The anger of people against the BJP policies and rhetoric, or in the least, against the irresponsible, sectarian statements and actions of its office-holders, Ministers and leaders, may be driving a lot of people up the wall. This is obvious on major levels of political interaction. On a smaller but shocking scale, it is also obvious from this gnawing, though intense picture of a serious and rather symbolic exchange of protest and fury between a Politician and an average Citizen. Public leaders , when they stand for elected, public posts and Government offices, must know & understand that, publics wrath, mob fury, individual criticism or wide-spread protest - depending on the nature of the issue and the protest - is a very likely possibility. No single politician can guarantee a perfect smooth sail throughtout the span of his/her political career. They oftentimes may turn out to be absolutely lucky fellows if nothing ever happens. But that depends on the sheer luck and chance. But expecting few unpleasant epithets, a jeering crowd, a minor brawl, a bellowing slogan, a high-pitched holler should be the least of their problems nowadays. All these above-cited actions belong to the lowest rung of the political ladder as we assess the ways and techniques of oppositional political behaviour nowadays. Particularly, when we consider the fact that far more serious tragedies have happened in our lifetime so far, with some by far the most popular and well-respected leaders. The shoe-throwing , a culturally symbolic gesture of the ultimate insult in the Sub-continent and many other cultures around the world, merits to be viewed in a mild to moderate oppositional category. That is not to say that it is not rude or uncultured. It definitely is. ! It can be replaced by better and far more effective ways of protest. But, psychologically speaking , it underlines an individual;s or groups extreme frustration, disrespect, disillusionment, almost a sense of deep betrayal and real anger and hurt. One throws in the ultimate shoe at someone if the latter has been a classical gadfly and truly annoyed and upset the former to the extreme. Even though the shoe-throwing may be seen as mild by some, political leadership must always consider and assess the range and degrees of public sentiment and protest in a realistic manner. Machiavelli advised the Prince to combine the cunning and qualities of both the Lion and a Fox for an effective rule over the masses. In some unfortunate historical cases, dire and severe tragedies were wrought upon the whole nation by a misplaced sentiment and or a deep-rooted resentment of just one solitary individual. Had President Kennedys Administration and policy analysts realistically assessed the dangers and threats invoked by the liberal ideology and progressive social and legal ( with the Department of Justice under the stewardship of the Attorney general and a Brother, Robert Francis Kennedy) policies of the Camelot, it is possible that Oswald would have never had his chance to steal Americas hope, dream and youth symbolized by the kennedy presidency. This is not to blame the euphoria -invoking, dreamy-eyed liberal policy wonks of the kennedy era , or the restive Texas, or the then outdated security detail (compared to the current detailed presidential security etc.) or the presence of the underground mob/Mafia. For that matter, on a smaller scale, one could even blame the open motorcade as a factor involved in fostering the tragedy. Thus, a smooth sail on all accounts throughout a politicians career is a fortunate likelihood, but not a definite guarantee. Political offices and public roles do not come with such guarantees and warranties. When festering individual protest hit the extreme limits, it cost us the precious lives of the most popular leaders of the Nineteenth and the Twentieth centuries. These were President Abraham Lincoln, the greatest Indian Leader, Mohandas karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. respectively. These leaders laid down their lives for being the pioneers of newer political & social paradigms, great new ideas. Such ideas were very intensely disliked by their assassins, whether it be Godse, Booth or someone else in question. In each case, all these leaders had predicted and foreseen the possibility of a cataclysmic end and had talked or forewarned us about it. Depite being on the right path and fighting for the right cause, they had sensed the mood of the extreme opposition and the dark contours it could take on. I have no idea whatsoever, who this Mahila/Woman is and of what political shade and what drove her to this extent of anger.? But one can easily deduce that she is very, very, very angry - to show her rejection and anger in this manner. Hitting someone with, or throwing ones shoe at someone is viewed as symbolically the worst insult in the Indian culture and many other cultures. What is appalling here is that the leaders or Men/Women in the position of power are supposed to appear - at least - on paper and theory, as upholding the reason and balance for the masses. If for no other reason, but in order to lead by example. If for no other compelling moral reason, but for their own political interests, so that they appear to be moulding and winning public opinion and eventually the votes in thier favor. For these practical reasons and political gains, the politicians on whom the tomatoes or raw eggs are thrown liberally at a rally, dont load up thier pockets with an equal number of raw eggs and dozens of rotten tomatoes. They dont come prepared to throw them back at a jeering, mocking and insulting crowd just in case the crowd got unruly and unmannerly. If worse came to worse, they usually just run off the stage, and are helped to reach a safer place & point by their Assistants and the security. The bizzare distinction of having been thrown a shoe at,- during a press conference - belonged to none other than then President of the US , George Bush Jr. Many other Politicians or leaders met a similar fate. But, Bush, merely ducked the shoe in a timely manner, and let it fall on the stage behind him. What a wonderful fodder for journalistic gossip and public mockery would it be, had he - in utter rage and a desire to get back in a revengeful manner - ran over to grab that fallen shoe on the stage. Imagine for a moment that while huffing and puffing in utter anger, he would have then thrown it back at the man, with the entire mighty force and a full swing of his arm. I am sure he must have been annoyed enough by the unmannerly act and perhaps yearned to do so. George Bush was known to be a hard-talking, rough and tough Texan with a penchant for bluntness and a business-like approach. What kept him in check was that it would have looked highly unpresidential for him to appear that way in his peoples eyes and opinion. For some well-established political oddity and age-old convention, an average man/woman throwing rocks, eggs, tomatoes and shoes at a public figure looks a lot less ridiculous, bizarre and condemnable, than the other way around, i.e., - if the public figure did so against the average Citizen. But then that is how the perceived rules of the moral political conduct or propriety go : The leaders & the representatives of the people at any given time, epoch, in any administration and era, - have to try to lead by example. They have to show remarkable restraint and demonstrate exemplary balanced judgement. Public figures and leaders in America are held up to greater public scrutiny ( far greater than exists in Europe comparatively ) simply because they are public figures. They seek public office knowing fully that a hawkish opposition and an unscrupulously curious media would dig up all the dirt and find all the hidden skeletons in their closets , if any. It is a price that the high-profile leaders pay by sacrificing their privacy and laying it at the altar of unflinching public gaze. The general assumtion is that they were voted to victory and asked to hold the positions of power because they were seen & deemed to be the fit candidates : wiser, astute, far-sighted, magnanimous, highly balanced and rather logical. In the ancient and value-based cultures such as Indias, a sizable majority also sees them as forgiving and nurturing . They are no less than Mahapurshs . They are often seen capable of the extraordinary generosity of the spirit and forgiving Human-Deities . We see this especially in the rural areas where the innocent, pristine pure, hopeful villagers , run handfolded towards the politicians fast-paced vehicles and their haughty, bloated entourages without care of getting run over. They rever them to an extreme degree, touch their feet, welcome them with garlands, shower flowers, and ask them to help bring amenities to their village and improvement to their lives. At such isolated and socially- transformative moment, the politician or the Minister almost assumes the mantle, power and aura of a God among Men. In the cities which happen to be usually more urbane and politically more aware, they still would be treated at least as a demi-God , if not a God.This is due to the old-age custom and British-Raj appendage of treating everybody in power with the utmost reverence , trepidation and entitlement. Here , I would like to go back to the point I was trying to emphasize and analyze : Despite the fact that Lincoln,Gandhi, Dr. King and others, who knew that they may be harmed for the introduction of their revolutionary, society-transforming type of new paradigms, did not decide to carry a weapon of self-defense on them. The revered leader and Saint of Sagamati did not even have an entourage of the Body Guards or security around him. Why ? Firstly, they were the leaders , not the demagogic orators or politicians blindly wedded to their own vested and political interests, unilineal visions and grandiose ideas to be imposed arbitrarily upon the entire populace. Second, what was best for their respective countries was best for them : In other words, their Countrys interests as a whole were more critically important to them than what was just vital to their own personal political future. This was, for example, in Lincolns case, the abolition of slavery in America. In Gandhis case it was persisting on laying the foundations of a secular, democratic India despite and in the face of Jinnahs demand for a far more sectarian two-nation formula ). In Dr. Kings case, it was the demand for granting the civil rights of the Black minority throughtout American University. What does this BJP leader think is important to him and his party? Get back to beating up a shoe-throwing angry Woman or busily working towards furthering the interests of India and the Indians, - opponents included.
Posted on: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 04:58:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015