The post “A leader who does not have the humility to apologise for genocide under his watch does not integrate” – T M Krishna appeared first on SabrangIndia.
]]>
Image: Matrabhumi
I stand before you to accept an award for having contributed to national integration. But before I bask in its glory I need to place on record the unevenness or shall I say the un-integratedness of my own citizenship. I would like to believe that I am just another ordinary Indian. But I am not, certainly not. I am born into a privileged caste and class. I am English speaking and a culturally empowered citizen of this country. Whether I realize it or not and even if I am unable to accept its realness, this is a fact. And being a singer, in a tradition that is steeped in all these qualifications I become an emblem of what is being touted today as ‘Indian Culture’. I am a preferred-citizen. I may try to understand but will never, in my within, experience what it means to be a Dalit, Muslim or a tribal and will never be just another person on the street.
But my art, Karnatik music, has given me a gift. A gift of experience, a gift of empathy, a gift to sense life beyond my limitations. This experience made me realize that my art, my way of life, my beliefs, religion, practices, rituals and everything else that makes me who I am is just one dot in the grand universe of India.
It is art’s generosity that brings me here today.
The human being is a complex creature one part of which is designed to own, control, subjugate, discipline and dictate. But there is another beautiful side to us, the sensitive, empathetic and compassionate one. Right through our lives we vacillate between the two with each side winning a few bouts. But at a much deeper level, the environment we have created for ourselves moulds our intrinsic human-ness. And it is in this context that democracy becomes a vital, non-negotiable instrument – the instrument of humanity. Democracy lives in its spirit of intention – which is to make us all better human beings. It demands humanity from every citizen, community and government, and hence has not been and will never be easy. We have gone through times when we placed democracy under siege. Born in January 1976, I am a child of one of those difficult times.
But we did move ahead and beyond.
As I grew up in the 1980’s and early 90’s national integration was a significant part of my vocabulary. Leaders from across the political spectrum spoke about this with great vigour re-enforcing its centrality to India. In spite of the terrible violence that erupted at various times in different parts of the country, we seemed to recover and an inner consciousness in our civil society kept reiterating our togetherness. And in this context I must mention Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s apology for the 1984 riots. This was a reflective and essential statement. Some detractors may say “it does not change anything”. It cannot change the past but definitely changes the future.
A leader who does not have the humility to apologise for genocide under his watch does not integrate.
But I say with regret that as we entered a new millennium this idea of national integration lost its sheen, it did not attract anyone’s attention, it did not matter anymore. It is also possible that we became over-confident, arrogant about the un-penetrability of our syncretic culture. We spoke much about development and soon national-integration became passé. In spite of socially equalizing legislations such as the Right for Information Act of 2005 and NREGA we somehow forgot that if we do not remain caring of our people and vigilant of the dangers that lurked behind the scenes, we will enter times when who we are as a nation will be under serious threat.
And here we are today.
We live in times when national integration has been replaced by an ugly form of nationalism – jingoism . We are being told what to eat, wear, say, think and be. One monolithic order is being forced on us as Indian culture. As a person of and in culture let me say this unequivocally, there is no one Indian culture – there are Indian cultures – the plurality is the signifier of integration. Uniformity breeds homogeneity, unity through national integration cradles respect.
We are facing one of the greatest challenges posed to our democracy, constitution, plurality, citizenship and socialism. These corner stones of India are being subverted, dismantled, maligned and morphed right before our eyes. The methods being used are not secretive anymore, dissenters have been killed and all of us who resist are being warned of what is coming.
If there is anytime that national-integration needs to be brought back into public thought, it is today and there is no time to waste. And this integration is not just about religious minorities; it is as much about Dalits, Tribals, ethnic and linguistic minorities. The basic fabric of India is its cultures and if we allow that to be poisoned, we would have placed on the sacrificial altar our entire civilisational consciousness. The battle will be lost and we just cannot let that happen.
I will continue this journey of questioning, resisting, learning and discovering. And in accepting this award, I am just a conduit to creating more discourses on who we are as a country and where we want to be. I thank all those who have travelled this path and continue to inspire and mentor me in my seekings. In essence I am merely continuing in the tradition of India’s democratic thinkers, who believed in our good-ness.
Before I end I would like to render a few verses from a hymn that is part of Gandhi-ji’s Ashram songs. I hope we can keep these words in our hearts and expand its horizons.
Om tat sat
Shri Narayana tu
siddhabuddhi tu
skanda vinayaka savita pavaka tu
brahma mazda tu
yahva shakti tu
Ishu pita prabhu tu
Rudra vishnu tu
ramakrishna tu
raheem ta O tu
Vishvarupa tu
advitiya tu
akala nirbhaya atma linga tu
Om tat sat
The post “A leader who does not have the humility to apologise for genocide under his watch does not integrate” – T M Krishna appeared first on SabrangIndia.
]]>The post The TM Krishna column: Should the ‘collective conscience’ override the spirit of the Constitution? appeared first on SabrangIndia.
]]>
A few days ago, the Supreme Court awarded the death sentence to every one of the convicted attackers in the case. And I am sure, soon the debate around the death penalty will be revived. But irrespective of whether we are for or against the death sentence, as long it remains in our Constitution, judges will use it. There is, however, a phrase used by the honourable judges in their judgement that troubles me deeply – collective conscience.
This is not the first time this conceptual framework has been used in awarding the death sentence. But the truth of the matter is that in similar cases, one judge has confirmed the death penalty while another has been more lenient, commuting the sentence.
Collective conscience makes its appearance through the individual conscience of the judge. So, when judges use this phrase, it is really to express what is essentially their own viewpoint, or they have taken it upon themselves to determine “collective consciousness”. Both these positions are entirely self-generated.
The Delhi gang rape verdict implies that the “tsunami shock” to the collective conscience of our society caused by that horror demanded that the death sentence be pronounced. Can the courts allow any kind of public outcry, sense of conscience, sentiment or feeling to even remotely influence their decisions, especially when it is a case of the death sentence? This is even more relevant in the times that we live in, when television and social media bombard us, creating and determining opinion.
I am no legal expert and, therefore, speak as a legally challenged citizen. The very idea that a collective “sense”, however powerful and influential, can play a role in anything legal needs to be pondered. It is in that direction that we need to ruminate, especially in cases where the judgement is entirely dependent on the interpretation by a solitary judge or solitary Bench. I am going to extend this phrase beyond its present interpretative legal framework for death sentencing and wonder whether this idea of collectiveness, cumulative opinion, practice, tradition, culture, etc has already been employed by judges while handing down disturbing judgements.
Prisoners of conscience
I began this piece with a few thoughts on rampant misogyny and patriarchy in our midst. But if we allow our collective sense to be part of anything judicial, we will find that many judges will become more than lenient with misogyny and male-chauvinism. Have we not heard judges, lawyers, public figures and politicians demand dress codes for women, accuse women of inviting rape and molestation because of the clothes they wear? Even recently, we heard women being questioned for being out late at night. And, of course, we as a society say nonchalantly that “men are just like that”.
The bitter fact is that this mode of thinking and acting is a natural part of large section of the Indian society. A judge, as just an extension of society, accepts and agrees with a perceived collective conscience, then interprets this in whatever way they want. This is exactly why we have had judges pronounce verdicts that leave us agape, yet if we go by collective sensibility as a measure, we will have to accept their diktat. Beyond what is clearly stated in the law books, there are so many grey areas with regard to culture, rituals and traditional practices that can be entirely driven by majoritarian leanings. It was our Supreme Court that overturned the progressive and beautiful judgement by Justices Ajit Prakash Shah and S Muralidhar of the Delhi High Court that held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code violated Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. It is that very same collective morality that resulted in the Supreme Court’s wrong decision.
This can flow way beyond sexism. We live in times when the right to fearlessly speak, write or sing is constantly under attack. We have a government that uses greater good of the country, nationalism, national security and Indian-ness as devious strategies to overwhelm dissent under its weight. We are led by a political party that has a control over social media like no other outfit and sways public opinion through a propaganda machinery that is unmatched. Where are we headed if beyond the evidence and details of the cases, judges can get inspired by this manipulated collective “sense” to lay down more limitations on how we live our lives?
Take, for example, the compulsory “you better stand up for the national anthem when it is played in cinema theatres” order by the Supreme Court. There are many who find this entirely acceptable and the court itself might have sensed this collective agreement and a politically orchestrated national mood of jingoism. But the truth is, this order is authoritarian. A beautiful song that I love to hear and love to sing has become an instrument of compulsion. Will there be a day when the Supreme Court, after mulling over all the over-bearing and complex evidence, allows a Ram temple to be built in Ayodhya because the Hindus of this country (close to 80% of the population) wish for that to happen?
Our Constitution is based on the principle of justice for the most marginalised, disfranchised, oppressed, unknown, unseen and ignored. This spirit demands that law cannot rely on or be influenced by any delusionary sense or mood of the people.
We need in judges a liberal energy and the ability to be creative human beings. Creativity, incorrectly, is seen as lawlessness and hence many in the courts function “by the book” or “by their culture”, choosing between the two as per their convenience. But creativity is the only way we can fight inertia, conservatism and orthodoxy. If we do agree that the basic tenets of our Constitution rejoice in humanity, then creativity is the only way forward. The creative breathes within systems, yet it detaches itself from the personal and the public, allowing for the ethical and humanitarian to pave the way. Our judges need this vitality.
This article was first published on scroll.in.
The post The TM Krishna column: Should the ‘collective conscience’ override the spirit of the Constitution? appeared first on SabrangIndia.
]]>