Sans dissent, democratic deficit!

The sagacious words of Abraham Lincoln that 'government of the people, by the people, for the people' sound mellifluous for us because we sincerely believe that people's participation is essential for a democracy. The elected governments of all hues, however, are nursing a grudge and developing hatred against the people who sincerely wish to participate in the process for the common good. Governments, in fact, expecting citizens to limit their role to watch the proceedings, whatsoever bad-worse-worst, with their mouths shut because their role ended after voting them to power. Those who defy the official line of thinking, dare to point chinks in the system or lend voice to the voiceless are loosely dubbed as anti-nationals. Stifling of voices, especially that of media and academia, with brute force is posing a great danger to democracy.

In his book, titled, Chomsky on Miseducation, a great philosopher and thinker of our times Noam Chomsky quoted Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration of Independence (1776), and the third President of the United States (1801–1809), as making a parallel between aristocrats and democrats. The aristocrats are 'those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.' The democrats, in contrast, 'identify with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as honest and safe depository of the public interest.' From democracy to aristocracy, where are we heading? Even as India is all set to enter a milestone of 75 years of Independence, this pertinent question will continue to come under increased scrutiny.

The passing away of two public figures representing two diverse fields and two different generations this month provide a context to discuss this vital topic. The horrendous drama that led to the death of the 84-year-old undertrial prisoner, Father Stan Swamy in a hospital on July 5, 2021 exposes the brutality of governments and the insensitivity of the other key pillars of democracy; while the reactions of a section of people following the death of the 44-year-old Dalit intellectual Katti Mahesh, who succumbed to his grievous injuries in a road accident on July 10, 2021, laid bare inhumanity and irresponsibility in society. Both the sad demises present us dangerous levels of intolerance exhibited by the two key stakeholders of democracy-the rulers and the ruled.

Though the colossal contribution of Stan Swamy, who stood for the cause of tribals for more than five decades, can't be compared with the works of Mahesh, a film critic and director, the barbaric action of the government and the reaction of a section of society troubled many. The common features shared by the duo are, love for humanity, quest for justice, concern for marginalized and penchant for participatory democracy.

Katti Mahesh's voice

Mahesh, a communication professional and pioneer of crowdfunding in Telugu films, took film criticism to a next level while mincing no words on political, social and cultural issues. He was critical of the national anthem being played in theaters, political maneuvers of the filmstar Pawan Kalyan and the BJP's attempts to hijack Hindutva. Of all, Mahesh's 'disparaging remarks' against the Lord Rama attracted criticism and threats. Police booked a case against him under various Indian Penal Code sections, including 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings) and externed from Hyderabad city for six months in 2018.

After Mahesh was grievously injured in a road accident at Nellore on June 26, a section of self-proclaimed 'Ram Bhakths' made posts on social media attributing the mishap to God's will. Debate, discussion and criticism on Mahesh's ideas and opinions are welcome but, comments like 'Mahesh is paying for his sin,' 'God takes care of such fellows,' 'The accident is a result of retribution,' are not acceptable. The so-claimed spiritual groups on WhatsApp and other platforms expressed joy over Mahesh's misery. Is it not ridiculous and illogical?

If Lord Rama is so keen on taking revenge, He would have done great harm to a writer Muppalla Ranganayakamma, who was critical of Rama in her 3-part book, titled: Ramayana Vishavriksham, between 1974-76. Those who criticised Rama much before Ranganayakamma didn't die in road accidents. Going by the blind belief of the jubilant anti-Mahesh brigade, worshippers and devotees of Rama must have defied death and lived forever happily.

Media and academia

Calling a spade a spade, even without malice, alas, is seen as anti-societal, anti-national and anti-peace now-a-days. The place for the concerned citizens and critical thinkers is drastically shrinking with each passing day.

The vibrancy of democratic form of governance depends on how the rulers deal with assent and dissent. First of all, all political parties confused the concept of assent with sycophancy. Political parties bestow positions based on loyalty factor and hence there is no scope for the second opinion within. Barring Communist parties, there is no internal democracy and hence no discussion and no dissent in the mainstream political parties. The regional parties are flatteringly plagued with the personality cult and the sole voice of the supreme leaders is projected as the consensus decision.

Secondly, the primary vehicles of dissent, media and academia are systematically silenced. The ruling class is implementing a two-pronged strategy in dealing with media, the fourth estate. The first strategy is to control media houses that dare to question its anti-people policies and corrupt practices. Apart from weakening such media houses financially by denying legitimate advertisement revenue, troublesome journalists are harassed till they are thoroughly sidelined. In this process, a majority of media houses with cross-commercialism interests toed the line and a strong platoon of government-friendly editors and journalists are groomed trough the corporates. The second strategy, buying the media houses entirely. The political parties that rule some States are directly controlling majority of the regional media houses. Both the Telugu States remain a solid example to drive this point home.

The other institute, which is instrumental in deepening democratic ideology is academia. Historically, dissent was encouraged as a scholarly discourse and the voice of intelligentsia was heard for course correction. Professors and students are ought to energize democracies with debate and discussion. In India, the politicization of campuses in an unprecedented scale is causing enormous damage.

Slacktivism at its best

Powers-that-be at all times trample down the Article 19 (1) (A) to exterminate the Freedom of Expression by vesting sweeping powers to the investigative agencies through which they covertly silence human rights activists.

Some powerful provisions of the laws made to neutralize terrorists, such UAPA, TADA, POTA, are blatantly applied against the voices in the civil society besides, the Articles like Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code (sedition) are indiscriminately applied. State governments too made necessary statutory arrangements to control the voices and ideas that go against the establishment. These tactics are primarily aimed at terrorizing those who wish to raise their voices.

Call it the conspiracy of silence or bystander effect, majority of Indians have apparently succumbed to these tactics. They are unwilling to hit the streets in protest against the government's anti-people policies or decisions fearing witch-hunting or incarceration. Habituated to suffer in silence, the modern concerned citizens, apparently due to lack of time, energy and guts to physically join the protesters, show their solidarity through slacktivism, the practice of supporting a political or social cause by means such as social media or online petitions, characterized as involving very little effort or commitment.

In the fast-paced materialistic world, it is not easy to organise dissent. Governments successfully destabilised the forums available to express dissent. Covid-19 has provided an alibi for the official machinery to deny permissions to meet or express dissent. The tech-savvy political parties are armed with a strong mechanism to phoo-phoo the secular-democratic voices online.

I have observed that the dissenters dumb down the whole exercise with near-impossible demands. Instead of continuing a concerted fight against an unjust policy or the most troublesome current issue, dissidents often demand for the resignation of the elected governments in the form of lengthy verbose articles and mass signature campaigns or online petitions.

The internationally acclaimed historian, Romila Thapar, rightly pointed out in a virtual talk on the topic "Voice of Dissent" on June 26, 2021. Dissent is central to social change, but dissent has to be non-violent and all inclusive. Governments should realise the fact, as she opined, that only the elected representatives don't constitute democracy entirely and voicing dissent is also part of democracy.

Nelson Mandela, in his auto biography 'Long Walk to Freedom' pointed out that as a young boy he had learnt about the importance of democracy from the practice of local African meetings where all voices were heard. "Everyone who wanted to speak did so. It was democracy in its purest form."

It's time to take a leaf out of Mandela's observation and Lincoln's suggestion to safeguard the wonderful form of governance, democracy, we inherited. Civil Society Organisations and intelligentsia should take initiatives to inculcate the culture of dissent for the benefit of a healthy democracy.

(The author, a PhD in Communication and Journalism, is a senior journalist, journalism educator and communication consultant)