We the polemical people

There is this rather interesting quote which Hazari Prasad Dwivedi once wrote in an essay, “Jab dil bhara ho aur dimag khaali ho to charcha me ruchi kisko hogi” (When the heart is full and the brain empty who will be interested in debate). I think as the elections draw in closer it is becoming increasingly applicable to us especially in the way we behave online.

I was watching a Youtube video the other day titled ‘Congress v/s BJP’ made by the inimitable ‘All India Bakchod’ (AIB) group. The video essentially satirizes the daily bickering and fighting one gets to see in between the Congress and the BJP enthusiasts almost everywhere. In the last scene of the video a patient undergoing a surgery gets up from the operation table (presumably from anaesthesia as well) to slap the two surgeons operating him as they go on accusing each other of political rhetoric and party incompetence.

He later picks up his organs, somehow holds together his opened up body and leaves. On the screen follows a message issued in public interest: ‘Apne mansik santulan ko vahi ghisi piti debate se bachaiye. Apne nazdiki Namo ya Gandhi bhakt ko chaanta lagaiye.’ (Save your mind from the same old ancient debate. Slap your nearest Gandhi or Modi fanatic.) Here we might want to add Kejriwal’s fans to the list since the video is a little bit dated with reference to the political rise of Aam Aadmi Party but I am sure that the sentiments relate to them as well.

Of such a video one might expect most of the comments to be highlighting or talking of the satire used in the video and some of them do so too. But interestingly, many of the comments there are of people’ fighting over who is the better of the lot: Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi or Arvind Kejriwal. More importantly and more fervently they are trying to prove how the other one is the worse off.

A few examples might be of help here:
One ‘Raja Sims’ went, “Comparing Rahul with Modi is like comparing a grain of sand with the Taj Mahal......LITERALLY.....?” to which one ‘wornohaulus’ replied, “chup be l**** …”?
A user guicapone2 cried, “F*** YOU TRAITORS! VOTE FOR MODI!!! LET THE GODS BLESS US!! JA(I) RAM SHRI RAM!!! MATA JI(E)! RAM JA(I) RAM SHRI RAM! GHAR GHAR MODI!?” whereas one Harsh Jain claiming to be ‘A common citizen of India :)’ argued that, “The most honest politician who faces every single question and is a people's man with good intention = Arvind Kejriwal.. He's doing everything for betterment of India aur ab toh Gujrat ki bhi saari polein khul rahi hai so please support him for better future”.

And it goes on. I am sure you are well aware of it and have seen it in various places. Whether it is the First Post, The Hindu, the Zee News or the Facebook irrespective of wherever we are these feuds chase us and haunt us down. We mostly choose to ignore it but sometimes when we don’t, well...

For in these comments there are no nuanced debates highlighting why one particular candidate is better than the other. There are no facts, theories or concepts arguing for the merit of a particular choice. You hardly ever get to know of anything new, useful or interesting from them. They are mostly cries of people supporting their own team. That’s about it.

Then there are the fence sitters: those who might have contributed some good ideas (or at least they think so) and who believe in the colour grey but who hardly ever say anything for the muck surrounding the process is way too overwhelming. In their silence they end up enabling the fanatics giving them a free platform and when they do sometimes speak they mostly disregard the bickers leading to a stand similar to that of a fanatic. One needs to engage with the comments but still not be similar: indeed an arduous task in today’s webiverse.

I was thinking of a word for this behaviour of ours often thinking of it as a polarized two-party squabble of the USA gone three way in the case of India when a friend suggested the term ‘polemic’. By its definition of ‘a strong written or spoken attack against someone else's opinions, beliefs, practices, etc.’ it fits. But is it strong enough on its content value? I don’t think so. I believe that we may be more inclined towards the negative aspect of it: the mudslinging bit.

For even Thoureau, Martin Luther King and Christopher Hitchens were polemicists but not quite in the same fashion as we are. Their attacks were strengthened because of their foundations based on facts, theories and conceptual clarity. Ours though founded on genuine notions is mostly accusative in nature. So to me I guess we are the mudslinging polemical youth of this nation. At the very least in the comments section of websites we most certainly are; and I think by now we are quite the experts of it.

Raghav is 25. He is pursuing the national hobby of India: preparing for the UPSC Civils Examination. His email id is raghavkmimani@gmail.com