Into the Theory of THE CIVIL SOCIETY

There has been a debate raging on the Lokpal issue for few months now and every time that the JanLokpal is questioned, its supporters start talking about what the civil society is doing against corruption and question the people who have taken a position against theirs. This statement of civil society et al has continued to amaze me for years. Who does the civil society comprise of? Who is allowed in it? What's the definition of it? Are there societies that are uncivil? If there exist such societies, then how are they surviving when their very existence is frowned upon by the remainder of the people? These are the many questions that have always found an adobe in my mind and however much I try to do, I am unable to shoo them away or to find an answer to them.

Thus quite recently, when I questioned a tweet that asked, what the civil society should do now that the government had sent the Lokpal that it had formulated to the Parliament, I was taken back into that part of my brain which had held this question for years and continues to hold. How is one to come up with an exact definition of the civil society? A fellow twitter user tried to answer that question of mine by tweeting to me that 'Everybody who works for public interest objectives, not national, not profit, academic, etc' forms that civil society. I was quite amazed by this answer. For many new questions had arisen in my mind by just looking at that one statement for under a minute and the questions were some that I had never thought needed answers.

One question was, Isn't public interest also a part of national interest? Another question that surprised me was that then are all the educated businessmen who work for profits and in turn provide employment to people and manufacture goods and services which are provided to millions at affordable rates, generally, part of the uncivil society? And what about the politicians who despite having vested interests at times work for the national well-being? Do they get an entry into this narrow definition of civil society? And what about the people who lack even a very basic education? Are they allowed to be included in this sphere of Civil Society that we have created for ourselves?

What about the people in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and others which have been marked as the world terror hubs? Will they count as being civil? I don't know for the definition that my friend gave is extremely inadequate to smuggle these people into the boundaries of civil society. What about Anders Breivik who despite being a product of an advanced and developed society went on to kill over a hundred people in cold blood? Will he find a place into civil society? When questioned about this, people tend to label those engaging in activities like Terrorism or killing others as uncivil and criminal. My question to them is, what about the CIA, RAW and other such agencies that at times have to kill people for the greater good? Will one label them as agencies of the Civil Society? Wouldn't that be hypocrisy?

These questions are difficult to answer but some people define Civil Society as any society that follows a set of rules and regulations. A few questions that I would like to ask are, who makes these laws? And since there are different societies practising their own norms, rules and regulations as such, would one classify a society say for example, a society that is involved in stoning people for say adultery, would one classify them as uncivil? Who gives people the right to make this distinction between societies. Every society has its own culture which allows different practices to be followed. Thus it is not up to an individual to label societies as civil or uncivil.

And even as we talk about culture, I can't help but mention the culture of cannibalism which as gruesome and as cruel as it may be, it is still practised in some remote regions of the world and quite recently a few serial killers were also caught who practised it. Thus we may label these individuals as insane but the groups who practised it have been practising it for generations because that is what their culture is like. Hence would it be right of us to categorise them into a small category?

I personally am of the belief that there are only societies which cannot be further classified into smaller groups for the definition of these smaller groups would need to be absolutely accurate without any room for error for the subject political science of which this is a theory is not an exact science and thus any classification which is exact in nature would oppose the very basic theory of why political science is not regarded as an exact science.

The societies in turn may vary due to the various rules and regulations followed in each of them. However there is a common link in all of them, for the people in them and not societies themselves can be divided on the basis of different values, fields and areas like professions, religion, level of development etc. Thus these societies have a certain limit beyond which dividing them would only alter the definition of these various concepts.

Another noteworthy thing while the topic of civil society is being discussed is that though these groups which the people are divided into may be many but they are all inter-linked and at times even overlapping for example a working parent would not only be classified into a category which denotes his/her profession but also in a category which denotes parenthood. Furthermore, the category of parenthood can be further classified into that of mother/father, single parent and even the category of single parent can be further divided into single parent (mothers)/ single parent (fathers). Hence, as stated before, these categories are not absolute in nature and can be divided into as many as possible but within a definition that has some legal acceptance behind it. For example the definition of civil society is not clear like many other concepts in political science but the one issue that differentiates the concept of civil society from all the other concepts is the grey area. This grey area is very big and thus the legality of the definition comes into question. Thus it is no surprise that many political thinkers have refused to accept the concept of civil society.

Thus, the various definitions that are given to each concept in political science needs to have some level of similarity in them and must also discuss a topic that is of common interest. For no concept in political science has only one definition. And if there exists a definition which is absolute in nature then it challenges one of the very basic rules of political science i.e that political science is not an exact science. Hence as for me, I refuse to accept and recognise the concept of civil society due to its vagueness and big pockets of grey areas.

Violence Is Not Preached In Religion

Few days ago a politician wrote an article trying to analyse and finding a solution for Islamic Terrorism and it was published by a reputed newspaper which now I feel has lost that reputation at least in my eyes for the simple reason that even though people get angry at various situations and don't know what to do except just blame others but they engage in self-control and self-censorship for the fear that what they do might have repercussions in the future, for their country, for their kids or for people in general and that is what is humane. However neither this 'reputed' newspaper and nor this politician seem to be on the same page of the dictionary.

      It’s been happening ever since the twin tower attacks. Since then people have been linking a particular religion as a synonym of terrorism. This way of thinking is not at all rational. Recently Norway had its share of terrorism when a fundamentalist Christian bombed a building and massacred people with his gun in cold blood. I would like to know what this esteemed politician would want to say to that or what would he say when he is asked about the nuns in Odisha who were raped by people who supported their 'saffron' leaders. What would he say about those Sikhs who were killed by the mob just after Indira Gandhi was assassinated? There are no limits to the number of examples that I can give of barbarism that has been committed by people of nearly all religions. 

      Even Ashoka the king attacked and killed people but then he learnt of his folly. He looked in the eyes of the mothers whose sons he had killed, he looked at small children who played unaware that their father was being taken for cremation and how would a wife feel when she is to know that the man she loved for years has been killed in this fight for land. These question are relevant even today, it is only the reason behind this new 'war' that has changed everything else remains the same. Even now kids would be made orphaned; even now parents would just look on as the child who played on their laps is laid to rest before them. Earlier people fought over land and today they fight over god.

      It is strange how people think that only their religion is right and that it their birth right to ensure that others bow down to their way of thinking and follow their religion. Not many thankfully think like that. However there are elements whose ultimate objective is to simply kill of the opposition or ensure that they convert to their form of thinking. That is exactly what that article of this politician hinted at. 

      The sad part of this form of democracy in India is that, even thought people may fight for their rights and talk about more freedom and protest if the state as much as tries to clamp down on even a single right of theirs, the people in India are simply not ready for this form of multi-party democracy. And they won't be until and unless they stop voting on the basis of religion, caste, gender, region etc. This has to stop. How is a country to progress if the people themselves are divided on the basis of these small thing which at the end of the day won't even play a minor role in shaping my future?

      Everybody talks of progress and growth but when will the people themselves grow up and look at each other as humans and not as individuals from a different religion. Humans are supposed to evolve into intelligent life-forms. They are meant to make miracles happen. And miracles do not happen unless one does not think beyond himself/herself. They only happen when an entire community is to be benefited; for even if there is a god, he won't want only one of his kids to have his wish full-filled. He would want the wishes of the entire community's be full-filled. That child who was about to die of a disease survive thanks to a transplant. As the sun is about to set on his life when he is in his seventies, that same kid in him would ignite and he would look around him and ask, how has my existence helped those around me? And as he says this his eyes will first go to the picture of a dog whom he saved from coming under a car. He would look at his family and see that they are crying and he would know that in his life, he has done thing, good thing, for the grave of a bad man does not get any visitors, as Mr. Scrooge had dreamed.

      Thus similarly it is true that whatever religion you may follow you want to end up in heaven. And the gates to heaven do not open for people who have done bad things in their life.  A mother in a movie explains to her son when the son unknowingly talks about killing people of another religion, she says "There are two kinds of people in this world. One who do bad things and the other who do good things. It is up to you who you want to be." This line is absolutely true in life. I for one can never ever even think of killing another human let alone do it for ethnic cleansing. Its the way I have been brought up. My mother used to tell me the same thing that they said in the movie. I have decided who I want to be life. Now it is your chance to decide.

The Time After The Blast

A couple of days ago, a tragedy struck us. Three blasts rocked Mumbai and with it also the country. Nothing could be done about it. News channels aired their favourite 'Are you safe?' programs while papers came up with ridiculous headlines which instead of showing sympathy and support to the victims commercialised their agony. Ministers claimed that it wasn't a failure of intelligence, some questioned that claim while the others simple said that during their rule the number of such incidences were limited and advocated a zero tolerance policy for Terrorism. It didn't bother me what people had to say about the incident. What bothered me was what they did about it and how they helped the people in need.

      I am very happy to say that I wasn't disappointed as the human spirit awoke as the news about the blast spread and people offered their help to the stranded. Social networking sites were full of offers to people to give them a ride home, offering a place to stay and people even from the overseas tweeted to the stranded telling them that they would call the folks of the stranded due to the mobile network being down and all. Nothing more could have been done to show how united the people were. The terrorists only succeeded in revoking those sentiments of unity and sympathy which were not seen on the faces of news anchors as they went into commercial break after having had a chat with their correspondents on the death toll.

      The topic #mumbaiblasts became a worldwide trending topic on Twitter for a couple of hours while tags such as #offer2help came up as people tagged their offers of help and sent around a message to the masses. Some of the stranded responded to the tweets and they were taken care of. People took out their cars and drove up long distances only to help a person stranded at a temple reach home. This simple act of kindness gave me an absolutely strange feeling as I looked on in delight as offers to help flowed.

      The common Indian politics started soon after with many a people blaming certain communities for the tragedy that struck us all. This one thing infuriated me the most and I lashed out at those who were trying to incite communal hatred. Of course they had their own reasons which they childishly tried to prove right in front of us as me and a couple of my friends questioned the very logic behind each of them and proved them wrong. Many a friends of mine on Twitter asked me to not respond to them but then I couldn't help it and gave the irritants a piece of my mind. However trolling continued.

Source

      Even as the twitterati offered help, news channels went from celebrity to celebrity asking for their opinion on the blast. That according to me was very immature as no person with a rational mind set would support blasts aimed at civilians and true to rationality all condemned the blasts and offered their condolences and sympathy. One thing that did strike me was that the very next day, the city came to a halt quite to the delight of the terrorists whose aim of bringing the city to a stop had been fulfilled. Roads remained empty and offices, schools and colleges recorded the lowest attendance ever. However I did go to college.

      Even as I entered the college there was an eerie feeling. Two souls looked at me as I showed the watchmen my ID and entered the campus. The basketball court was deserted quite unlike normal days when it has people playing and at times talking to each other in groups. Rain poured down as I traced my steps to my lecture room. It seemed like silence had indeed invaded the place. A teacher replied, when asked why the college hadn't declared a holiday stating that the Principal thought that by declaring a holiday they would only be ensuring that the terrorists get what they want i.e. the ability to bring fear into our minds. I sat in my class and talked to five students out of a class of hundred who were present. Only one lecture took place that day.

      What my principle said was indeed true. These acts of bombings had always been meant to bring fear into the minds of the people. Even as leaders visited the victims and talked policy, the roads remained empty. The crows circled the sky as cops wearing raincoats stood at various points eyeing each and everyone who passed them. The terrorists would be caught shortly but what would happen? They would be given a 'free and fair' trial and then they would stay in prison courtesy the Government of India. Next day the city returned to normal as cars honked at each other and students responded with a 'present' to the attendance call. Nothing should ever break this spirit of our again like the way it was broken on that day for till we are here we must refuse to bow our heads to terrorism.