There have been many
incidents in the recent history of the Indian subcontinent which have
influenced the thinking an entire generation and led to near revolution in this
region. Revolution, as a word, as a process, is very dear to me. It is my
sincere belief that history would have been incomplete without revolutions. And
the time we reside demands a revolution.
The difference between 'haves' and 'have-nots' has never been more profound and
distinct that it is now. The era of development programs world over produced
significant changes. The general level of living improved, economically
speaking, we became better off than our previous generation. An entire section
of population, specifically speaking those born after the millennial, starts
off from a higher wealth level. However, at the same time, a new section has
also emerged who are more disadvantaged than before. For them, it is the need
for the hour to have a revolution.
The Naxalbari movement of the 1967, which started off as a peasant uprising,
involved active participation, to the point of living the lives of the farmer,
from the intelligentsia. The bloodshed that followed in the wake of armed
struggle by the farmers was one of the forms of protest. It could be argued
that Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal, the two pioneers of this movement, could
have adopted the path of peaceful protest. But then again, there has been no
revolution without any bloodshed. The movement was a spark which nearly became
a revolution. If it failed to bring about a nationwide uprising, then it was
the consequence of ideological clashes among the leftists. What it gave rise
to, was Naxalites, an outfit of misguided and misinformed, who in turn, sway
the deprived masses in their fervor.
This deprived section, today, faces triple deprivation- social, economic and
environmental. The needs have multiplied manifold and a simple linear approach
to problem solving has turned out to be inefficient. The problems as we see
today, is not merely economical. It has spilled over to the realm of social
thought. Social thought, we define here, as a structure which has been created
to define our actions. It is a framework which allows legitimacy to our
behavior. Actions here pertain to those which which involve bargain of power.
The power of the 'haves' is a matter of pride. It is the power to do better,
for greater good. However, there is a social cost associated with that which
has to be borne by the 'have-nots'. The behavior is shaped according to that
pride. It is marked by 'business as usual' approach towards doing greater good.
This approach equates altruistic attitude with price. Higher the price better
is my altruism.
Given this system, the question that consequentially arises-"Is this the right thinking?" In order to answer this question, a critical analysis of the
status quo is required. In order to do that, we need to seek out
contradictions, if any, among people, which can lead to potential change in
status quo. I believe contradictions exist and in a substantial manner. These
contradictions are not restricted to the means of development alone, as
elucidated by Dr. Amartya Sen in his capabilities approach towards development.
According to him, the contradictions in approach towards development as a mean
and means towards development. I believe these contradictions are more
philosophical in nature. In order to justify this statement, let me cite an
example.
Urban train transit system in the city of Mumbai, needless to say, is
overburdened. Given the twin cities of Thane and Navi Mumbai in its vicinity,
the train network carries 7.5 million commuters daily. Each train has a
demarcated ladies compartment, a first class compartment and the remaining is
general compartment. The first class compartment is occupied by those who would
like to and can pay more for the journey and thus travel in relative comfort
compared to other commuters. Very often, it so happens that a daily commuter
boards the first class compartment without paying for a first class ticket.
Whether it is by mistake or by choice, that will require an entire different
discussion. What follows next is the agitated out pour of the people in the
first class compartment to get that erroneous commuter out of "their"
compartment. The reaction reflects, the philosophical divide that is derived
from power. Commuters in the first class compartment believe they hold the
right and hence power over this compartment. They are different from people in
the general coach not only in economic terms, but also in terms of thinking
(social construct) and attitude. They are better in life, are better persons
and can do better. They have the power to drive out that one commuter and hence
the power to allow him to ride in first class compartment. The powerless (one
without the ticket) either follows the diktat or disobeys it. Usually, it so
happens that, the ticket less commuter disobeys and sticks to his position. From
the point of the regular commuters, they are rightfully justified in their
action. They are paying a price for this space and hence any intruder who wants
to free-ride on them is not invited. From the point of the ticket less
traveler, it is in his interest to disobey the rules as even if he's caught
without ticket, he won't be able to pay the fine, and hence be let off after a
while. This leads to contradiction. There are million such miniature
contradictions occurring daily across cities.
Mao Ts e-tung wrote elaborately on contradictions-"between the working
class and the national bourgeoisie". What had started as a socialist
revolution has metamorphosed into thought conflict. In the backdrop of such
ongoing conflict, it provides fodder enough to
investigate the character of our society and critically analyze class behavior.
Both the end points are equally justified in their behavior, given the command
(or the lack of it) over resources and income share in society. Both the end points would not budge from their positions to reach the "common ground" (if any). Both the sections have reasons to despise each other. And yet, with sufficient beauty, they coexist, like tectonic plates which try to keep the friction to a minimum. But then, does it rule out the event of an earthquake?
