My beautiful, glamorous,nerve strengthening(nerve racking for others !) day normally ends pretty late beyond decent working hours(Not to take into account when it begins).And the other day, it ended up in a rather quixotic note.It happened that when I got out of my office complex I was surrounded ( and more-or-less lynched ) by a mob of hyper-enthu high school zealots in their boy-scout best, screaming and booing in their highest octaves and heaving like bellows(when the exercise got too knackering) at anyone getting out of the complex to the cocoons of their secure homes. On closer scrutiny, I found them lip synching to the ubiquitous 'anna' chorus and slogan. Apparently, I was the prototype honcho who was the ultimate manifestation of the C-word. Quite a cliche' ,but I seemed to be the punching bag of their highly inflated version of a cleanliness drive( Don't get me wrong ,for paranoia is not my 'strength' !)On reaching home, my channel-trotting exercise granted me the privilege of watching Anna imploring his team to stay away from drunken brawls and violence akin to the ones so typical of communal riots. Revving up my thoughts, I pondered over the general effectiveness of civil society movements and their check on democratic norms.So , here I go with my personal musings.
Before we get into the nitty-gritties and depth of this topic, we need to redefine democracy beyond the constitutional and textbook form. Its implied definition,according to me,is the respect that one ought to have for an individual who makes independant decisions and has individualistic opinions about issues around him. It involves the mandatory requirement for every individual to take stances about the issues that encompass him during every nanosecond of his day-to-day life.
And the word movement implies a mass uprising which is spear-headed by a dynamic and charismatic leader. Every leader has a complex ideology which is the basis of his agenda. Be it Anna or Mahatma Gandhi. But, are leaders able to articulate every nuance of their ideologies ? And do they really have to ? For, according to me, ideologies are dynamic and evolving and hence arises the redundancy and futility behind translating every nuance of one's ideology. This definitely creates a huge communication gap between the leader and his followers. And the fact that one is a follower makes him a slow-thinking lap-dog whose every move is mindlessly governed by his 'master'. He loses his individuality in a slow and measured manner. It generally progresses into a situation where the follower either gets disillusioned or he turns a blind eye to his leader's human fallacies. And we cannot dispense off with the innumerable 'Frankensteins' who go haywire on a rampage at the slightest pretext. And the saddest part is that it is not the leader who is the culprit. For, no leader is a magician. Be it Anna Hazare or Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Their mainstay is to give a lead after which the masses have to interpret their ideologies effectively and carry the baton forward. But blind followers of mass movements place the cumbersome onus of thinking and opining for the masses, on the already overloaded shoulders of the leaders. And this is when democracy gets its biggest blow.For, this creates a situation where masses desist from having individual opinions forgetting that leaders can only spear-head a movement or catalyze a change. The main reactant has to be every individual's free-thinking mind.
As people,we need to comprehend and consolidate our understanding, that we need to strongly act on what we believe in, with or without a leader. If we cannot entertain corruption rampant among public servants, it is mandatory for us to desist, by and far, from personally acting as agents of the same malpractice. It could be with the traffic cop, whom you may bribe to let you off for skipping a signal. Accept whatever punishment he ordains, thereby proving to yourself that you are responsible enough to own up your misdemeanours. And if our blood boils at any form of communalism, we ought to see that racist thoughts don't even fleet through our minds.
We ought to be constantly aware that we have the power to and the onerous responsibility of influencing the younger generation following us. And significantly, we cannot forget the power of our democratic right to choose the right representatives that we are endowed with.
To cut a long story short, I would like to believe that civil society movements can help a democracy bloom or cast its doom, depending upon how we are able to delegate the division of labour between the leaders of such movements and individuals like us.
Before we get into the nitty-gritties and depth of this topic, we need to redefine democracy beyond the constitutional and textbook form. Its implied definition,according to me,is the respect that one ought to have for an individual who makes independant decisions and has individualistic opinions about issues around him. It involves the mandatory requirement for every individual to take stances about the issues that encompass him during every nanosecond of his day-to-day life.
And the word movement implies a mass uprising which is spear-headed by a dynamic and charismatic leader. Every leader has a complex ideology which is the basis of his agenda. Be it Anna or Mahatma Gandhi. But, are leaders able to articulate every nuance of their ideologies ? And do they really have to ? For, according to me, ideologies are dynamic and evolving and hence arises the redundancy and futility behind translating every nuance of one's ideology. This definitely creates a huge communication gap between the leader and his followers. And the fact that one is a follower makes him a slow-thinking lap-dog whose every move is mindlessly governed by his 'master'. He loses his individuality in a slow and measured manner. It generally progresses into a situation where the follower either gets disillusioned or he turns a blind eye to his leader's human fallacies. And we cannot dispense off with the innumerable 'Frankensteins' who go haywire on a rampage at the slightest pretext. And the saddest part is that it is not the leader who is the culprit. For, no leader is a magician. Be it Anna Hazare or Mahatma Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Their mainstay is to give a lead after which the masses have to interpret their ideologies effectively and carry the baton forward. But blind followers of mass movements place the cumbersome onus of thinking and opining for the masses, on the already overloaded shoulders of the leaders. And this is when democracy gets its biggest blow.For, this creates a situation where masses desist from having individual opinions forgetting that leaders can only spear-head a movement or catalyze a change. The main reactant has to be every individual's free-thinking mind.
As people,we need to comprehend and consolidate our understanding, that we need to strongly act on what we believe in, with or without a leader. If we cannot entertain corruption rampant among public servants, it is mandatory for us to desist, by and far, from personally acting as agents of the same malpractice. It could be with the traffic cop, whom you may bribe to let you off for skipping a signal. Accept whatever punishment he ordains, thereby proving to yourself that you are responsible enough to own up your misdemeanours. And if our blood boils at any form of communalism, we ought to see that racist thoughts don't even fleet through our minds.
We ought to be constantly aware that we have the power to and the onerous responsibility of influencing the younger generation following us. And significantly, we cannot forget the power of our democratic right to choose the right representatives that we are endowed with.
To cut a long story short, I would like to believe that civil society movements can help a democracy bloom or cast its doom, depending upon how we are able to delegate the division of labour between the leaders of such movements and individuals like us.
