“Democracy in danger” is an oftenused phrase, usually taken out of mothballs when things start unravelling and the political opposition smells an opportunity to corner the ruling party. Yet, despite widespread protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act and the opposition baying for the Government’s blood it can be no one’s case that our democracy, that has survived umpteen attacks by neighbours as well as the dreaded Emergency, is even slightly in danger. But, if we do not change the intolerant, distrustful and fearful way in which we interact with each other, we are in imminent danger of losing our liberal ethos.

Cynics may point out that intolerance and inequality are inherent in our psyche; from time immemorial we have been a closed and compartmentalised society. Probably, taking a cue from the Hindu caste system, even egalitarian religions like Christianity, Islam and Sikhism have developed divisions in our country. An intelligent people, we have embraced new technology but, in our hands, social media like WhatsApp and Facebook have become means to purvey hate and enmity rather than tools to enhance social connectivity and promote businesses. Partisan elements in our society have succeeded in building up an atmosphere of hate and distrust by spewing venom on the social media through doctored videos, fake news and misinterpreted history.

This hateful atmosphere is often a precursor to riots and disturbances which start after sufficient ill-will is created by inflammatory posts and videos, followed by strategy sessions and a call to arms. Riots were first incited by posts on social media in 2011 in England; WhatsApp groups of miscreants even identified possible targets of looting. The recent JNU mayhem also appears to have followed a similar pattern. However, on the upside, in case of the JNU outrage, videos of the violence were recorded on mobile phones and were made viral on the same social media which facilitated the violence.

Additionally, screen shots of WhatsApp conversations amongst the rioters were widely publicised by some moles who had infiltrated the rioters’ WhatsApp groups. Some ‘stings’ recorded on video have the alleged perpetrators of violence boasting about their ‘achievements.’ Such visual evidence has forced an unwilling police force to start a semblance of an investigation. So, the pros and cons about the need to regulate social media appear to be evenly balanced. Considering that social media promotes many worthy causes and has proved useful to many businesses and individuals, one may conclude that rather than subjecting social media to heavy-handed regulation, Government and society, acting in partnership, should stamp out intolerance from the mainstream atmosphere, which is the root cause of the misuse of our social media.

The controversy over the Citizenship Amendment Act has brought to the surface the ugly undercurrent of hate and intolerance permeating our consciousness. Cynics go to the extent of saying that the Citizenship Amendment Act was probably brought in only to divide civil society. Be that as it may, one is surprised to see religious Gurus, instead of counselling peace and restraint to the warring parties, joining the ongoing debate in a totally partisan manner. Then we have our Prime Minister, tweeting the said Guru’s views on the Citizenship Amendment Act as his own defence of the Act, effectively blurring the line between religion and politics.

The seeds of the present hate-filled atmosphere were sown in the prelude to the 2014 General Elections, when with a view to spread its ideology, the present ruling party, then in the opposition, took a decision to expand the operations of its media cell. Tasting success in the elections, the party’s media cell multiplied its operations manifold. Other parties joined the battle and soon we had a fullfledged war on the internet. In consequence, hateful and counter-hateful videos, tweets and posts now flood social media. As in conventional warfare, truth has been the first casualty of the internet war.

It does not help matters that the ruling dispensation has a very thin skin. Anyone not supporting the Government is seen as an enemy and all attempts are made to vilify him/her by digging deep into his/her past; even relatives and friends of such persons are not spared. Recently, some members of the Union Cabinet joined issue with actress, Deepika Padukone, who had the temerity to visit JNU after the violence of 5 January. In no time, the internet resounded to calls to boycott her film, Chhapak. Other internet users came up with derogatory posts on the actress, questioning her antecedents and patriotism.

JNU students, who had been mercilessly beaten up in the attack on their campus, received little sympathy from the Government and the ruling dispensation. Rather, victims were labelled as attackers and there were calls to shut down JNU, forgetting the fact that this university has given us countless scholars and civil servants and even a Nobel Laureate in addition to two ministers in the present Cabinet. The irrepressible Subramanian Swamy suggested that JNU should be shut down for two years, cleared of all anti-social elements and be reopened only after renaming it as Subhas Chandra Bose university because, according to Swamy, Bose was a nationalist unlike Nehru who was “socialist and pseudo-secularist” regardless of the fact that the values of socialism and secularism are enshrined in the Constitution.

The aversion to ideological differences has seen talent fly away from our shores. Sometime back, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, followed by a Deputy Governor, resigning after arm-twisting by the Government. An earlier Governor, a Nobel hopeful, had left after the Government made it clear that they had no use for him. Eminent economists, appointed by the present Government like Arvind Subramanian, who was the Chief Economic Adviser to the Government of India and Arvind Panagariya, who was the Vice-Chairman of Niti Aayog, have resigned, without completing their tenures. It would appear that the Government cannot countenance anyone holding a view different from their own, a dangerous trend because economists and civil servants are appointed to give unalloyed advice.

Of course, the Government is free to reject any advice tendered to it but shooting the messenger delivering unpleasant tidings is not expected of a mature government. In this background, it is not surprising that nothing at all is done to curb the activities of purveyors of hate and intolerance. Rather, anyone questioning the actions of the Government is slapped with charges of sedition and/or criminal defamation and/or promoting enmity between groups. To curb dissent, orders u/s 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code are routinely promulgated for days at a stretch.

The problems of ordinary citizens are compounded by the ignorance of the powerful; witness the constitution of a committee by IIT, Kanpur to determine whether Faiz Ahmed Faiz’s writings were anti-national or a High Court judge asking a professor-detenue why did he have provocative books like War and Peace in his library. The burden, therefore, lies upon the saner elements of society to dispel the atmosphere of mistrust and hate that divides the country into neatly labelled compartments, for the benefit of politicians.

Assuming that hate mongers would not stop, the organs of the State would continue to act in a partisan manner, political leaders would not give up their efforts to divide people, still we have to continue in our efforts to bring goodwill and sanity in our interactions with each other, beginning with our own selves. This is a difficult task requiring much forbearance but we should remember that anything worth doing is difficult. Then only, can we hope to achieve the Utopia envisioned by Rabindranath Tagore: Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high Where knowledge is free Where the world has not been broken up into fragments Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.

(The writer is a retired Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax)