Ideology is still something that we live with even in the so called post-modern and what the free-market believers seriously want us to believe as post-ideological times! Ideology remains imbued into our minds as well as in the minds of those who run our political institutions. We are driven by and remain rooted more into ‘Ideology’ in the old Marxist sense as ‘false-consciousness’. What do I mean? Let me clarify the basics: What is Ideology? Let me explain by this old classic joke:
A man believes himself to be a grain of corn seed. He is taken to the mental asylum where doctors do their best to finally convince him that he is not a chicken but a man. However, when he is cured and convinced that he is not a grain but a man and allowed to leave the hospital he immediately comes back trembling, scared. “There is a chicken outside the door and I am afraid that the chicken will eat me”, he exclaims. The doctor obviously says his dialogue: “You know very well that you are not a grain but a man”. “Of course I know that”, replies the patient “but does the chicken knows it?”
This is precisely what ideology is all about. It is easy to convince YOU that your symptoms are just effects of your repressed traumas and so on. But, the problem is to convince the unconscious, which is as it were, the chicken, in you! So that’s the real problem with the talk of Tolerance and Multiculturalism. Though we all understand and say that tolerance of the Other is good and we are multicultural etc. but it is difficult to convince our unconscious habits. So racism goes on without our knowing it or, may I say, in spite of our superficial and outwardly denial of it.
The Para 43 paradox of the Graham Staines case that I have mentioned in the comment but worth re-illustrating is as follows: The apex court despite convicting Dara Singh for murder has this to say: “THOUGH Graham Staines and his two minor sons were burnt to death while they were sleeping...the intention was to teach a lesson to Graham Staines for his religious activities, namely, converting poor tribals to Christianity.” This becomes the rationale for not describing the inhuman and brutal act of Dara Singh as ‘rarerest of rare’ and thus for not giving him death penalty. Now the surprise awaits us: Two days later the court expunges or removes these remarks but retain the original decision on even more flimsy and stupid grounds! But how do we understand this expunging? How do we psychoanalyse it? Is it not the hidden ‘chicken’ or racist ideology against Christians in the minds of judges? I say definitely it is. This is how ideology functions, in our sub-conscious in spite of our denial of the same.
This hidden racist ideology of the Supreme Court makes the minorities (the Other) realise the facade and sham of liberal language of pluralism, tolerance and multiculturalism. That is why all talk of pluralism by the State becomes just like the trained man who is superficially convinced of not being a grain but still harbors the conviction of being one when he sees the chicken! The chicken still lurks deeper in the psyche of the Judges and in this case the chicken is ‘racism’. This is the true problem with Uniform Civil Code (UCC) debate. Whenever evoked by the Supreme Court is couched in the language of secularism and equality and so on, but under the skin lie the chicken of ‘racism’. That is why the minorities always, and rightly, oppose it. Please refer to the following ‘chicken comments’ of the Supreme Court in invocation of UCC in Sarla Mudgal Case (The second case after Shah Bano that evoked the UCC discussion). Almost in racist tone the court invokes the desire for UCC:
Since Hindu along with Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains have forsaken their sentiments in the cause of the national unity and integration, some other communities would not, though the Constitution enjoins the establishment of a Common Civil Code for the whole of India... Those who preferred to remain in India after the partition fully knew that the Indian leaders did not believe in two-nation or three-nation theory and that in the Indian Republic there was to be only one Nation, the Indian Nation and no community could claim to remain a separate entity on the basis of religion. In this view of the matter no community can oppose the introduction of Common Civil Code for all citizens in the territory of India.’ (AIR 1995 SC 1351 at 1355)
The obvious reference to partition and to the ‘choice to remain in India’ is targeted at the Muslim minority (Parsees and Christians did not have any choice in the matter). This reference to ‘those who preferred to remain in India after the partition’ has long functioned as a warning to Indian Muslims from the Hindu right wing parties. So in the garb of universality and understanding of equality comes out the ‘chicken’, that is, the racist ideology which is the ‘chicken’. How seriously can the minorities take the multicultural and equality discourse of the court?
And was this also not the case in Ismail Faruqui (Babri Masjid Demolition case) when the court said that ‘Muslims can offer prayers (namaj) even in open’ and thereby denying them opportunity to offer prayers at Ayodhya site while allowing their Hindu counterparts. We are rooted in Ideology in post-modern times where it mushrooms as the fear of ‘chicken’ propped up in the joke. I am not saying that we need to completely give up the discourse of liberal pluralism and tolerance. But we need to understand this ideological underpinnings which governs human conduct and may I say the conduct of the Judges as well. Its time to agree first that in the post-cold war era also ideology guides the political institutions just as it did in the earlier or Lost) times. There is no escape from ideology and thus we better understand it. Converting problem of racism into liberal notions of lack of tolerance etc. is to confuse the very struggle against the monster even before beginning it. This is the most basic insight we need in order to begin to understand these lapses by the court in India and abroad.
Judges too sprout from the same society with its cultural underpinnings as noted by the author and democratization comes from within and not without. UCC would become a reality if progressive changes were brought about by the minority communities themselves in their respective laws. In the meantime, it is only hoped that the judges in abiding by the letter of the law would refrain from interpreting or commenting on the thoughts and cultures of both the victims and the perpetrators of crime. The court should not chicken out in upholding equality and justice- the foundations of any civilized society.
ReplyDeleteHi Sir
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your piece on the blog immensely. Congratulations for the ‘chicken’ and the ‘grain’ angle to the debate on ideology. Like I said, I could not have possibly contributed more to what was already expressed so well by you.