A Social Movement

I have a lasting memory of a message from an advertisement that I had seen long back. It used to air on Doordarshan, the government-owned, free-to-air channel, which for many years was the only channel on Indian television. It was a social advertisement persuading people to stop using silk products, primarily sarees, in order to save the lives of silkworms, huge amounts of whom are killed in the silk-making process. Without getting into the moral and ethical considerations of the appeal, what struck me was how the advertisement sought to hurt an industry by impacting its demand, by appealing to the user base, comprising a large population. Another similar example is the appeal to verify that the diamonds one purchases are not ‘blood diamonds’ so as to prevent ruthless mining of such diamonds in poor African countries by terrorists and mafia in order to fund their ammunition. Such mining involves severe child and human rights abuse. Here too, given the social, political, and economic challenges and the bloodshed that would entail in solving the problem directly i.e. by confronting such mafia/terrorists, the more peaceful and certain solution is to cut the demand itself.

Both the examples solicit commitment of a large group where the members do not know others but are bound by a common behaviour and are thus being mobilised to achieve a common goal. I call this a ‘Social Movement’ and I find it to be a powerful yet peaceful tool to achieve a common good. Importantly, it is not a mob where individuals would come together physically to achieve a purpose, mostly nefarious. Because members of the group are not physically together rather connected by virtue of being user of a product or service, such a movement thrives on an individual’s choice irrespective of how the other members choose. If everyone starts to think that: “Why should I respond to the appeal, nobody else may be responding”, the movement fails all together. That is what makes such a movement difficult to take off. It requires people to abstain, to sacrifice something and most people would resist being the only one to sacrifice. It requires an individual’s moral commitment and conscience regardless of any peer support or validation.

Around me, I see numerous situations where I feel such a social movement can be applied and could achieve astounding results. One ready example - near my home a vendor of street food puts his portable stall every evening on a busy side street adjacent to a busy main road. The peak traffic time is also the best time for his business. People of all kinds - in cars, on tw0-wheelers, or even cycles stop at the stall. Over time, it has become very popular. The stall itself obstructs one lane of the two-laned street. In addition, those visiting the stall park their vehicles either on the main road or on the street. All this causes traffic jams and chaos, with those having nothing to do with the stall bearing the brunt. I find the state of affairs deplorable. I am sure those parking their vehicles at the stall are to be blamed, but the root of the problem is the vendor himself who has no business being there. Another instance involves a fruit juice vendor near a bus stop, effusing fumes, waste-water, and litter - all for consumption of those waiting at the bus-stop. And then there is the case, not of a small-time vendor looking to make a living, but instead of a big sweet-shop. The shop has monopolised the service road as well as the pavement separating it from the main road. Throughout the day, these spaces are filled with materials of use to him - packing stuff, raw material for his sweets, trash bags, vehicles which take hours loading and offloading, rendering the pavement and the service road unusable for common public and vehicles.

All examples are of somebody exploiting public spaces and resources for personal gains, in the process causing harm and discomfort to common users. I am sure there are plenty such instances across this country. Invocation of the judiciary is one way to curtail this menace. But I think some representatives of the legal system are taken on board by the perpetrators. Thus a complaint by a well-minded citizen like me may not have much effect - in fact I may invite trouble for myself by doing so. So for those, who like me, are weak to approach the legal system, the social movement I highlighted above can be useful. At personal level, I have vowed never to buy products from any of the vendors I have mentioned above. My argument is that I am not giving business to people who follow unethical or illegal practices.

As the examples show, I am not directly getting impacted by the perpetrators, at least not materially. Still I take this stand - for the sake of it. This can be an important aspect of the social movement - one takes part irrespective of whether she is directly impacted. Also, this movement requires a tacit understanding, an invocation of the moral conscience of the society It requires people to be conscious without having to be roused. Of course, one (say I) can actively mobilise the movement by appealing to people, distributing pamphlets, letting the word spread etc., instead of relying on the self-realisation and activism. But I feel challenged to do that.

I persist with this movement at my individual level, and I have found many applications. So I refuse to consume products from company where I know that the promoters have been corrupt and malevolent; refuse to watch movies of actors who are facing judicial enquiries for some crime; can’t support sportsmen or sports bodies with corruption charges. I find it difficult to support any political party because I find all of them tarnished. I agree that some of these instances take idealism and self-denial to exaggerated proportions, but my conscience is more comfortable. I am also conscious of the fact that I may be unconsciously consuming products or services of entities which may not agree to my exacting standards and that it may be difficult to survive by following the dictum accurately. That I should be doing a thorough due diligence before buying or supporting anything. But I do what I can.     

Self-realisation to a common goal for a large population without being brought together requires highly evolved social structures and thought process, the kind very few, if any, society can boast of. What I am talking about is a situation where the law enforcement is ineffective and the society decides to non-violently and economically punish wrong-doers, a form of Gandhian non-cooperation. I know I am likely to witness disappointment in this expectation - no wonder I have seen the food vendor and the sweet shop flourish.

PS: after posting this piece, I read somewhere that in choosing between morals and economics, economics would always win. I agree and that is why I accept that social revolutions as I have postulated here will not work for many issues where competition is from economically beneficial choices (meaning cheaper, easier, faster). At the same time the instances I have given here do not necessarily pit morals with very superior alternatives. In most of the examples, if people were to stick to some morals, they would not be too worse off. Slightly inconvenienced yes, but nothing significant. It is more of a social lethargy. That is the crux of my issue - we cannot pay even a small price, or take the smallest of leaps for big social gains.

National Anthem during movie

This piece has numerous quotations from famous men. Despite many iterations, I could not reduce further. To be sure, my thoughts on the subject have not been influenced by these quotes, if anything, the quotes have been chosen to reaffirm my views. Thus the selection is biased. While I am sure there would be many quotations to the contrary from equally worthy and distinguished people, these are chosen to convey my thoughts on the subject. To read only the quotes and skip the text would not be the worst idea.

“You'll never have a quiet world till you knock the patriotism out of the human race.”

― George Bernard Shaw

What is patriotism? Online dictionary definition is: “Having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one's country.” For me, this definition has some problems. First, does the support have to be vigorous? How does one measure vigour? Does less vigour mean less patriotism? Second, how does one define a person who is not devoted and not vigorously supporting? Is he a ‘traitor’? Or can one be apatriotic? Is there even such a term? I have often pondered on patriotism. Is it a virtue and is it a necessary virtue? When we are young, love for the country is imbibed into us by way of songs and stories of country’s glory. (In cases like mine, it may not be so much a part of upbringing at home.) As we grow older and start to think, we question many things including patriotism. My thought process on this topic has evolved on multiple lines -

In my personal experience I have not found many patriotic people. Largely that has to do with the social surrounding. I feel, in India, patriotism is not uniformly distributed, rather it follows racial or geographical lines. If presence in the armed forces can be used as a proxy for degree of patriotism (I know it is far from perfect, but a crude proxy), Indian armed forces has significantly higher representation from Punjabis, Jats, people from J&K, Himachal Pradesh, Gurkhas, Marathas, than say Gujaratis, Bengalis, Oriya, Biharis or the Baniya communities populating the states of Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh. I come from the Marwari clan (a Baniya community) and I doubt there would be many marwaris in armed forces (too self-centered, risk-averse where physical safety is concerned and focused on amassing wealth). Like many other virtues, for Baniya, patriotism is a fine trait, but only when followed by others. In my community I have never come across anyone or even heard anybody display any act of valour. Outside my community as well, I have heard few stories of people in the armed forces. I suppose it is usual - Indian armed forces including paramilitary forces has strength of 4-5 million which is less than 0.5% of the population. Nevertheless, to me patriotism has largely been a distant concept. It is a bit unnerving when one reads of families dedicating generations to armed forces, or of stories of how selflessly people fight in wars. I have developed a cynicism towards patriotism, part of which is justified as I would elaborate further.  

“There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”

― Howard Zinn (American historian, playwright, and social activist)

“He who joyfully marches to music rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be part of so base an action!”

― Albert Einstein

“Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious”

― Oscar Wilde

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”

― H.L. Mencken (American journalist, satirist, cultural critic)

“All wars are civil wars because all men are brothers... Each one owes infinitely more to the human race than to the particular country in which he was born.”

― François Fénelon

“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

― Samuel Johnson (English writer, poet, essayist, moralist, literary critic, biographer, editor and lexicographer)

“What struck me as I began to study history was how nationalist fervor - inculcated from childhood on by pledges of allegiance, national anthems, flags waving and rhetoric blowing - permeated the educational systems of all countries, including our own. I wonder now how the foreign policies of the United States would look if we wiped out the national boundaries of the world, at least in our minds, and thought of all children everywhere as our own. Then we could never drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, or napalm on Vietnam, or wage war anywhere, because wars, especially in our time, are always wars against children, indeed our children.”

― Howard Zinn, A People's History of the United States

“If our country is worth dying for in time of war let us resolve that it is truly worth living for in time of peace.”

― Hamilton Fish (American statesman and politician)

“Patriotism is a kind of religion; it is the egg from which wars are hatched."

― Guy de Maupassant, The Complete Short Stories Vol. 2 of 3

“My wariness of patriotism comes from the tribalism that creeps alongside it and the Us and Them divisions it inevitably creates. There's an undeniable appeal to tribal membership, of course. We all want to be part of the club, however we define it.”

Chris A. Smith "Angels, Protesters and Patriots: What a Long-Ago Skirmish Says About Love of Country", California Magazine, March 29, 2016

Does patriotism imply violence? I think the whole concept of patriotism has been introduced and enforced to mobilise people to protect territories. What is the concept of a nation-state? Or a country? Ever since man turned from a hunter-gatherer to an agriculturist, the concept of owning and protecting a territory gained root. Man is a social animal but he is not boundlessly social - one tends to conjoin with certain kinds. Starting with a family, the concept snowballs into a locality, a community, a village, a town, a state and ultimately a country. That is largely where the affinity stops (only attack by aliens may unite us). Even animals exhibit preservation of territory. It is largely this love of territory - what is mine, that is exalted to patriotism. And preservation of territory requires violence - against outsiders, invaders. Greed in humans means that he wants more than what he has and that extends to land. Since earliest history, men have tried to amass land - apart from the economic prosperity or access to something specific (gold, timber, fertile soil, water, iron, cotton), size of one’s territory has been a sign of strength. This implies a territory and its natives are constantly under threat from invaders and thus it is necessary to protect it (imagine if someone pitched his tent in your home, you would surely turn to violence). So violence is at the core of patriotism. Turning the coin, patriotism is an easy tool to invoke and justify violence. And there have been many instances when this has happened.     

“Patriotism is a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood and narrows the mind.”

― Anonymous

“Patriotism: Your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it.”

― George Bernard Shaw, The Public: A Journal of Democracy, 1910

Patriotism is like a faith and just like faith can make one blind, so can patriotism. It narrows thinking. It can force one to accept without questioning. It is very easy to slip from patriotism to jingoism. This is readily seen in the world everyday when people fall readily to the cry of patriotism by some partisan leader without considering the merits. And the love for the country is so deeply embedded that patriotism becomes a very potent and dangerous tool. Even educated, free thinkers feel weak to speak against a foul-cry of patriotism.

“I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

― James Baldwin (American writer and social critic)

“The greatest patriotism is to tell your country when it is behaving dishonorably, foolishly, viciously.”

― Julian Barnes (English writer), Flaubert's Parrot

“Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock crowing on its own dunghill and calling for larger spurs and brighter beaks.”

― Richard Aldington (English poet and writer), The Colonel's Daughter

Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues. The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.

― Sydney J. Harris (American journalist), Pieces of Eight

“Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first”

― Charles de Gaulle

“Such then is the human condition, that to wish greatness for one's country is to wish harm to one's neighbors.”

― Voltaire

I feel true patriotism should allow one to say that my country is not good at something or even that another country is better. Just like in most aspects of life, appreciation of somebody better is accepted, why not within countries. Why can I not say that this is the problem with my country and another is doing much better job than ours. Increasingly in India, it is seen as anti-national. It is seen that criticising something demeans it, or weakens it, without even going into the merit of the criticism. It is a perfect ostrich approach in which entire India is engulfed. While we are not an autocratic country and there is a degree of tolerance for the unpopular and dismissive cries, but that tolerance seems to be waning. There have been numerous incidents when dissidents to patriotic virtues, in the field of arts, literature, politics, are being marginalised and criminalised. Words like Nationalism and anti-National are easily thrown around.

“I saw courage both in the Vietnam War and in the struggle to stop it. I learned that patriotism includes protest, not just military service”

― John F. Kerry

“How does one hate a country, or love one?... I know people, I know towns, farms, hills and rivers and rocks, I know how the sun at sunset in autumn falls on the side of a certain plowland in the hills; but what is the sense of giving a boundary to all that, of giving a name and ceasing to love where the name ceases to apply? What is the love of one's country; is it hate of one's uncountry? Then it's not a good thing.”

― Ursula K. Le Guin (American author), The Left Hand of Darkness

To take this further, it is unpatriotic or even seditious to say that another country is better. It is unpatriotic even not to criticise and speak against, vehemently and vociferously, certain countries, who are rivals. This brand of patriotism thrives on appearing superior by making others inferior. In India, “My country great” is a common refrain. So it is to pull down the British for colonising us, Pakistan for its very existence, most of western countries for their supposed cultural vacuity, African countries for their relative economic weakness and colour. It is all very neat - those who are inferior are easily dismissed, and those who are economically superior we play the culture argument, that too largely perceived and on many occasions devoid of facts.   

“People who enjoy waving flags don't deserve to have one”

― Banksy (anonymous England-based graffiti artist, political activist and film director of unverified identity), Wall and Piece

“Identification with the rag called the national flag is an emotional and sentimental factor and for that factor you are willing to kill another - and that is called, the love of your country, love of the neighbor . . .?”

― Jiddu Krishnamurti (Indian philosopher, speaker and writer)

“Patriotism is like religion - it is best when least ostentatious.”

― Charles E. Jefferson, "Ethical Aspects of Conscription and the War"

“Patriotism is being refashioned as a performance sport. It is not a feeling, it is an act, and it has to be performed in public view over and over again.”

― Sandip Roy, Huffington Post, March 21, 2016

The kind of patriotism that India is focused on is presentative. And given our love for superficiality, we are accepting it with glory. It is the latest buzzword, a fad, a brand which somebody has decided to peddle. The millenial population of this country is largely devoid of thought, unaided by the poor education system, lacks focus, has short attention span, is consumer of instant sensory pleasure, and is aspirational only for material gains. Thus it is easy to peddle most things as fashion and patriotism too falls in that bucket. At one point we had a law which prohibited waving the national flag at civilian houses or vehicles. The argument was that it tantamounted to, or at least led to, the possibility of disrespect of the national flag. The law made no sense and a few years back the restriction was removed, following a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court. So now one can easily put the national flag on vehicle, at house or hold it anywhere. Good, respectful and patriotic all. But it is becoming too showy, too pretentious. In another recent development, it is mandatory to play the national anthem before the start of a movie in cinema halls. While it is not said, I think it is by dictum of public conduct, essential to stand during the playing of the anthem. Again all showy for me. It was recently decided by government universities to hoist the national flag in campuses, possibly to counter the rising tide of anti-nationalism amongst youth. Whatever happened to free will, free speech, free thought? It is like patriotism is being stuffed down the throat; nationalism is a software program to be installed. In India it is common to give the argument of ‘impressionable minds’. That every non-adult is under a threat of being impressed upon with evil/seditious/anti-nationalistic thoughts and it is essential to guard them against these through brute force. Thus it is essential to have flags all around. To stop all flow of information which is inglorious for the country. My only argument is against the use of ‘force’. I should have the freedom to act the way I like - stand to national anthem if I like and sit if I do not. Not giving respect should not be counted as disrespect. And I should have the freedom to form and own my opinions.

“Patriotism … is a superstition artificially created and maintained through a network of lies and falsehoods; a superstition that robs man of his self-respect and dignity, and increases his arrogance and conceit.”

― Emma Goldman (anarchist political activist and writer)

“So I wonder why patriotism is judged by words and not deeds? Why are slogans more important than solutions? …. I wonder why we are not asked to display our nationalism by being told to harvest rain water, use less plastic, and recycle so that we actually nurture our land, instead of just paying lip service and bandying a few words around.”

― Twinkle Khanna

“Patriotism is a sore subject with me. We have the flag-waving loudmouth patriot who never sacrificed a thing for this country. We have the sidearm-carrying patriot who thinks playing cowboy is a substitute for patriotism. We have the moneyed, connected types who automatically consider themselves patriots. We have people who had a great-great-grandfather who ... and on and on and on.”

― Paul Sypek, "Missing The Character Of True Patriotism", Hartford Courant, March 28, 2016

Is saluting the national flag, standing while playing of the national anthem, or even singing it along, the most patriotic thing? This is where patriotism in India largely starts from and ends. I am sure many of those who diligently respect the national anthem in a cinema hall, and even look sternly at those who do not, would push and jostle to get out of the hall once the movie is over, would try to rush out of the parking lot, honk ceaselessly on the road, jump red light if required, try to bribe the policeman if caught, throw garbage in public places, try to jump the queue at the entrance of restaurant, work air conditioners of home on stolen electricity, mistreat their maids or attendants of any kind. And these are just minor offences - the same people would evade taxes, thrive in and advance the culture of corruption in their businesses or professions, allow their minor kids to drive vehicles on the road rashly and even injure a few people, be least concerned about reducing the air and water pollution. These same people would adulterate food that harms and kills millions, make poor roads on which people die in accidents, sell spurious medicines, occupy seats of power on sheer muscle and financial strength at the expense of deserving people, attack foreigners of particular nationality or colour if it does not suit their tastes or sensibilities, allow mounds of garbage to pile up as long it is outside the gated societies they live in. In their conduct, the focus is solely on the safety and prosperity of self, family and dear ones. Or if they are slightly more socially aware and responsible, than they work for their religious or caste groups. Which itself might involve pulling down other religions and castes. And of course, a large part of them would profess patriotism on social media, proudly forward messages, even wear the team shirt and bash the arch-rival Pakistan during a cricket match. Patriotism in India is mere public lip service while actual efforts are too difficult and inconveniencing - best left to somebody else.   

“....The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: "The King can do no wrong." We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: "Our country, right or wrong!" We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had: the individual's right to oppose both flag and country when he (just he, by himself) believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.”

― Mark Twain

“The love of one's country is a splendid thing. But why should love stop at the border.”      

― Pablo Casals