Passivity as a national character

Jagannathan, R. Passivity as a national character Wednesday, India.com/DNA Analysis.
13 February 2008

If there is one country where individuals can make a difference, it is India. I don’t mean this in the sense it is normally understood; I am saying it cynically.

If there is one country where individuals can make a difference, it is India. I don’t mean this in the sense it is normally understood; I am saying it cynically. As a people, we are so absorbed with ourselves, that if anyone seriously wants to change things around — for better or worse — people will let him do so.

A few vested interests may  oppose him or her some of the time, but if the individual bares his fangs, the  opposition usually dissolves.

It took only one Seshan to clean up the electoral system. It took only one Indira Gandhi to launch and rescind the Emergency. It took a meek Manmohan Singh to launch economic reforms in the country.

It took only one T Chandrashekhar  to clean up Thane and Nagpur. It took just a Dhirubhai Ambani to create the equity cult in India.

One Narendra Modi managed to clean up the administration in Gujarat to make it more efficient and growth-oriented. One determined Teesta Setalvad is able to get the courts to start booking the rioters of 2002.

It takes only one public interest litigation to force a policy change in favour of cleaner fuel or to demolish unauthorized structures in Delhi. Equally, it may take only one politician or thug to reverse the whole process.

On the negative side, the state recedes at the slightest hint of public protest. One statement from Raj Thackeray is enough bring out the goons, with the police doing little to stop the roughing up of people of north Indian descent. It took only one small demonstration by zealots in Kolkata to send Taslima Nasreen packing, forcing her to rewrite her books. It took only some threats from the Sangh Parivar to send India’s most distinguished painter into exile.

Then, there is the other side of the coin, too. Once the individual who wants to change things disappears from the scene, the old order returns. Exit Chandrashekhar, and Thane and Nagpur are back to garbage on the streets.

Quite simply, passivity and the pursuit of narrow self-interest are core elements of our national character, and this is both the plus and the minus of being Indian. The collective passivity of people makes it easy for determined individuals to push through change without much opposition. It’s easy for both do-gooders and tyrants to get their way here.

In UP, it took a Mayawati to organise Brahmins; the Brahmins never did so themselves.

One reason why terrorists are getting nowhere with their provocations is that Indians have begun to accept periodic blow-ups as part of the landscape. Terror no longer has the ability to shock or force sharp divisions among people, though the politicians try hard to aid the process.

After the Mumbai train blasts, many people thought it would polarise the city on communal lines. It didn’t. The Mecca Masjid blasts, too, didn’t. After a few mandatory rallies and chest-thumping, people went back to work. This is not because Indians are uniquely tolerant —they are uniquely apathetic.

Gandhi’s success during the freedom movement can probably be attributed to passivity. Our freedom struggle demanded little more than non-cooperation with the British, which meant doing little. Any active form of resistance — of the kind espoused by Bhagat Singh or Netaji — drew far fewer supporters.

We continue to revere the Bhagats and Netajis not because we would like to emulate them, but because we feel guilty that we haven’t done what our conscience told us to. Heroic figures like Shivaji come few and far between in India, and that is one reason we celebrate them even more. They compensate for our own passivity. In the end, Indians did not find even Gandhi worth emulating.

The key to unlocking individual and group energies in India is self-interest.

Any leader who can align a group’s self-interest with broader goals will be able to rule uninterrupted in most parts of India. Unfortunately, we have not had too many leaders who can match the two objectives.