Disagree, dissent and disrespect

Dissent is dissed as ‘trouble’ in new India. While it is the prevalent mode of power today, what made it so effortlessly acceptable and all pervasive with society fabric? An examination of concepts of Indian culture give us the answer.

Historically and culturally, India has been celebratory of authoritarian figures. The staunch patriarch (usually the male) in the home, the guru in the gurukul, the ruler in the kingdoms of erstwhile opulence. We have always been taught that the way to be ‘good’ is to submit - unquestionably, unarguably. To challenge any of these authorities was akin to disrespect - which met with accusations, ostracisation everywhere. The epitome of being ‘good’ was unchallenged loyalty that was seeped in lack of dissent.

This idea of unchallenged loyalty itself has skewed structures of power deeply embedded in it. The structures of the family exemplify this. Unchallenged loyalty automatically meant to accept and accomplish what was asked. A wish that became a command by the virtue of the one who wished it.

Within the structure of the patriarchal family, the decisions of leading one’s life in a specific way (career, marriage, interest, place of residence, hobbies) were taken by the father - who remained unchallenged. Any disagreements or desires away from those of the patriarch, amounted to disrespect. Enough to warrant the severest punishment which included severing of familial ties.

If not punished, the disagreement came with guilt for the party disagreeing where fighting against oppressive authority was seemed tougher than a drastic step like suicide. Cinema, which is one of best ways to examine societal development and change, has exemplified these realities over and over again. Where assertion of individuality or desire, or even a soft vocal disagreement with the idea of the patriarch was akin to disrespect, worthy of punishment.

Or disagreement that was akin to disrespect which was expected to make the one who disagreed, guilty. Films like Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, Mohabbatein, 3 idiots, Munnabhai MBBS all show these realities well. The idea of the infallible parent, flawless and the need to accept their ideas unquestionably, built foundations of the idea of the family within the Indian milieu.

Even today in our homes, the idea of challenging thought or an argument is equal to lack of respect. Why is disagreement the same as disrespect? Why does mere age, demand the idea of respect? Because the Indian fabric has never encouraged the idea of questioning.

The idea of tradition is so deeply rooted in preservation and following it all religiously, that spaces to question have shrunk. This is true of the home, school or religion. Democratic parenting and agency of choices are new ideas - which new age parents grapple with - given it is only the age-old ideas of parenting: fear, authority and punishments that seem to have ‘worked’.

We have always been taught to not look for flaws in authoritative figures. Whether that of the parent or the teacher, the sarpanch or the political leader, or God. Ideas of masculinity coupled with these and the overt righteousness that comes in sync with authority seals the fate of any critique. If there are no flaws in these figures, it means they can do no wrong, which means there are no mistakes, which again makes them infallible - and it is this virtue that demands respect and loyalty. And therein lies the issue.

Better living

If we were taught to recognise authoritative figures as humans - who could make mistakes, and be wrong, and the ability to critique - would be seen as the virtue it actually is, to enable a better living society and a more equal existence.

Religion, the idea of God’s supremacy and authority, eclipsed all ability to challenge its traditions. As a country that loves authority and prefers decisions taken for it, religion is a convenient escape where the heady cocktail of authority finds its greatest precipice.

Now add all of this to political realities of today - of which, religion is an unwavering part. Dissent is looked at as ‘trouble’ and dissenters ‘troublemakers’. Whether it is the students, farmers, free thinking citizens. We are marked as the ‘other’, and those who disrespect the ‘motherland’.

The ‘motherland’ appropriated by the Hindutva brand of toxic masculine unchallenged power, where the mother is pedestalised. The leader himself is the epitome of this masculinity and perceived infallibility - where every decision taken by him is evaluated by its ever-changing intentions and not its repercussions.

The idea of critiquing the prime minister is akin to disrespecting the state and amounting to treasonable offence, resulting in punishment by imprisonment or harassment. The image of Narendra Modi has by design been so deeply entwined with that of the state, that by capitalising on India and its relationship with authority, is reaching a demi-God status where dissent is dissed, written off as disrespect and punished in the most punitive manner possible.

Which makes it necessary to claim and keep the narrative of dissent factual, inspirational and agitational. All three that blinded authority fears. And to keep dividing ideas of cultural authority from state ones, enabling critique.