While traveling to China, the theory of extremes struck me again. What I am referring to is my observation that it is not hard to get people mobilized and excited if you provide them with some extreme political agenda with tangible outputs. The soft or politically correct midway seems to work much worse.
I felt Chinese right now are really excited by the way things are going, the impositions on the free expression they have to face does not seem to bother them as much as their appreciation and excitement for the work and campaign of the communist party - and it seems completely understandable. Instead of hollow promises and ambiguous motos, their government gave them a clear direction, a clear motive to make China the first world country. The way they implement it might seem a little autocratic to people like us who are used to living in an open democracy (atleast to me it does); but for an average Chinese, things are looking much better than before. They have a sense of pride for their country and trust in their government that you will almost never find in an average Indian. History has seen such mass pride emerge from many extreme campaigns before: some of which we treasure, while others which world would like to erase from the history books.
To start on a positive note, let us talk about the biggest mass campaign in Indian history (or may be the world in terms of number of people involved): the Quit India movement. As I gather from my readings on the independence struggle, things were not moving that much when Congress was trying to achieve a middle ground with the British Government - getting resolutions passed in the parliament, negotiating laws etc. People did not idiolize the Congress leaders yet. It was only when Nehru announced the agenda of Congress as "Poorna Swarajya" that the masses of India started to get involved (both physically and emotionally). And, "Quit India" is the perfect example of an extreme moto with tangible output that I am talking about in this post. It mobilized the crowds as never before, and generated a mass pride for the country that India has never seen either before or after this event.
I felt Chinese right now are really excited by the way things are going, the impositions on the free expression they have to face does not seem to bother them as much as their appreciation and excitement for the work and campaign of the communist party - and it seems completely understandable. Instead of hollow promises and ambiguous motos, their government gave them a clear direction, a clear motive to make China the first world country. The way they implement it might seem a little autocratic to people like us who are used to living in an open democracy (atleast to me it does); but for an average Chinese, things are looking much better than before. They have a sense of pride for their country and trust in their government that you will almost never find in an average Indian. History has seen such mass pride emerge from many extreme campaigns before: some of which we treasure, while others which world would like to erase from the history books.
To start on a positive note, let us talk about the biggest mass campaign in Indian history (or may be the world in terms of number of people involved): the Quit India movement. As I gather from my readings on the independence struggle, things were not moving that much when Congress was trying to achieve a middle ground with the British Government - getting resolutions passed in the parliament, negotiating laws etc. People did not idiolize the Congress leaders yet. It was only when Nehru announced the agenda of Congress as "Poorna Swarajya" that the masses of India started to get involved (both physically and emotionally). And, "Quit India" is the perfect example of an extreme moto with tangible output that I am talking about in this post. It mobilized the crowds as never before, and generated a mass pride for the country that India has never seen either before or after this event.
I do not have any doubts on the patriotism of the people involved, and extreme respect for the heroes of the idependence struggle. The point I want to make is that in every age, there is a large section of society - especially youth - looking for a purpose, a purpose which is clear, and has (or atleast seems to have) the capability to change things around. A leader who can provide such purpose can hold great power of the masses in his fist, and use it for good or for bad - the distinction of which only history can tell. We see this phenomenon in many other events in India after independence. The topmost (and most "dark" in my view) is the demolition of Babri Masjid. Most recent: the "Marathi Maanus" campaign by Raj Thackery, which I categorize as "colored" going fast towards "black". The world has many other examples: "Nazism" on the top of the list. Those who have taken any interest in studying this event must know that Nazism did not start with only motive as eradicating Jewish race, it had lot to offer to German people: a clear motive of making Germany a prosperous nation, resurrecting the nations pride. But the extreme methods to achieve that - which excited and mobilized people in the first place - became the very reason that when the campaign took a wrong road and no one could control it.
To summarize, the extreme political views and methods might seem a faster way to achieve tangible goals, but the history is witness that when they go out of hands the damage done is nothing like the world has seen before. I hope the path China is taking remains in the sunlight. And, to people who are involved in any such campaign of change, please proceed with extreme caution.
To summarize, the extreme political views and methods might seem a faster way to achieve tangible goals, but the history is witness that when they go out of hands the damage done is nothing like the world has seen before. I hope the path China is taking remains in the sunlight. And, to people who are involved in any such campaign of change, please proceed with extreme caution.
4 comments:
I would say that extreme agendas gain popularity not so much because people find purpose in them, as they find sensation. For most, life is pretty drab. Extremism brings in some 'colour', to use your phrase in another way. In all but few cases, life is not only meaningless, but even lacks the realisation of this meaninglessness. So, I doubt if people often get ensnared to political movements with the lure of 'meaning'.
Having said that I feel each of the example should be taken case by case. It would be 'extremist' (again to borrow your word ;) ) to conclude that there indeed lies a common thread between movements as diverse as the Nazi, Chinese communism and Indian independence. I particularly think that movements of social reconstruction -- e.g. Chinese communist movement, or Indian IT boom) involve people of a very different disposition as compared to those involving attack on a group of people, e.g. Nazi or Indian independence (in most cases). While in the former case, the yearning for 'meaning' is appealed to, in the latter, it's baser instinct of violence and extremism which are at work.
Again, I might be doing the mistake of gross categorisation. Since, it's your post, I don't want to try too hard (resulting in my comment becoming too long) in trying to be correct and complete.
My central addition to your thoughts is this: Extreme movements don't all appeal to the same human emotion. A good way of categorising extreme agenda is to look at what are emotions they appeal to. Those invoking violence in the participants are dangerous; those invoking hardwork and dedication are good.
Since all movements of the world invoke some degree of both, none of them are black and white. They are coloured, as you have appropriately named everything. :)
Some notes on Sujit's comments: firstly, I think for most of those reading this post, including Nazism in this category will seem a bit outrageous. But, the reason I included it is that unlike common perception, it seems from the literature and documentaries on this subject that on its start Nazism was not exactly a hate campaign, it was more like a change campaign to lift Germany economically and politically after the defeats in world war I. The genocide that followed was more like a side effect of the extreme and aggressive thought process involved in this campagin. I may be wrong in my understanding of this subject, but this is what I perceived. Also, the chinese communist movement I am talking about is very different from the Indian IT boom. Indian IT boom is not so much of a "movement". It is not something someone is doing with an agenda, but more of a supply and demand thing; chinese initial economic progress happened in very much the same way, but the current communist movement is very different.
And thanks for the summary in the last two lines of your comments, that very much captures the common theme.
Nice post, Shipra.
I agree with you when you say that "extreme agendas" get more following and support.
But I want to say that slow and determined effort can also bring about change - it may not be as quick (maybe 50 years compared to 5 years). In China's case, that determination has come from the leaders of the Communist Party.
In India's case, nationalism is the cause which has potential to change the country for the better. What Indian people lack is pride in their country. The situation can be changed as you said by a quick and intense "extreme" movement (like the Ram Janmabhoomi movement). Or, a slow change can be brought about - maybe over a couple of generations. I am of the view that we are already part of such a slow but steady change - and one major stimulus to this was the BJP movement.
extreme agendas work well for individuals too. I think there are two sort of situations which can lead you to the extreme.
First is when you feel that something is so right that you want to do it badly(ofcourse if at all you feel that way about something). You just do everything for that cause.
Second is when you feel that something is so wrong that you want to do something against it. This second case is much more common than the first one.
(I think it's not that nonsensical that a movie hero defeating dozen bad guys, in _certain_ situations)
Post a Comment