Just wait for the next big sale on Snapdeal: Here's why Aamir Khan won't lose sleep over #appwapsi

So, we will boycott Aamir Khan’s films and reject products endorsed by him?

Aamir Khan, as we all know, is the target of an evolving social-media revolution brought about by his recent statement that his wife Kiran Rao had considered leaving India because of rising intolerance.

Angry Indians, convinced that his ‘‘unpatriotic" expression of private fears is a threat to India’s image, are threatening to boycott his films, renounce products he endorses and downgrade apps of e-tailers he promotes. The season of awardwapsi has been overwhelmed by a climate of #appwapsi.

Social commentator Santosh Desai, like many others, feels reactions to Aamir Khan’s statement are disturbing. “While people have every right to disagree with Khan, the attacks on him have turned personal. Instead of focusing on the point he made, people are attacking his films, discussing his marriage and downgrading the app for the brand he endorses. At one level, this shows the disproportionate response India has to celebrities–it’s either complete adulation and deification or absolute vilification,” he says in Thursday’s Times of India .

Yet, if they can back their words with suitable action — and, be forewarned, the dice of history and psychology is loaded against them — it will rebuild India’s crumbling heritage of peace and non-violence, restore everybody’s faith in the forgotten idea of unwavering public resolve.

Among the available options, boycott and non-cooperation are the best forms of protest. Not without reason, they are considered core ingredients of our non-violent, Gandhian legacy. In theory, every outraged Indian who gives vent to his anger, irritation and indignation by not watching a film, disowning a product and downloading an app is one less footloose soldier for the lynch mobs, one less voice for the go-to-Pakistan chorus, one less bounty-hunting Sainik for those announcing rewards for slaps, ink-throwing and other violent expressions of lunacy. So, more power, nerves of cement, spines of steel and unwavering resolve to them.

Unfortunately, such social revolutions, often turn out to be the butt of jokes because of their tendency fizzling out like a bad hangover the morning after.

India is lucky, somebody wrote on Facebook to mock the appwapsi brigade, that Amitabh Bachchan did not jump into the Is-India-Intolerant debate. What if people had decided to boycott polio drops in protest? People cracking such jokes can afford to ridicule the protesters because they are convinced that even if Bachchan were to renounce his strategy of discretion being the better part of valour, there is no real risk of a casual statement leading to a polio-afflicted future generation.

Everybody knows we have we have protested there, banned that and returned it before. Our past history with all twitter/social media/drawing room movements suggest such outbursts always turn out to be self-limiting bouts of moral epidemics.

When was the last time any citizen’s movement, misguided, genuine or even farcical, succeeded in India?

A decade ago, when it was alleged that soft-drinks are harmful for health, many campaigns for boycotting them promised to blossom only to wither away.

In 2011-12, Indians spilled out on the streets, in support of Anna Hazare’s demand for Jan Lokpal. Just like the Arab spring that inspired it, the protesters not only forgot their demand, some even ended up labelling the heroes of the #IamAnna campaign into villains and its opponents into their political idols.

Just a few months ago, the social media revolutionaries were outraging against Salman Khan, upset that he had been let off in the Mumbai drunk driving case. A few days later, #SalmanwithTerrorist exhorted all patriots to boycott his films after the actor tweeted (and later deleted) his support for Yakub Memon.

The impact? Bajrangi Bhaijaan: 600-crore; Prem Ratan Dhan Payo: Rs 300-crore and counting.

And, how about our habit of stone-throwing, poster-burning and renunciation of cricketers and the brands they sell every time the Indian team gets thrashed?

If Indians can forget causes that made them occupy squares and Ramleela Maidans, ignore health hazards because of their love for brands, queue up outside theatres for a convic, even the fanatically faithful would find it difficult to believe that Aamir Khan would be punished for just speaking about his private fears in public.

This bout of rage, too, shall pass.

In a provocative article on the ‘Outrage of the Beautiful People’, written on Indians taking sides in the Gaza conflict, journalist Manu Joseph had compared ideology with utilities like underwear and sofa.

‘Earlier, the middleclass revolutionaries had to have at least some stake in the revolutions they participated in. The affluent romantic collegiate naxalites of the 70s, for instance. They faced the threat of imprisonment though when the eventuality arose most of them did call their papas and get bail while their unluckier comrades endured custodial torture. But these days the revolutionary experience is more pleasant,’ he argued.

Since revolutions these days are risk free, come with no-strings attached and can be worn and discarded like utilities, they have, unfortunately, the same shelf lives as underwear.

Much as I would like to wish Aamir Khan’s critics best of luck Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak with their proposed non-violent protests, bans and appwapsi, something about our past tells me: Wait till Snapdeal announces its next big sale!