By Patricia Mukhim
An editorial in this paper titled, “Populist Protest” has elicited more than its share of controversies from the motley group that gathered near the BJP Office on April 22 under the banner of ‘Thma U Rangli u Juki (TUR)’. The gathering was to protest the illiberal policies of the BJP including its intent to ban cow slaughter. Media savvy affiliates of TUR used their social media connect for crowd-sourcing. But what elicited curious and excited comments especially from congenital Modi baiters, including the urbane, centre-left and moderate-left, media persons from across the country was the hash-tag, “Beef Party.” That was it! That was news! It was dare-devilry of a different kind where the BJP honcho would actually see people eating beef out of their aluminium foils. Amit Shah was already told that this was what would greet him. Hence even before stepping into a very stormy (literally) Meghalaya he had already stated that beef eating (cow slaughter) would not be banned in the North Eastern states. Does that solve our problem? No it doesn’t because the seven states rely on the Hindu belts such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar etc, for their cattle. If these states stop sending cattle here we will not be able to afford beef. Unless we try and rear them locally! But where is the pasture land? Perhaps we could develop this as a livelihood but that will take its own course.
The word ‘populist’ seems to have rankled TUR. They also blamed the media for focussing on the beef party when the group itself stood in protest against all forms of fascism. But populism is not a bad word. Populism as we are well aware is a discourse which supports the people versus the elite. Populists believe that dining is a communal act. And the protest party did just that! They displayed their communal bonding over beef. So why rile about an editorial that endorses a philosophical fact? Ironically while beef is known as the poor man’s source of protein it is not cheaper than most other meats. Pork costs the same as beef @ Rs 240 a Kg! But yes people have the right to choose which form of protein they wish to have. That is if they have a choice. The rural poor in Meghalaya eat rice with a watery dal soup, some fried dry fish, salt and sometimes a potato curry. Meat has gone off the menus of many. But who cares!
So the writer of the editorial is seen as nihilist in its most perverse sense. Normally nihilism is not a bad word. It simply does not attach inherent values to life and attributes much more to personal choice while rejecting morality. Nihilism believes that by observing reality one can tell what the results of one’s actions will be. Nihilism rejects the idea of hiding behind morality, laws and social sentiments which allow us to do what we want and then justify those actions with nice-sounding goals like ending poverty, upholding civil rights, stopping land acquisition, religious freedom et al. The sense of morality and other human judgements remove us from reality. So we satisfy the justification and avoid breaking the rules. That’s why people love rules and acts– the right to information – the right to midday meals – the right to work etc. In all of this there is a constant attempt by someone to circumvent the rules. So those who get the lawmakers to make the rules don’t have the time to get after the hundreds of other people in the system who circumvent these rules. Like someone said, “Lawmaking is a constant game of whack-a-mole. We tell people that it’s illegal to shoot each other in the head, so they shoot each other in the groin. Up pops another mole; they’re shooting each other in the gut. Make that illegal, too. Make it all illegal. Who will enforce it? No one is sure.”
Nihilists remove all of this and look at life entirely as choices and consequences. Nihilism is not negation. If there is religion in a nihilist world, it is a discovery of religious principles from patterns in our environment. Nihilism is also not anarchy. Anarchy is a moral judgment that a leadership structure should not exist. A nihilist will reject the idea that a State is necessary, but by recognizing that leadership is a choice, forces us to consider the consequences of types of leadership versus no leadership. Nihilism does not choose what “ought” to be; it chooses what works. Hence nihilism is pragmatist and non-utilitarian in many ways.
In any case when one lives in a world of ideas one becomes a social bohemian flirting around with different ideas and teasing out their esoteric meanings. What’s wrong with that? In the bargain one also gets the satisfaction of mental masturbation! What I have often found problematic is the manner in which we as tribals have allowed western worldviews including models of resistance propounded by the western world to be implanted in our psyche. For the tribal, eating is not a mode of protest but a time for ingesting the fruits of the earth so that one derives one’s nutrition for the days’ physical exertion. I think it was Amartya Sen who said, “It is a mistake to use the categories of western social and political thought without examining their provenance.” So ‘Beef Party’ was kosher for much of the creative social media constituency but did it resonate with the destitute which is the constituency of TUR?
One could also gather that some young artists, musicians etc congregated at the Beef Party as a counter to the HNLC bandh. It is also true that the Beef Party was symbolic for the coming together of forces who wish to operate differently from avaricious rent-seeking groups that call themselves ‘pressure groups’ and in Khasi Seng Bhalang (organisation for the common good)- which is a completely deceptive term because a pressure group has its own limited objectives which is not necessarily inclusive of the agenda of ‘Ki Rangli, Ki Juki (the orphaned and destitute).
One is tempted to ask the TUR and those who subscribe to its ideology as to whether it believes in meaningful opposition or opposition for its own sake? Meaningful opposition means putting the government on the mat on issues that simultaneously enhances the alternative way. The youth gathered at the Beef Party venue claim to be unemployed and not belonging to any ideological platform! One is also tempted to ask them if there is anything they seek to achieve from this protest or whether it is a one-off, day out to beat the bandh. For TUR which is led by some of the most qualified individuals (I mean qualified in public discourse), the fact that young people have come out to support a movement which threatens to wage a war on behalf of the destitute of the earth, is in itself a huge challenge. What is the alternative dream that is sold to these young people other than the idea of Revolution? Most of them will want a job in the near future; a home to live in; enough incomes to see their children through school and college and also through illness and bad times. Many of these youth will have to start from scratch because they are not fortunate to have inherited anything from their parents. If the whole idea is only to oppose, including opposing some of the innovative development agenda of the State and Central Government, then resistance is an easy journey. But the questions that would need to be answered are (1) What is TUR’s model of development for Meghalaya? (2) What is the stand of TUR on coal mining and other environmental devastation? (3) How would TUR generate employment if it was to be in the Government tomorrow? If the Organisation embraces all views then answering these questions would not be a tall order!