Xenpphobia and the Kingdom of Night

Over the last week or so, I have been tracking several articles about the “outsiders” and the hostility surrounding them. Maharashtra of course has been of course very prominently covered, because of the ranting of the Thackerays. But of course Maharashtra is not the only state in the country plagued by xenophobia – it just so happens that every one has their correspondent stationed there and so what happens there gets around faster. But this trait of us vs them is every where. In Manipur. In parts of West Bengal. The rabidly ethnic Amra Bangali and Kannada Chalvali and many more of the kind.

Somehow in India things do not reach extremes – they get sorted out along the way but if any one wants to know the logical direction that these quasi fascist movements take, then they ought to pick up Ellie Wiesel’s riveting book Night. Of course, there are many, many books written on the holocaust – The Diary of Anne Frank being one of the most famous but Night is different because the author survived to not just retell a story but also be a prophetic voice into the future – for which he received the Nobel Peace prize in 1986.

Wiesel was first ghettoized and then deported along with his family from Hungary to Germany where he was separated from his mother and three sisters as men and women were separated. He and his father stayed together and survived for a while before age, deprivation and the sub human living conditions felled the father. Watching his father die before his eyes and watching other sons betray their fathers in a dog eat dog environment scarred him forever.

When the ethnic cleansing of the Jews began in Hungary, Wiesel and his family as well most other Jews are in denial that any thing more drastic than some minor harassment will ever take place. Wiesel remembers asking his father “Can this be true ? This is the twentieth century, not the middle ages. Who would allow such crimes to be committed ? How could the world remain silent ?”

Well the twentieth century came and went and many other episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide came and went – Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia. These are of course the more well documented ones. There are numerous other hot spots of a smaller scale and many within our country. Although we have crossed the calendar into the twenty first century, it is still possible to ask in Wiesel’s child like fashion as to whether any acts spurred by anger or bitterness or hatred that make less than half a column’s worth of news will lead to any thing more.

Most of us believe that responding to what happens when a group of people in one part of the country act and believe that those others who are different from them are migrants and infiltrators or “unwanted” by one or the other name, the responsibility for action lies with the government and a bunch of professional human rights groups like PUCL. Such an attitude is common as most of us do not know what to do and how to get involved and some times as these issues are politically tinged, we want to be extra cautious.

In his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, Elie Wiesel recounted how surviving the holocaust forever changed his view of life. He says that after the war was over and he was finally released, he swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. He emphatically says that “ We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented….”

Looking at my own apathy and the apathy of most people around me, I wonder if the principal problem for most of us is that we have not been victims – yet and so we know nothing of the psyche of the wounded. The sufficiently insulated lives that we lead, kind of ensure that we remain protected. and as yet Elie Wiesel discovered, assurances can be misleading and walls and barricades can be broken.

The Shadows Series IV : A Counter Culture of Courage

When Madhavi Kapoor wanted to sell her flat in Pune and found that her efforts were being thwarted because her buyer was a Muslim, she did some thing unusual. Instead of humming and hawing to her buyer and fobbing him off with vague answers and then identifying another buyer, she took on the housing society head on. Her reasoning is impeccable: She had given her word to the Muslim family in question and so would not back out and further more, after coming to know of the reasons of the housing society’s objections, she became more adamant.

As she puts it, it became a matter of principle. So much so that the lady has promised to keep an eye on the situation and is prepared t move the National Human Rights Commission if she finds her buyers being harassed on account of their religion.Madhavi Kapoor is no human rights activist which is why her act deserves to be highlighted more. Most people, especially from the majority community would choose to duck and dodge rather than get involved. The flat is in a good location, other buyers can be found, so why alienate members of one’s own community – in this case, not just the religious community but even the Sindhi community. The unnamed Muslim family can be called lucky because Mrs. Kapoor did not hang Martin Neimoller’s well known quote as a tapestry on a wall.

“… They first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew….”

When faced with uncomfortable situations which do not directly affect one’ own life and comforts very few can expect to find some one like Mrs. Kapoor who stood up and made a stink. Most of us will react in one of three ways, and not one of them is of any meaningful help.

Apathy is the most common reaction. There is so much going on, life is so crowded that there seems little point in burdening yourself more by taking on more and choosing to get involved. The conscience can be coaxed into somnolence by the simple logic that this is the business of some one else – the politicians, the law enforcement people, the activists, some body, any body but not ours. From traffic accidents to genocides, this is the commonest response of them all.

The next and the most visible response is aggression. This is what Mrs. Madhavi Kapoor as well as the housing society management displayed through her active involvement and advocacy on behalf of the Bohra Muslim buyers of her property did; thought the word aggression typically has negative connotations of violence for us. But aggression and advocacy when carried out in the ambit of the law is great and what makes Mrs. Kapoor’s response nobler is that while most of us will stir ourselves out of our apathy.

But the most chilling response that we can construct is that of acquiescence. Though on the face, apathy and acquiescence might both look alike, acquiescence is far more sinister. Apathy makes you look the other way when you could do better but acquiescence makes you an active participant in a perverse act, be it in so flaccid a gesture as a participant in a rabble or the one who says “Aye” as a degenerate and retrograde resolution is carried by the show of hands as probably happened in the Pune housing society.

With the culture of apathy being the prevailing theme, displaying daring and courage is really living by a lonely counter culture that merits accolades and appreciation at every turn. May be the Godfrey Philips Bravery awards which have a grouping for recognizing and honoring those who have involved themselves in acts of social courage will take note of Madhavi Kapoor’s act. We will always need many more of them to display a different kind of aggression – one that declines to acquiesce and accept what is unjust and wrong.