Home Deliberation A healthy mistrust of government is truly patriotic

A healthy mistrust of government is truly patriotic

448
0

“If you must dissent, you should take care that your opinion voices your innermost convictions and are not intended merely as a convenient party cry.”  – M. K. Gandhi (Harijan, 27-5-1939)

On December 20, Ujjal Dosanjh, an NRI, wrote an open letter to our Prime Minister. Almost immediately upon perusing it, at least a two hundred of the readers lost their collective minds. The outset of his letter was marked with his love for India, that his ‘ties’ to the Indian homeland were ‘interminable’, and his interest and support in the country’s endeavours. He lauded the Prime Minister wherever necessary, and in other parts he hinted at the growing intolerance, suppression of free speech, the atrocities on Dalits, diatribes against Indian Muslims, instances of lynching, communalist rhetoric, threats against intellectuals, the rise in rape cases and the many other scams haunting the government. He questioned the pet phrases of our Prime Minister, his deliberate silence on the many issues and atrocities that keep cropping up, all the while implying that ‘men and women do not live by bread alone’, they ‘need domestic peace, equality and freedom to pursue their livelihood, practice their faiths, engage in their academic, intellectual and artistic pursuits.’

His letter was comment bombed and viciously slurred. Except for a few, the majority castigated him for being ignorant and unaware of the ground realities. Others questioned where he came from, repeatedly implying how unwanted and ‘Non-Required Indian’ he was. What made it even more amusing was the certain whiff of patriotism their comments carried, and their unquestioning fealty to their Prime Minister, who is apparently bringing more national and international appreciation than any other today. The sound of their vituperation seems to suggest that people who think for themselves and don’t fawn over him need some serious reprogramming, which is also a gross reminder of the dearth of citizens willing to give an honest, balanced account of grievances of the people, to bring to account the ruling ministers and how skewed our view of patriotism is.

Our idea of patriotism is built upon a very narrow view of what true patriotism entails. Patriotism doesn’t demand one to fawn over the government and shake head in approval, and boast everytime we speak of the country or the ruling Prime Minister.

Our idea of patriotism is built upon a very narrow view of what true patriotism entails. Patriotism doesn’t demand one to fawn over the government and shake head in approval, and boast everytime we speak of the country or the ruling Prime Minister. As McClusky says, ‘The amount of flags on a front lawn does not determine how patriotic a person is, a healthy mistrust of government is truly patriotic.’ My mind runs down a list of some of the great reformers including Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and Gandhi. They started off as lone individuals objecting to injustice wherever they perceived it. They were constantly in search for ways to bring about a reversal of the tide, as much as they wished to hold the then ruling elite accountable. But that did not,in any way, make their love for their country diminish or make them less honest and loyal towards it. They were but round pegs in square holes, and the world knows, even in the best of what we have done with our love for our country, we dont measure up to even a quarter of the patriotic fervor they embodied. I wouldn’t want to imagine but anybody or any seemingly ineffectual person could have easily given up on such a difficult pursuit against injustice for a people that didnt matter to the government, and while away their time schlepping an umbrella on a sunny day turning a Nelson’s eye to their complaints for the sake of the other developments the country might have achieved. But that would be a formidable view.

A healthy mistrust is necessary for an objective assessment of the government, especially so in a democracy. If all citizens were to sing praises in the name of the ruling government, who would bring them to account? Government accountability is central to the very idea of democracy. The ruling elite, elected or unelected, are accountable for their action, inept or incorrect, and inaction. They have an obligation to explain their actions to the citizens as much as they owe an explanation for their inaction. It checks corruption, deceit, improves effective management, and allows leaders to remain accessible to the people they serve. If this is done away with in a democratic government, then we would be left with a government ruled by unaccountable, self-serving politicians and their cronies very much near to similarities with totalitarianism except with periodic elections.

Mere adulation gives those in power a legitimate excuse to evade responsiblilty, to stay unconnected from the public, and to be ‘people’s men’ only during elections and advertisements and in foreign states. They use it as a crutch to escape lamentations, complaints, and questions from the discerning citizens. How often victims of injustice are left on a merry-go-round and held at abeyance by the government for years, or ignored completely like nothing ever happened?

Winning elections by a majority of votes may be a feat, but remaining in touch with the other minority on the ground is something more. A true leader is not measured by the amount of people fawning over him but by how accessible he is to the common man and his grievances. Often, people take a vicarious pleasure in the name of ‘majority’, even if the other ‘unmentionables’ share a certain mistrust with the government. Some may appear seemingly ‘unpatriotic’, but it would be naive to say so if they hold an equally rational critique devoid of any vestiges of excessive fealty and bias. Remember Gandhi, when he wrote in Young India, “If rights of minorities are to be respected, the majority must tolerate and respect their opinion and action… It will be the duty of the majority to see to it that the minorities receive a proper hearing and are not otherwise exposed to insults.”

Everytime I see people fawning over their favorite ministers in droves, the well-read included, I am forced to conclude that it is an ‘educational’ problem. Only dead fish swim with the current. On the occasion of the 9th annual convention of Central Information Commission, The Economic Times quoted our honorable Prime Minister as saying, ‘He (the common man) should have the right to question the government and this is the foundation of democracy.’

Nobody’s comment bombed the article. Only one dared to say, ‘This could turn against him.’ And I gave him the highest of internet high fives.

 

LEAVE A REPLY