By Saswat Pattanayak
Part of fighting terrorism, the
British realize, is refusing to change a way of life,
writes Andrew Sullivan, and he calls it the “
Quiet
Power of the Stoic” in the Time Magazine this
week.
Well, one will wonder why I stoop to quote Sullivan
on the same page where I quote Neruda. Not quite
unreasonable considering that today’s media provide
the sort of inspirations like Sullivan’s pieces, for
a scribe like me to think as deep as Neruda to
ruminate over problems which have only proliferated
since. Hence instead of the painstaking love ballads,
I have to create the apt rebuttal for the reactionary
stoicisms.
How do I react to the reactionaries? To the
politically correct? To the timely interventionists?
To the anti-terrorism conscience keepers? To the
crusaders against illegal aliens? To the wise
interpreters of Islam?
To begin with, one of the most popular bloggers of
all time, Sullivan sure knows the vulnerabilities of
the print media like Time. First, in times of crises
like the London Blasts, its easier to express popular
sentiments, and two, in places like Time, he cannot
expect immediate responses. Its another matter that
with all the trumpets being blown by bloggers about
the grassroots media being one where there is a scope
for the readers to correct the blogger via comments,
Sullivan is
out of comments on his site!
In any case who expects contrary comments when the
bomb blasts in London is the only political incident
today in the world and standing by the aggrieved is
the only politically correct thing to do. So Sullivan
writes:
The English, as Orwell once observed, celebrate
their freedom in small ways: gardening, sports,
pets, pubs, stamps, crossword puzzles. Part of this
is now patriotic mythology. But part is also the
enculturated national DNA to see these things not
as trivial but as integral to the life of a free
people. These things didn't stop, even during the
Blitz, when thousands lived through night after
night with the prospect of being incinerated by
bombs from the sky. Part of fighting the war, the
Brits realized, was military. But part was also a
refusal to change a way of life, however small its
detail, however petty its peeves.
---
As long as some maniac wants to kill himself and
others in a subway or supermarket, we will not be
able to stop him. And so stoicism matters. Getting
on with our lives matters. Spelling bees, college
football, celebrity gossip, high school proms: the
simple continuance of these things is integral to
the meaning of freedom.
Or so the British have long proved. Their small-c
conservatism can lead to errors of
complacency--like appeasing Hitler in the 1930s.
But it is also a deep strength, as self-effacing as
it is unmovable.
I am rendered speechless and I do not know where to
post comments. But here is what I thought Sullivan
said and half meant.
Basically, do anything. Support Hitler. Gossip
celebrity. Prom high schools. Invade Iraq. Stay
conservatives. Let Tony Blair comment on how some
Muslims got Islam wrong. Allow him to pass a stricter
law now so that illegals can be filtered out. Call
people maniacs, systems perfect and the celebrate
indifference. Don’t reflect on actions, don’t
contextualize. Just get going with life, as usual.
Stay stoic. Don’t change yourself.
What Orwell forgot to mention was that the English
celebrated their freedom in other small ways too:
invaded the natives, raped their women, killed their
ables, subjugated their economies, dried their
resources, came back home peacefully without any
damage, when they needed cheap workforce they got the
natives to work as cobblers and slaves, treated them
as dogs disallowing them to enter into restaurants,
promoted racism, and when the natives forgot their
language and became Englicised, refused them equal
pay. After keeping them illiterate in their own
cultures, got the natives to pay tuitions to study in
English traditions, and when the students applied for
jobs, asked them to go back home with a debt, and
when few natives played by their rules and ran their
industries and wrote their stories, they got them
knighted so that they became to be known as English,
not natives anymore.
If these are not exercise of unbridled freedom on
part of the English, then I do not know what these
are. And now what again so conveniently was forgotten
by Sullivan was that alongwith the college football,
the Brit ruling class has been perfectly innocently
content about their sense of superior freedom when it
comes to the debt trap they lead Africa into (some
countries there have paid thrice the original debt
only to suffer for the rest of the civilization
trying to pay the guilt-ridden interests), about
their realization of peace at inflicting deaths by
the hundreds to the civilians in the middle east,
over the Palestine crisis and the Iraq fiasco. When
British personnel were exposed for prison torture,
the English were at peace with themselves over such
“small issues” too.
Who can afford to stay stoic? I cannot. I am enraged
at the bombings. I am enraged at the bombings, yes
prime minister, over the same bombings which killed
Muslims too. I am enraged at the stoic take on the
heinous bombings that killed ordinary lives, the
British working class lives which never agreed with
the Queen’s stance on Diana and Blair’s stance on
Iraq. I am enraged at this whole thing about
“Pakistani descent”, when all of the alleged bombers
were British citizens. I am enraged at the whole
lectures of the PM about Islamic extremism when it is
partly a case of British security failure. I am
enraged about the way its being dismissed as
individual acts of terrorism, whereas the main bomb
makers are largely amiss, their motives overtly
unknown. Instead of looking at it as a social
byproduct of modern capitalism, I am enraged at the
way the narrative speaks only of the religious
bigotry (itself a product of modern capitalism). I am
enraged about the way distinction is being done among
people of faiths basing on this incident which has to
do more than religious sentiment.
Clearly no religion preaches violence. Why should the
Muslims be singled out? When a Christian lobbyist
cheats the Congress, does one blame Christianity and
tries to dig its textual interpretations? Or when
Mandela suffered for 27 years in the islands, was
Christianity revisited?
Stoicism, my dear Andrew, is the opium of the
British. And the ruling class of Britain wants it to
stay. So that they can now tighten the immigrations a
little more and claim to have solved the case with
four dead men as providing evidence. And in the
process the bigger questions will be purged: Who
harbored the criminal intents? Who encouraged the
situation? Whose education called for social distrust
among promising youths? Who were they born and
brought up amidst the British neighborhoods?
From nationalists in the 1850s, to being called
patriots in the 1920s, to announced radicals in the
1960s, to call terrorists in the Bush era,
individuals have been branded. Sullivan dismisses
them as maniac individuals this time. The issues have
changed, the enemies have changed, the causes have
been reversed. Yet the violence persists. When the
state machineries have gone violent, we have called
them war, when individuals have chosen violence they
are now suicide bombers. We do not know why these
people have behaved this cowardly as they did now.
One thing for sure, we know that many people all over
the world have been converted into suicide bombers
since at least three decades now. To dismiss their
acts as manic acts of random nature would be to stay
stoic and fail to bridge the gaps that exist between
us humans. For one, going by the massive protests at
all the meetings of world leaders (and we do not see
many Muslims at all, remember!), we know that the
rulers are not very much welcome by the ruled and
their principles or lack of them are being vehemently
opposed. What we need is a deep appreciation of
contrary interests and constructive dialogues to
understand the oppositional chords rather than being
violent (which is easy for a police state anywhere to
cause and generate), being stoic (which is easy for
the i-pod generations and Disney theme park visitors
in the developed world to enjoy and mock with), being
dismissive and accusatory (which is easy considering
the might and the wealth of the developed economies
which never hears of the bombs in the quarrelling
poor nations but goes deafeningly reactionary when
any singular incident takes place and attributes
religious and international tones to it to vitiate
the atmosphere further).
With time, we shall know what circumstances we have
created in a world we no more love, which have led
many youths astray—from being socially productive,
and individually progressive, to emerge as
self-obsessed reflections of a warring imperialistic
individualistic world divided by flags, religions and
countries.
Between the mad people and the scared people (and
scared people don’t remain stoic, remember), the
situation may not be managed well. But by taking
pride in a stoic citizenry instead of encouraging
them to become alert international human beings, we
are taking steps backwards.
Tags: Saswat, Media, Terrorism, War, Christianity, Philosophy