The Transfer of Power is not an end in itself

 

What is needed to be changed? Why it is needed to be changed? How will it be changed?

To these questions, we generally answer that Political change through the transfer of power is the only end. But, is the transfer of power the only solution? Is Political change, the only thing we are thriving for? Or is there a need for something else, something more organic, something from the roots and again not merely the top dressing, like the democracy has been done through enactment of the Constitution by the architects of it. Though it was inevitable under the circumstances and perhaps the best of the actions that would have been taken then, but till date, it has somewhere lacked in developing a Constitutional morality at the social level. We, instead of following the scheme of Justice, equality and democracy, as said to be suggested by the Constitution, still tend to accept and normalize the undemocratic, inhumane, and authoritative tendencies. Explaining the existence of same, some of us will that these are the Colonial tendencies but to them, my question is that before the Colonial period, did we really practice just system where everyone was treated as Human? Whatever may be the reason, economic, social, religious, symbolic, or political for the growth of these tendencies but, certainly they have become an accepted human behaviour within our system. The gap between, what was expected from the coming generations by the framers of the Constitution and the reality, is believably the result of too much emphasis and dependency upon the new formally established institutions, which are working away from the cultural and social interactions rather than making intervention at the informal and social institutions of Human controls by the cultural or traditional authorities. The change is necessary and it should transform the system which is pre-dominantly benefiting only a few.

The ideas which tend to transform the system are to be cultivated in this land rather than to be top-dressed by some few. Although the ideas can be right and best, but when they are not part of the consciousness of the masses they do not form a place in their system. The transformation is inevitable when it is the assertion of the masses. The ideas need to be a part of common consciousness shared by the masses, who are at the ultimate end of it. Any alien assertion to them is nothing but experiments by a mad Professor not giving up on his over-complexed theorems.

Protest at Jantar Mantar, Delhi

This whole debate can again be analyzed through the recent Jackboot which portrays the Assam Police firing the man standing for his right and then the gruesome stomping of the already fallen, by the photographer Bijay Bonia, who is certainly lavishing his necrophiliac rage over the person who, in the eyes of many is not a human but a parasite living in their self-acclaimed paradise. The State defends it as an act of self-defence by the Police officials, but to that point in the criminal law there is a rule of proportionality- to justify that the amount of force needed in the present act was reasonable to counter the threat that emerged from the attacking party. Let us assume that it was the deceased who was acting against the whole police force which is specifically equipped with weapons and trained for these sensitive circumstances, then also the video shows that the man was just carrying a stick in response to the bullets of the oppressors. Then and there, is it really an act of self-defence? Or it was in itself an act of ‘perpetration of crime’. The officials gave the orders which got carried out by the officers executing duties, but does their job really mean to execute it in this way, to treat a very human in such an inhumane way? The answers pop up with a common explanation that it is a fascist State which is executing its action through the Officials; but to them, I’d ask, if these Officials don’t have a Constitutional or moral duty towards their country-people? Aren’t these Officials a part of our socio-cultural system? Don’t they have an identity other than being State Officials? And if they have, then why they are not following the values and ethics we hail around whenever there is any debate over transforming the traditions and culture. Why our social and cultural institutions are not able to oblige these Officials to be human or at least follow the Constitution under whose oath they are performing their duties!  Or should we understand that these formal and informal institutions have failed, or in-fact, were never what we supposed them to be i.e. Democratic and Just.

The gruesome display of barbarianism by the photographer Bijay Bonia is not a direct State act, but the abetment of the Police by not restricting him shows how the power structure is influencing the formally established institutions. Moreover, the gruesome action not only occurs because of the awareness, in the minds of perpetrators, that in no circumstances they will face any consequences from the State but it is also an outburst of the deep manifested abomination and hate within the people towards others. This hatred is justified by the ideals and consciousness shared by the ‘perpetrators' at the cultural and social level by being a part of a certain community. When these tendencies of hatred are normalised in the society, treated as symbolic, and the motive for committing atrocities or crime is in concurrence with and favours more with the ideals of the society, then the crime in itself becomes a symbol of common satisfaction rather than be treated as an action which is equally barbaric against the whole human race. Such an act is no way an individual act or an act committed due to personal enmity but, it is an outcome of the consciousness shared by people at large, being a part of the same society or culture where it is their common goal to crush the minorities who are directly or indirectly challenging their prevailing privileges.  Thus, the justification or counterargument to the present state of affairs, i.e. only transfer of power or political revolution can bring a change in the present system is not satiable. Mere, transfer of power is not enough- it should be followed by a social revolution, shaking and destroying every basic structure of this society which in itself is authoritative, inhumane, and undemocratic.       

By: Himanshoo Atri