A Tale from Two Cities – Buda & Pest

Travel, I have come to realize, is nothing but seeing, gathering, and sometimes living stories of lands away from home. Some are sad stories, some are joyful stories, some are miraculous, some run-of-the-mill; but they are all tales of people at once similar to and different from those we have grown up around, living lives that are often so like ours, but not quite.

Once in a while, you run into a story so powerful, so astonishing, that it absolutely deserves to be told. You turn it over in your head, like a Rubik’s cube you’re at the edge of solving but can’t quite get right. It grips you with the tenacity of a bulldog and simply will not let go. These are stories where words are, perhaps, simply not enough to convey the essence of what must be shared. Having run into one such story during my brief stay in Budapest, this is my first attempt at blogging with both photographs and words. I hope I am able to do some justice to it.

---

A little over two years ago, the government of Budapest erected this monument quite literally overnight, from 20th to 21st July 2014. The entire square was cordoned off and guarded by the police, while workers labored through the night to set it up. There had been significant protests against the plans for the monument when it was announced earlier. Why, one may ask? The monument depicts an imperial eagle, representing Nazi Germany, swooping down at a statue of Archangel Gabriel, meant to represent Hungary. The problem, as the Jews of Hungary saw it, as the descendants of the Roma saw it, as the homosexuals, or as any decent person saw it, is this – Hungary was a willing ally of the Nazis. From June 1941 till Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad, Hungary was a staunch supporter in all their demonic policies (including the Holocaust, to which Budapest’s Shoes memorial still pays a poignant and haunting tribute). The occupation of Hungary only happened in 1944, after Hungary tried to back out of the alliance in fear of an impending defeat of the Axis powers.

The monument was a blatantly offensive attempt at revising history to make the Hungarian government, and the Hungarian people, look like victims rather than perpetrators. The Jewish community, in particular, protested vehemently, as did the opposition, rights groups, civil society groups, and the like. Vigils, marches, and human chains were organized against Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s government.

But the monument was not taken down. It stood, despite all protests. So the people of Budapest fought back in other ways.

The barbed wire guarding the monument became the canvas of the protesters. It began to fill up with clippings, photographs, news articles, and memorabilia that showcased the truth of those times- the roundup of Jews, executions, a few extraordinary tales of bravery (like that of Raoul Wallenberg, who saved nearly a 100,000 Jews in Hungary) and more. The people had decided that if the government would not demolish this monument, then they would ensure that the truth would find a voice.

There were attempts to have the site cleared. Multiple times, clearing activities were initiated.

The mementos would inevitably return, more poignant and in greater numbers. The entire area became a symbol of honesty and compassion for the fallen, and the locus of rage against political machinations. People raised their voices against a government who sought to take control of the national narrative, not too unlike what we see in so many parts of the world today.

In an era where textbooks are being re-drafted, where all one sees or hears is “us vs them”, where jingoistic nationalism and clickbait patriotism abound, it is impossible to stand in front of this monument and not be humbled. Humbled by the refusal of an entire people to accept the comfort of pretense, and by their bravery in revealing the rawness of their wounds in an effort to keep truth alive.

Budapest is a young democracy, only about 26 years old. They rose from a “gentle” Communism, which was preceded by a Stalin-esque dictatorship following the “liberation” of Hungary. There is, in the words of one of the locals, still a lot wrong with the systems of the country. But these are clearly people who will band together for the good of their nation. Theirs is not the patriotism so vehemently preached by the politicians of today. There is no loud chest-thumping to profess love for the country, no co-opting of institutions in the name of the “greater good”. There is simply a willingness to look at the rawness of history as it was, and to draw the painful but necessary lessons and use them to better their nation. There is compassion and empathy, a sense that both the persecuted and the erstwhile persecutors must now work together to erase the bloody stains of the past and live in harmony. This little square in central Budapest highlights so many lessons that the people of the world need to know today, that have been drowned out by the diatribe of those who would sow fear and discord in an effort to climb the rungs of power.

Bhakt, Sickular and Aadarsh Liberal: loathsome labels and their underlying denigrations

DISCLAIMER: this one is a LOT more opinionated than my first post. You have been warned. That said, I always welcome discussion.

In my previous post on social media and politics, I briefly expressed my concern about this seemingly recent (or recently virulent) habit of labelling others that plagues our society, and how much it infuriates me. This entry is dedicated to the commonly applied labels, the absurdity of their usage, and the inherent fallacies in some of the assumptions behind them. While I admit that often the people being labelled do indeed reflect at least some of the traits that the label implies, rubbing this in their faces just exacerbates the problem.

The problem with labels begins with the fact that not only are they created due to logical fallacies, they promote them as well, creating a self-propagating cycle of stupidity. Labels, as far as I have been able to understand, formed from strawmen arguments and cherry-picking of facts when the denizens of social media used tu quoque rather than debate to parade their arguments and show their support (or opposition) of one political party or another. They have been used and abused with the sole intention of destroying the credibility of the arguer rather than attacking the argument. This, in my opinion, is a singularly damaging exploitation of the privilege of freedom of speech: a tool that our Constitution provides us due to its necessity in nurturing the debate and diversity of opinion that a democracy demands in order to function. It is essentially a “cheap shot” in debating, all the more disturbing for its efficacy; there is something so inherently offensive about being labelled that it generates a near instantaneous and vicious response to reply in kind, and I have seen this occur even with some of the most educated people I know. Inevitably, the discussion devolves into a mudslinging match and any and all thoughtful opinion is lost in the tirades flying back and forth.

I’ll address the more popular labels individually. Let’s start with the more recent favorite: the Bhakt. Applied to BJP supporters, usually by Leftists, Congress supporters, or AAP supporters (yes, painting this generic brush stroke is possibly too generalist an approach, but read enough forums/comments sections on political topics and you can be convinced that it’s a safe enough to work with). Inherent assumptions? That all BJP supporters are hardcore right wingers, entrenched in the dogma of Hindutva, and worship the ground that Narendra Modi walks on. The Leftist uses the term to attack his opponent’s rightist and/or nationalistic views, the Congress supporter attacks the perceived “anti-poor” and/or communal agenda, while the AAP supporter uses the term to assault the blatant hero-worshipping and media hype surrounding the PM (ignoring the irony of his argument). Why is the usage of this term absurd? The obvious reason is that a BJP supporter is not necessarily a Hindutva believer, may not worship the PM, and may not even be as much of a right winger as simply tired of the repeated failures of leftist regimes. As skeptical as I personally may be of our government, I cannot deny that the BJP has undeniably been giving people at least a few reasons to respect its political acumen. I have seen even staunch opponents of the BJP commend certain achievements of the party, and this is EXACTLY as it should be. Laud the achievements as strongly as you criticize the failures, and be equally vocal for both. That is the only way to ensure that political parties evolve to better represent their electorate. Additionally, labelling people as Bhakts just displays an ignorance of internal party schisms within the BJP between the Hindutva hard-liners and the more progressive, development-centric ministers; while it is true that there are plenty of people who favor Hindutva, there are many more who do not and see in the BJP a hope for more rapid growth and development.

The next one, and one I personally hate the most is Sickular. First of all, most people in this country do not even know the correct definition of the term “secular” due to the twisted way in how it was incorporated in the Constitution and how its meaning was laid down by the Supreme Court. I credit my former teacher, Mr. Ankur Jain, for explaining this to me: the word was originally NOT part of the Preamble of the Constitution, and was included by Indira Gandhi during the Emergency. Secularism means that religion should not be a part of the affairs of start or public education. Of course, this is the exact opposite of what happens in India (we have government subsidies for religious pilgrimages and construction, for example), so the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom reinterpreted the word to mean equal respect for all religions in the Indian context. Now that we have the background down, let’s move to the term itself. This label is commonly applied by the more rabid BJP supporters to perceived (note the emphasis) Congress supporters and anybody who espouses serious doubts with some of BJP’s more questionable policies and alliance with the Sangh Parivar. The inherent assumption behind its usage, as far as I have been able to determine, is their belief that people indulge in selective secularism, that favors and pities minority communities, but look the other way when Hindus are in dire straits. The problem is, whether or not they are right, opposition of secularism is NOT the solution. For one thing, selective secularism can be blamed on mainstream media as much as if not more than the general public. Secondly, an absence of empathy for one group cannot be used as an excuse to withhold empathy from all; rather, it should be heeded as lesson to instead be free with extending empathy to all. Human suffering is horrific regardless of religion, and is deserving of compassion. Lastly, in terms of addressing selective secularism with respect to benefits offered to one community vs another, this can only be solved by implementation of a true, textbook secular state. Thus, those opposing secularism should logically be its most vociferous supporters, if their grievances are actually what they claim to be, and not mere pettiness.

Lastly, we come to what I feel is arguably the most disturbing label of them all: the Aadarsh Liberal. This one is harder to define than the others. That it is used primarily by those who believe in right wing ideology is unquestionable. Whom it is used upon is another question entirely. My belief is that initially, the target for this label were the dominant left-leaning intellectuals of Indian society, who it may be argued are a product of India’s Fabian Socialist past (I will not get into the debate on leftist and rightist intellectuals here, as I do not have sufficient knowledge of it and it is a vast topic). However, since then I have seen it applied to pretty much anyone who speaks out against centralization of power, against possible inequities in the distribution of the benefits of progress, and against the “development at any cost” doctrine. The assumption behind the usage of this term seems to be the belief that development and social equity are a black-or-white choice; that those supporting social equity are against development and in favor of sops and subsidies. Obviously, this is a highly flawed assumption. I will just put here the definition of liberalism as quoted from Merriam-Webster: “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically:  such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)”. I urge my readers to take a close look at the first line of the definition. Therein lies the absurdity of the assumption behind this label. Liberalism is not a refutation of development. It is a demand for something more, a demand for better effort on part of both the state and the people, and a belief in direct benefit rather than trickle-down benefits. Is it not a worthy goal to strive for? Perhaps the accusers should wish for more liberals in society, to hold development and progress to a higher standard and exact more effort for this from society as a whole. And yet, a lot of the hate I see on various fora are directed against these perceived Aadarsh Liberals.

Social Media & Politics: A poor induction and a sordid legacy

DISCLAIMER: It has been a long time since I have typed out my thoughts, more familiar as I am with verbal debate. The latter offers a comforting fluidity and the ability to spontaneously modify arguments and generate new ideas when facing an intelligent opponent by using their own worthy counters. Apologies on the length of the article, I find it hard to express myself concisely. It may be that my argument may lack coherence – I urge you to ask me in this case, and apologize for it, I’m really out of practice. Criticism and feedback always appreciated. Opinions expressed here are personal, and readers are of course free to agree/disagree. My only request is to keep your opinions civil, as part of my aim in writing this is to expand my own horizons by hearing others’ views.

I was having a conversation with my friend Arushi the other day in which we were discussing the fairly broad spectrum of Indian politics. A point that came up in our arguments, that since has stuck with me, is the power of social media in creating, shaping, or warping public opinion and how this Pandora’s box has been opened at possibly the worst time for India. I am perhaps being alarmist and too harsh on my fellow youth, but hear me out please.

The Arab Spring and the uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt specifically first alerted the world to the potential political weight of social media. More, it proved as THE gateway to bringing the attention of the youth to mainstream politics. In India, we had our own revelations during Anna Hazare’s anti-corruption movement. For the first time in a generation at least, a political movement united vast numbers of youth with manic fervor. This, in a country where if you walk an average uptown market and ask young people the names of prominent political position holders of the country, they are usually clueless (this is me quoting a fairly popular video, I’m sorry I don’t have the link at the moment).

As the movement spun off into the Aam Aadmi Party, and as the focus of both the media and the general populace shifted to the party, they (very intelligently, it must be said) continued to use social media in an extremely effective fashion to further solidify their credibility: they quoted government sources, reports, independent experts, and exposed corruption and inefficiency at many levels. Remember, this was the original party before even the first Delhi elections, back when their agenda was fairly clear and straightforward, and their political ambitions had only begun to evolve. What they later became is another discussion that will be far too large a digression for this article.

It cannot be denied their tactics were successful. Facebook, Whatsapp and Twitter were filled with Kejriwal and his colleagues’ latest exposes, and these were effective. Now I reveal some personal opinion, against which I am sure many voices will be raised, and my only request is that the arguments stay civil and avoid ad hominem attacks, strawmen, tu quoque and the like. So, unfortunately, this power of social media was keenly observed and subsequently used by the BJP as well when campaigning for the 2014 elections began. The reason I use the word “unfortunate” is because of some very key differences in how the BJP used social media and how the anti-corruption movement and the original AAP had done so.

When BJP began its campaign, it used social media to promote its message as it would use any other medium. This one simply allowed it vastly improved reach. The problem lay in the fact that political campaigning in our country starts off in a very benign fashion, but rapidly degrades into a slander-fest. The same happened in this case as well. Originally, it was the BJP’s official handles that started quoting instances of misgoverning by the previous government in an effort to turn public opinion against them. Afterwards, however, the various unofficial handles run by supporters and/or sympathizers turned to these tactics as well. As the wars of opinion began in the comments sections, the posts started becoming more and more virulent and slanderous. “Truths” were dug up and pasted across Facebook about Nehru and Indira Gandhi. “Horrors” committed by the RSS were tossed out in response.

The problem worsened when labelling started permeating the discussions. BJP supporter? Nationalist, bigot, “bhakt”, anti-poor. Congress supporter? Pro-corruption, “Congressi”, “Pappu”, anti-development, “sickular” (I intend to devote a future entry solely on how much I loathe this term). AAP supporter? “AAPtard”, wasted vote (this was 2014, remember), idealist idiot, naïve. The list is virtually unending. I have a fundamental problem with the concept of labelling: it degrades an individual/entity by highlighting only a single view and completely disregarding everything else. Was the UPA an inefficient government? Hell yes, but at the same time UPA-I had very well-established relations with the US thanks to Manmohan Singh’s personal efforts, that allowed the current day BJP to reap the benefits in the form of the civil nuclear power agreement. The National Food Security Act was also their brainchild and did indeed help thousands of people in the country. Is the RSS responsible for heinous acts of violence and bigotry? No doubt, but they are also responsible for a significant amount of charity work, especially when natural disasters strike the country (e.g. Bhuj earthquake, Uttarakhand floods, etc.). Was Modi the mighty terrorist behind the 2002 riots? I cannot say for sure, but let us not so easily dismiss that when he asked for help in maintaining law and order from the neighbor states of Maharashtra and MP, the Congress-led governments there gave him the cold shoulder. Was voting for AAP a wasted vote and naiveté in the extreme? Maybe, but my vote is for me to cast for what I believe in. Since when did that become “wasting” a vote?

You see how the perspective gets distorted here. This is exactly the kind of base libel that started permeating social media, and revealed a characteristic flaw of our generation. As long as the message resonated with our own beliefs (which were themselves at least partially influenced by popular opinion), the post was further shared without any confirmation or fact checking. Because who will take the trouble of doing this? After all, if some noble soul has taken the effort of going into the personal life and history of Nehru and penned down the sordid details so efficiently, then it must be true, right!?

Another thing that came about (or shall I say resurfaced) is the pervasiveness of false dichotomies. Not supporting BJP? You must be an anti-development Congressi then! Voting for BJP? Sanghi terrorist. This phenomenon is related to the previously mentioned point on labelling. Since when did political opinion become so simplistic, especially with parties as diverse as they are in our country? For this one, I squarely blame the BJP’s media wing. BJP was leaps and bounds ahead of the Congress when it came to social media, and consequently this labelling began from their camp. Of course, counters soon came up from the Congress and other parties as well, but to me, it seems quite clear where it started.

The internet promises anonymity, and that is something that has always brought out some of the worst in humanity. Flinging arguments, abuses and personal attacks is always easier when your opponent is just a name on a screen, rather than a living, breathing person. The cognitive load in shouting someone down with abuses is so much lower than refuting an argument by doing research and using facts. Facebook has bred in us this insatiable thirst for maximum likes and maximum shares, and of course, a humorous or caustic one-liner is just so much more eye-catching than a wall of text of facts, figures and sources. It is also easy to refute arguments by using personal attacks, respond to criticism with criticism, and reduce complex arguments to black-and-white loaded questions like “so rather than vote for BJP and development, you would vote for Congress and keep the country poor?” I wish it were that damn simple. Supporting some policies DOES NOT mean that you support EVERYTHING a party stands for, and as a responsible voter it is your DUTY to publicize what you do not stand for, so your elected representatives are able to modify their policies to suit their electorates’ needs (talking ideal world here).

Arushi made a very valid point that this eminence of social media as the dominant forum for political debate, and its subsequent corruption, was inevitable. Perhaps she is right. After all, the tool had been used and was easily available. But by tossing the admittedly sick flavor of Indian politics into it, I believe the BJP’s actions may have forever tarnished its inherent ability to affect real social change and promote inclusion and healthy discussion. If today you are to step forth with differing opinions into the increasingly murky waters of Facebook and Twitter, the best you can hope to receive is derision, and the worst, death threats. When people talk about intolerance these days, I think not of the polarizing communal incidents that have been in the media spotlight, as these have been sadly happening in our country for decades; I think more of the fact that voicing a differing opinion today means inviting a dissection not of your argument, but of your character, your religion, your background, your career, your education (or lack thereof), your family, and damn near anything else that can be used to erode your argument EXCEPT facts themselves. This is the real intolerance in this country: that we as a generation fail to respect the power of social media as a tool NOT for shouting our opinion at those whom we disagree with, but as a tool that collates perspectives from people of vastly differing backgrounds and offers more agreeable solutions to the population at large. My opinions on which side is currently “winning” and why I may express later in a separate post, as this one is already too large.

Why I feel this twisting of social media could not have come at a worse time is because we are a transitive generation. The ones coming after us will be much more immersed in technology than we are, and already it pervades their daily lives even more than ours. After all, the major leaps in social media have only happened in the last decade. Is this really the kind of legacy we want to leave behind for future generations? That the loudest, most aggressive opinion is the right one, and disagreeing with it is foolishness? Culture and political debate are a fluid playing field, and are influenced by the people while influencing them in turn. If all our generations know is the worth of aggression, repetition, and virulence, then I shudder to think what kind of politics this country will see a decade from now. As it is, we have too many Owaisis, Sadhvi Prachis, Kanthapuram AP Aboobacker Musalyars, and Yogi Adityanaths than we need.