I recall reading Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World Revisited during my
college days. The language appealed to me for its decisiveness, the semantics
for its radical thoughts and the flow for its sensuality. I had just finished with
Orwell’s 1984 and followed it with
Huxley’s Brave New World. Guess, it
was the sequel that triggered the ‘observer’ and the ‘questioner’ in me. Decades
later watching the flow of events on and off the television set, in and
out of the paper media, and to and from the mouths of elegant and not so
elegant conversationalists, sparked off references to Huxley thereby lending it
greater clarity…. And the show goes on!
The past few months, the country has
been badgered with a political fervor – an inexplicable passion that generates
a kind of prolonged remorse that has gripped the very breath of the
nation. We are at the brink of a new
government, a new ideology, a new sense of (perhaps and hopefully) of economic
freedom and the process to that has been nothing short of a weary crusade. It’s
a campaign that promises us an opportunity of maltreating someone, a movement
that guarantees the destruction of the nation’s good conscience, and last but not the least an operation that
permits bad behavior under the garb of ‘righteous indignation’. Day on day, we experience a
kind of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats – the
Schadenfraude of all political
battle(logues)!!!!
The self-styled justice of voicing
resentments permits individuals to equate honesty with a ‘single’ status,
level impotency as a source of violence, make perceptive symbolic choices of declining a skull cap to a turban, and to make racist comments. The list goes on. The focus is consistent. We shall single
mindedly pursue and appeal to the lowest common denominator. The need to raise
the bar and uphold oneself to it is unheard of!!!! The situation in addition to
being bizarre is terribly disappointing when the argument submitted is that of
‘dog-eats-dog’ and upheld as the only alternative. Political ideology as spelt out in the midst
of the 2014 election fever is a hypothesis at best, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing . So, it’s ok to indulge in foul language, hate speeches,
protests within and without and last but definitely not the least let loose anarchy
that none of us ever signed up for.
And in between these ideologies (or
whatever one could possibly refer to it as), are the doors of perception – a door
that was hinged and then pretty much thrown open by Arun Jaitley! It was good
listening to a voice of slanted reason. In the past few months, he has been perhaps
one person who makes miniscule sense and attempts to treat the audience with a fair
amount of respect. The miss though has
been in his attempt to aptly capture the sentiment behind the reason.
He observed that central government
politics in India is bipolar. The numbers say it all. What he failed to ascertain,
however, is the fact that the very aftermath of bipolar politics in a supposedly
multi-party system is disruptive with its peaks and valleys. Guess, that was not relevant in a political dialogue
with impressionable young minds!!!! We have allegedly paid the price for soft
leadership in the last 10 years and hence in contradiction stands out the need
for something forceful and apparently strong in the form of Modi. Perhaps so! Modi
hence is the normal decisive force in the face of an abnormal soft and
kindergarten Congress front. and a whimsical AAP!! Sadly so!!!
The notion of secularism is skirted
with the observation that 'conventional political parties have treated the Muslim
minorities as instruments of political power'. Anyone with an ounce of common sense and with
an IQ of a single digit will agree with Mr Jaitley’s observation. The point to
note though is that in a state that is ridden with bipolar politics, one of
them being the BJP, dare I say that they have been hand in glove too! Mr
Jaitley…. Symbolism cannot be accorded to that of an individual’s choice;
especially in the world of politics. It IS indeed the ONLY test for secularism. It
is hence that we use symbolism to depict an individual or a party’s definition
of Equality, Security and Progress – the very ingredients that you spelled out
as the so-called tests for secularism. People vote for individuals and parties
who they most relate to and it is the symbolism that matters. Secularism is NOT
an attitude; but moreso a behavior – tangible and experienced. It is ok to
swing between left and ring wing ideologies; but to lay allegiance at any given
point in time to either the left or the right brain is not just unacceptable
but also foolish! The human mind doesn't recall logic or rationale. It recalls
the sentiment accorded to that logic.
I could perhaps go on with critiquing
the conversation or be overtly critical of the myriad battle(logues) that could sweep anyone off his /
her feet. While the political battle(logues) reflect a neuroses that grips a degenerated system, the conversation with Mr Jaitley reflected the much needed reason and the resoluteness
expected from a level headed politician suffering from a tragic loss of
sentiment…or to quote Huxley…
“The real
hopeless victims of mental illness are to be found among those who appear to be
most normal. Many of them are normal because they are so well adjusted to our
mode of existence, because their human voice has been silenced so early in
their lives, that they do not even struggle of suffer or develop symptoms as
the neurotic does. They are normal not in what may be called the absolute sense
of the world; they are normal only in relation to a profoundly abnormal
society. ”
In this supposedly Brave New World of
2014, we have the abnormally normal creative politician motivated by the desire
not to achieve but by the desire to beat others… and therein lies our frustration!
Well, at least mine!!!!
