Post-Truth

I am a votary of comprehending divergent views on any issue before drawing conclusions. Family and friends who surround me say that the word 'perspective' is my favourite word in the English language.

I consider myself to be a left-leaning liberal on most issues but I have shunned being labelled as a conformist to any party's ideology. Even if a party or a party leader's ideology and actions are detestable to my mind, I try not to jump to conclusions. But people I consider left liberals are seen ever-so-often falling into the trap of jumping to quick conclusions and labeling people and acts based on their existing prejudices. (Hmm, I have lost count of the warm relations/friendships I have 'lost' because I have taken views contrary to those of my loved ones, friends etc, and I am not scared to stand all alone!)

I am writing here because of two recent instances that have made me terribly uncomfortable.

1)      I read rants and rants on my timeline about Hima Das' caste being among the top searches on Google following her tremendous achievement at the WJAC 2018. I read two articles in 'non-partisan' media about this fact. I am quoting from the two articles to suggest what my problem with the argument is:

a.       "Do we need more proof of who is more bothered about Hima Das's caste? It's not the "rural, illiterate" bunch whose lack of awareness is often blamed for the continuing caste system. In fact, it is the urban drawing rooms and high-tech smartphones from where such caste consciousness arises." Sorry! How did the writer come to this startling conclusion saying "in fact..."? It would be great if we had specific data. Else, the writer must say, "past experience suggests" or some such phrase for the story being woven.

b.       "If people are searching caste, it means a majority of them use it as a reference to judge anyone’s performance. But what explains this obsession despite tall claims of exorcising the demons of caste long ago? Does the new right-wing assertion with vigorous pursuit of controlling roti-beti (food and daughter) have anything to do with the renewed obsession with caste affiliations?" I agree that a majority of those using caste in the search are trying to use it as a reference point to judge performance. But how did this lead to the question that follows? At least this writer is being less cocksure and camouflages his opinion with a sceptical-sounding question, albeit a rhetorical one.

Both the writers referred to above make a case for transcending caste barriers and avoiding caste labels and yet they have names which bear references to caste. So, should we blame these writers for being casteist, as they bear names with distinct caste labels in the year 2018, when we should have erased caste out of our society with a magic wand?c.        I will also refer to a good friend of mine who was taken aback at my comment on his post (about this Google search on caste) suggesting that caste is a reality in today's India.

Could we have drawn the wrong conclusions from the propensity of searches about Hima Das' caste? Is not every Dalit and others belonging to the disadvantaged castes always reminded of their caste. In fact, there has been a movement towards assertion of their caste identity as a form of hitting back. Given this situation, to assume that most people who Googled about Hima Das' caste are casteist 'upper caste' members may not be factually correct. Could it be that many of the disadvantaged groups searched for her caste identity both in order to liken the enormity of her effort with theirs as well as to be able to pay even greater tribute to her for her achievement, which would be even more if she belongs to a disadvantaged one. Many of the liberal-minded people from the non-disadvantaged castes could also have the latter intention in their search. To deem every search as a vicious one is opinion bordering on prejudice and I don't like to condone it however convenient it may to the liberal cause.

2)      The other instance is of a friend from college who is clearly left liberal, and shared a post with two pictures in it, both based on the Pussy Riot protesters that appeared on the football ground during the final - one with Mbappe (French team) giving a protester a high-five and the other with Dejan Lovren (Croatian team) "dragging down" one. In the ensuing discussion, several possibilities arose on why there was a difference in the response of the two players - the fact that the protesters were in police clothes, one was winning while the other was losing, etc. Clearly, my friend wasn't interested in these facts, even though he thought they were 'valid to some degree'. 'What truly matters' though, he said was the instinctive response, and the fact that one treated people with dignity and the other did not. 

Both these strands of ideas mentioned above lead me to the same conclusion and I am uncomfortable with that. Are left liberals guilty of the same post-truth that they accuse the right-wing conservatives of? How much more impactful and deep the message would be if we stop jumping to conclusions based on stitching together a clutch of opinions and passing them off as a fact!

I ask fellow liberals to introspect about this and see if we can create a cogent argument and a movement against the upsurge in the mistrust of 'the other' and daily incidences of killing human beings for flimsy bases and rumours...

Disclaimer: My apologies to the friends I allude to here, for bringing you here. You are free to 'comment' here.