eating beef. Since the lynching is something that a vast majority of those on the right would not support, why is admitting that it is wrong be such a problem for so many?
A few commentators on the right have been quite forthcoming in arguing that the lynching must be condemned without qualification, while stressing that the crime should in no way be linked to Narendra Modi or his government. But the dominant reaction, including that from many senior party leaders and particularly on social media has been one of evasion, denial or self-righteous anger. Some try and delink the issue from beef, others question why the media is communalizing and blowing out of proportion a solitary incident, many are angry that incidents involving Hindu victims do not invite similar outrage from the media and the liberals, while a few assert that a deeper conspiracy to malign the BJP is afoot.
It is interesting that barring the few that actually justify the killing, in all the other reactions, there is a defensiveness that points to the fact that the people making the argument feel that they have something to be defensive about. The various arguments on the table — it was an accident, it didn’t really happen, someone else did it, the other side does it all the time, this is only an isolated incident, have one thing in common — they all dance around the unstated acknowledgement that what happened was wrong.
Then why not say so? By all means argue that this is not part of a larger pattern of hate; one might disagree, but at least there would be agreement on a fundamental principle of humanity- respect for human life and disgust at acts of barbarism. Or is it that any admission of any wrong-doing, no matter how clear cut, is seen to be a sign of weakness and defeat?
If the moral frame is found to be too idealistic, then even as a matter of tactics, the best way to deal with the outrage would have been to acknowledge the terrible nature of the crime and press for exemplary action. In a different context, look at how the Vyapam scandal has vanished from our screens once the problem was acknowledged and the case handed over to the CBI; this despite the fact that the CBI is hardly seen as the last word in independent and impartial investigation. A good way to separate this crime from the overall thrust of the government would have been to condemn the incident and put pressure on the state government to take action. That this relatively painless option has not been adopted points to something deeper.
Two different motivations seem to be at work. While the lynching itself might not get the support of the mainstream on the right, its underlying message — that there now exists the willingness and ability to put the other side ‘in its place’, is one that is not being walked away from. Hence the ambivalent nature of the reactions, beginning with the BJP itself.
And then, there is a desire to not cede an inch in the on-going battle with the ‘Adarsh Liberal’ lot. The anxiety is not about whether what happened was wrong or not, but largely about how the other side could use it to further its own ends. This is part of a larger pattern cutting across ideological lines where we do not react as much to an event, as we do to the reactions of the other side to the event. The urge is therefore, to blunt the arguments that are likely to be made by using a combination of deflection, counter-attack, justification, and denial. What this means is that since the other side is always going to be wrong, we are always going to be right, regardless of the issue involved.
When the ability to acknowledge what is horrifically wrong is lost, then it becomes possible to justify virtually anything in order to further a larger cause. The idea of a minimum standard of humanity breaks down not because of the universality of evil, but because of a perverse desire to win an argument, no matter what the cost. This is the real danger of the word games that are being played dancing around an event like the Dadri lynching.
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Citycitybangbang/dadri-lynching-the-thin-moral-line/
- Santosh Desai
