Articulation and understanding

Haven’t we often come across men and women, among our friends, acquaintances, relatives who do not find it comfortable talking about most matters of public interest and importance? Or if they are forced to do so under some circumstances (over which they have little control) like suddenly becoming a part of a media campaign, involving queries or a questionaire, opinion polls on the street or at the work place, they do it in an awkward, uninspired manner.

This becomes even more glaring as in most groups one finds quite a few voluble people who like to dominate any discussion – be it soccer or cricket, gossip about stars or starlets, apparently miraculous occurrences, latest cultural trends, politics or deeper social problems. These latter set seem to have an opinion – sometimes very clear cut and at other times nebulous – on practically every issue that may or may not concern them personally or professionally but may have some bearing on the community, society or the nation in a general way and the world in the case of the international issues.

The common tendency of self-projection discernible in the behaviour such as above in many among this latter category, is rather natural and in conformity with the general social nature of engagement of most people. There may be inaccuracy in the facts and inconsistency in the logical arguments they marshal. Sometimes there could be discordant notes or even violent disagreements among those entertaining quite different perceptions formed from the same set of real life observations. But by and large they reflect the dominant paradigm (including prejudices) of the community or the cultural milieu they belong to. In this environment of preponderant urge for self-expression, it is not easy, given the brevity of expression or relative inarticulateness in many people (actually they are, probably, in the majority), to interpret the implication of what they choose to say as much as what is left unsaid.

It is possible that some among this category of people may choose to be economic with their words as their understanding is genuinely not good enough, they lack clarity in thinking and are confused, or do not have the right words to describe what they have in mind. However, can lack of articulation or ambiguity in that, by itself and in general, be taken to be an indicator of lack of understanding ? 

As it happens, the opinion of such people, if any, often go unrepresented if not ignored, simply because they do not or can not express their point of view with sufficient force, flair and urgency which some of their fellow participants in a discussion muster with relative ease. A quiet leader, who speaks occasionally and only briefly at that and not forcefully enough might find it hard to carry friends, associates and followers along unless people get to see his mind in action, in terms of planning and execution of concrete deeds leading to positive results. In the realm of the current Indian politics, names of two politicians exemplifying the two contrasting categories - a super-articulate politician, almost a hustler and a bully to boot on the one hand and an erudite but reticent, almost a reluctant counterpart - obviously come to one’s mind.

The acrimonious debate on the economic development of our country vis-à-vis the care and the protection of the endangered environment is well known. Ideologically inspired people angrily and decisively arguing on either side of this divide may win the debate on the television or at a ‘social impact’ awards function. But the complexity of the ground reality that eludes them may be understood much better by many illiterate villagers, grassroots activists and even some local administration officials with hands-on knowledge. However, the opinion of most of them are routinely ignored or overruled by their superior officers in the capital and metro cities while presenting status reports and offering false diagnoses in national and international conferences.   

There are a number of known examples from the field of literature of an apparent disconnect between the deep understanding by an author, expressed through a body of creative work, say, plays, novels and stories, and his publicly articulated social and political opinions, moral and philosophical views. The well-known Marxist literary critic, Georg Lukacs, had extensively discussed and illustrated this dichotomy in several of his books, notably, in ‘Studies in European Realism’. For instance, Honore de Balzac in his cycle of novels ‘La Comedie Humaine’, writing on the French society during the first half of the nineteenth century, meticulously documented the real ups and downs of the various social classes – the royalists and the feudal landowners, the bourgeois or the new business and entrepreneurial classes, the cultural elites – and unfailingly indicated the decline of the erstwhile upper classes despite Balzac’s known royalist sympathies. He never flinched from a realistic depiction of growing dominance of money in the contemporary society, unscrupulousness and moral turpitude irrespective of his yearning for and espousing virtues of Christianity, especially, the catholic religion in his other writings.

Almost a similar detached noveist’s and a social historian’s judgment was delivered by Tolstoy in his novels and stories with regard to the failure of the Tsarist Russian aristocracy and the landowning noble classes (of whom he himself was very much a part) to be the vanguard of the emancipation of the Russian peasantry from their age-old misery and bondage and therefore these classes being eventually overtaken by the new and revolutionary social forces (at the time the anarchists) brewing in the mid-late nineteenth century Russia. Even his early fictional writings show that he was acutely aware of the growing chasm between the landowners and the serfs as a reality as much as the brutal role of the Tsarist state in maintaining the status quo. However, the expressed political views of the author were often critical of some of these new social movements (especially their proclaimed violent methods). On the contrary, during the later part of his life, Tolstoy propounded his Christian-anarchist and anarcho-pacifist version of a religio-social conception of morality and love (Tolstoyanism) that neither quite explained the diagnosis of the social and political changes in Russia nor its potential directions one finds glimpses of in his creative writing. 

In many areas of life and human endeavour, particularly those involving decisions regarding environment, social transformation and accretion of culture through creative work, all thinking is not necessarily and immediately actionable or possible to validate in terms of results visible in the short term. It is in such situations that the test of understanding and the long-term correctness of a judgment do not always lie in just a clear enunciation of certain inflexible premises and decisive actions based on the same. Sometimes certain ambiguities in the stated positions should not disqualify them for further serious consideration.

Morally ambiguous choices in governing a democracy

Life in India today often presents one with a difficult and morally ambiguous choice. Proscription of illegal and environmentally dangerous sand mining, quarrying etc which is rampant today in many parts of India may be the ‘right’ action on the part of the government, if and when it chooses to do so. But outlawing and putting effective curbs on this pernicious practice might result in two economic consequences. It is known that thousands of trucks are being used in transporting these illegally mined sand to the end users – mainly building contractors – and sizable number of workers are being used for mining as well as for loading, unloading, transporting this commodity. Curbing illegal mining would also mean loss of job for many directly connected these activities.

Secondly, there is a spurt over the last couple of decades in the infrastructure development and other building (residential, commercial) activities, which are directly related to urban prosperity and economic growth in the country. The latter is also responsible for employment generation to some extent, the argument about ‘jobless growth’ notwithstanding. The spectacular rise in the demand of sand is at least partly occasioned by the contractors’ profit motivation which gets its legitimacy within the prevailing dominant capitalist worldview sweeping the country’s corridor of power. Irrespective of whether one agrees with that worldview or not and even if one chooses to say yes to the moral imperative of saving river beds, lands, forests from the predatory and patently illegal mining, it is difficult to ignore the immediate negative impact of curbing the sand mining on the employment, apart from the loss of revenue (in the form of royalty) to the government

This question is symptomatic of much of the current and larger debate in the country : how can the economic development and growth be achieved without letting capital a free hand (or through enabling governmental actions including legislations) in acquiring land (and also forest lands if required), mineral deposits, spectrum for telecommunication and many such resources on its own terms. And how can that be balanced with possible or potential damage to the environment and natural resources, curtailing of rights of the tribal communities, workers and farmers in general.

Can we endanger our natural resources by allowing wanton exploitation in the name of economic development and growth ? The aggressive sand mining in the riverbeds or banks are being held responsible by many experts for changes in direction of the natural course of a river. But the ‘animal spirit’ of the builders of the new India, the ‘growth constituency’, would be dimmed if their voracious appetite for sand is not met at a rate of their choosing. As a result, we are told, there would be no modern roads and expressways connecting our burgeoning cities and towns teeming with little entrepreneurs, the promoters and the contractors of construction projects throughout the length and breadth of urban India. How will, then, the new and massively architectured slick glass-and-concrete office buildings, call centers, back offices and other commercial complexes, shopping malls come up at the rate at which Indian and foreign investors would like it so as to be competitive in the global market ?

A couple of months back, many parts of the state of Uttarakhand were visited by unprecedented rains, cloudburst followed by tear-away flash flood that caused landslides and brought about an avalanche of mud water, boulders, uprooted trees that practically erased many of the ‘Chardham Yatra’ routes and caused death and disappearance of thousands of pilgrims. In the process the flooded rivers also destroyed much of the mushrooming external economy – the hotels, guesthouses, restaurants, shops that have grown not only along the routes, often precariously constructed and perched on slopes or unsound foundations, but sometimes also right inside dried up river beds around the shrines. As watched on television by millions through out the country, these constructions came down like a pack of cards during the deluge in Uttarakhand. In course of the media-led postmortem in the aftermath many well known facts came to be highlighted about utter illegalities, flouting of norms, collusion with local municipal authorities or government administration looking in the other direction apart from sheer ignorance and lack of awareness about the impact of widespread and unregulated building activities in this eco-sensitive region (like causing blockage of the normal flood plains of the rivers like Mandakini).

All these were allowed in the name of growing business activities, prosperity of the locals feeding on the religious tourism. It is undeniable that the tourism in Uttarakhand, especially that related to religious pilgrimage, provide livelihood to a sizable population of the state. In view of the widespread damage to the trekking routes and the infrastructure in and around temple towns this substantial loss of jobs would be definitely an important motivation for reconstruction and reopening of the pilgrimage routes. But like in the case of sand mining, should the livelihood question be posed in a way so that those questioning the laissez fair attitude of the proponents of unregulated construction activities can be disarmed easily ? In some sense this reminds one of the use of Shikhandi, a character in Mahabharata by Pandavas in Kurukshetra war to disarm a major warrior on the side of Kauravas.

You can win a growth vs environment debate in a TV discussion, or be able to cynically maneuver majority in Parliament to ensure the passage of economic legislations like Forest Rights Act or Land Acquisition Bill and others related to Power and Infrastructure Development. But it is the poor, tribals, farmers, migrant labourers and itinerant small service providers and finally common citizens seeking salvation of their souls in gods’ abodes in the Himalaya region who would eventually be at the receiving end as in the above instance, as indeed nearly always, growth or no growth.