Dr. Ambedkar in his final speech in the constituent assembly said that “however good a Constitution may be, it is sure to turn out bad because of the people who work for it, happen to be bad a lot”
The trait of disagreement is fundamental to the nature of human beings. In our social and political engagements, we may likely disagree with our family members, our friends, our colleagues on certain ideas. However, it is only at the root of such disagreements that we can bring the necessary modifications to our ideas. A famous quote by Voltaire concludes this argument, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it” Through this, we understand that even though we agree to dissent with one another on a said notion, we are compelled to guard the very liberty of dissenting with each other. It is the amalgamation of diverse and conflicting ideas or narratives that brings us closer to our quest for inclusivity.
Promoting such an idea of dissent, a characteristic that is innate to humans, in a wider system of a political and social organization of every human institution will enable us to strengthen our social fabric. It was in my Political Science, wherein I was introduced to the idea that democracy is not a mere system of governance. It is an ideal that helps us to organize our public and private life. Hence, democracy can be practiced in our educational institutions, families, social groups, institutional organizations that we are a part of. And democracy encompasses the fundamental idea of dissent. For contextualizing our engagement with the topic, we shall trace the scope of dissent in India, as a feature of our democratic system of governance.
G. Aloysius in his book on ‘Ambedkar on Nation and Nationalism’ claimed that many among the intelligentsia would never hesitate to call Ambedkar an anti-nationalist. This was because Ambedkar was radically against the popular ‘nationalism’ advocated by the ‘nationalist classes’ that led the freedom struggle for Independence. He questioned and opposed the overall elite strategy of such classes to maintain the dominance of its hegemonical ideology. According to Ambedkar, the single most pertinent issue of contestation was the appropriation of power by an elite Varna-sensitive Brahminical middle class. He strongly criticized the creation of a complex ideological weapon by the ‘nationalist classes’ and their projection of it as ‘nationalism’.
However, the only purpose of citing Ambedkar’s thoughts on Nationalism was to shed light on the recent political developments in the realm of dissent. There have been debates and discussions on the scope of dissent, which has been mocked by political forces as ‘hate speech’, ‘sedition’, ‘anti-nation propaganda’. The reference provides us a base to understand the blatant accusations. Hence, in simple terms, we can conclude that any challenge to a hegemonic idea, group, pattern of behavior by those who do not conform to the former inevitably is deemed as a threat to the nation at large. Those who do not believe in the predominant idea of a nation, that a leading political force envisions, become a threat to the very security of the nation.
 |
| Source- Unsplash By- Unseen Histories |
Hence, as citizens of this nation, it is compelling for all of us to engage in conversations that determine the freedom to dissent against the functioning of a political regime. We need to ask whether an investigation or critique of a law/policy overturns the sovereignty residing in the government? We all are guaranteed the freedom of speech and expression as citizens of a democratic nation. The emphasis should be on understanding how limited is our right to express our radical opposition to such laws or policies. Are the limitations on such rights reasonable? Or do these limitations charade the political interest of a regime and help them advance an exclusive ideology of their own? A citizen who challenges such systematic propaganda is not necessarily anti-nation, but a critical thinker who does not agree with a dominant political force.
Further, we need to analyze the social location of groups that holds such contrasting views. Are they those, who have been systematically marginalized and exploited by a predominant political class? This helps to understand the farmers’ protests, workers’ strikes, minorities’ opposition, feminist movements, anti-caste struggles in India. Had there been no democracy and along with it the idea of dissent, we would have not heard the voice of the marginalized. We need to know that a political or social group that withholds an overarching power will always try to suppress the underrepresented with a purpose to appropriate power. Naturally, the hegemonic ideas that a group attempts to reinforce within the culture, polity, and other non-institutional social organizations of a nation will be reflected in the law-making process as well, especially when in a political majority. The only rescue we have then is our democratic right to dissent. In such a case, it is upon us to decide whether the oppressor should be held accountable or the marginalized who has been successfully exploited.
Since the judiciary may have failed to protect such right enshrined in the Constitution, we have scholars who have documented an anthology titled ‘Dissent India’ that includes sharp arguments, expressions of differences right from the Charkavas to Gautam Buddha to contemporary public intellectuals like Romila Thappar and Amartya Sen. The anthology promotes the exemplary spirit of dissent against those in power. A stanza from a poem titled ‘I look at the world’ by Langston Hughes is quoted as follow:
“I look then at the silly walls
Through dark eyes in a dark face—
And this is what I know:
That all these walls oppression builds
Will have to go!”
This stanza from the poem is an attempt by the American-African poet who attempted to give hope to the aspirations of the oppressed as he decried racism and injustice during the Harlem Renaissance of the 1920s. Humanity has always seen the rise of dissent. And with it the evolvement of literature, culture, and polity of the subaltern. Dissent is not only fundamental to democracy but the development of humanity at large.
WRITTEN BY MANSI
Comments
Post a Comment