Why does internal domestic dissention hurt more than mortar from across the border? The internal dissenters are effective because they know what will hurt the most, when it will hurt the most, and what would keep the embers burning. The outsiders capacity is limited, it depends upon the intelligence they collect. For the insiders, they know inside out. For the target, it is difficult to respond because it is from their own people and so, it is a matter of mutual dependency. Their response will only give more fuel to the real opponents. Driven by persistent dissension, the targets respond sensitively not knowing how to respond exposing further their vulnerability. The scene of a burning tyre or stone strowing is more damaging than a mortar fired from across the border. 

 

This situation I have explained is applicable to whether it be a Government, or political parties, communities, institutions, corporates, etc. Wherever there is a group of people or society or an entity, there will always be some individuals or sub-groups who are rebellious. They are probably driven by the desire to keep the system safe from  deleterious effects or nefarious designs. If the intention is to save the society or an organization or a system, then they are like the whistleblowers who are like the safety valves. But, there is the other group, which gets kick from fishing in troubled water or those for whom social order or any equilibrium is simply an anathema. Let us say there are two categories of Cholesterol - Good and bad. If we go by the Indian mythological heritage, we can cite the example of Vibhishan and Shalya as contrast.  

 

Today various labels are being floated around by both groups on each other. Labels by their very nature tend to stick easily. The dissenters try to don the mantle of conscious keepers, caretakers of democracy, or safe keepers of societal concerns. The protagonists, for want of better term, who react sulkingly  or insolently, get termed as intolerant, nationalists, fascists, etc.

 

Dissention makes a good copy  

 

Dissenters are filled with opinions on everything. It could be about handling the border situation when the enemy is right at the border as timing is important. It could be about handling of corona when it is raging and the Government needs all the trust it can command;  strike it when it is still critical lest it gets resolved. Or about injecting stimulants to boost economy, expose the flanks or underbellies. The conscience keepers of the Nation choose these times only to take on the Government. The handling or mis-handling of these would obviously make good stories and people will be only over eager to lap these.  Is it that negative news carries larger expected loss always than gains from positive news? It is difficult to fathom why people are willing to buy Chinese versions to the exclusion of Indian Governments, even assuming both are not complete truth. Domestic dissenters enjoy the luxury of both a large contingent of blind believers and abundant platforms.

 

Similarly, it can happen with political parties, corporates, Institutions, civic societies, etc. It can be even at microcosm level, i.e. family. There is also the genre of constructive criticism, excepting that this number is dwindling and these get drowned in the din of the barrage of needless criticisms. The protagonists refuse to make difference between constructive and cynical criticism and go with guns blazing. In the current context of overcharged atmosphere, it is of course difficult to differentiate because if a sober voice says something constructive, it gets picked up, amplified, and disseminated through the network. Very soon it gets portrayed as a damning condemnation. 

 

I was once presenting to the top management group of a large non banking financial corporate the summary of the study I had undertaken on them. On the whole it was appreciated but very soon there were a barrage of questions about areas I have not looked at. I realised I was in the middle of a huge crossfire with the CEO watching. I was in a minefield the CEO could have also set it up to get some critics fused proactively.      

 

Critics are even willing to make statements based more on what is emanating across the border than what the Government is saying. If such criticisms come from across the border or even from international agencies or media, whose preferences and biases are known, these would carry only limited credibility. These may not find traction and can be effectively countered. But, independent analysts writing in newspaper columns or giving expert comments in TV channels carry heavy duty charge. They get rapt attention and get accepted. These debates rage till the shelf life of the issues lasts and the next issue takes over.

 

It is a paradox, how in spite of relentless criticisms ordinary people still believe the Government’s version than that of domestic critics. Ordinary people understand it is only the Government which can deliver, however faulty its design is. An ordinary public is willing to give time to the Government and stand by the Government whether it is handling Pakistan or Covid 19. If the ordinary public can be so understanding, why is it so irresistible for critics to rush to the social media or channels and vent out? Worst case is when somebody  circulates fake news and their own committed network would make it viral. Very soon these get the status of fact. Then by night there is a panel discussion in the media channels as if it were a fact. One can imagine people getting upset with something related to ideology or caste or safety. How do they get upset on the economy, corona, border row, NEP etc. with the same vigour and intensity? 

 

Do the critics realise there is a large segment which is equally upset with their abject relentless  criticisms?  

 

Vibhishan and Shalya 

 

Vibhishan and Shalya are examples of constructive and debilitative criticisms, though Shalya was equally a good warrior and king. By some quirk of fate he was driven to side with Duryodhan, and became critical of  his own side. 

 

There is an  incident in Ramayan which aptly describes the danger of internal dissensions as written in Valmiki Ramayan. Ram had entered Sri Lanka where Ravan was holding court. His spies had done a reconnaissance of Ram and his army, and they were sharing their intelligence on Ram, Laskhman, his army and their powers. The power of Ram or Lakshman or the vast army did not stir him. Ravan silently listened to them. He himself had a formidable power and he has been bestowed with many powers gained through his life full of tapasya. 

 

Finally his spies said Vibishan, his brother, had left Sri Lanka and had joined Ram. That upset and enraged him. He said this is something he would be worried about. 

 

He then narrated a story as told in Valmiki Ramayan (Yuddha Kandam, 16th Sargam, 7 to 10th slokas):  

 

‘It was heard among the herd of elephants in a forest. The elephants were surrounded by men with ropes and weapons to capture these. Their Head cautioned these elephants saying, for us ropes are not a threat. Nor are fire, Nor are any weapons. Our kins (Gyati) who speak keeping their interest in mind, they are the ones who can cause more destruction to us. Of all the threats from other sources, the threat by one’s kin is most ruinous’.  

 

Clearly, Vibishan was not someone who was driven by his personal desire. His interest was in maintaining justice and protecting the kingdom. His interest was in saving Sri Lanka. He also knew the grace of Ram. 

 

Foresters from time immemorial and even today, capture elephants with the help of trained and tamed elephants. One, because the wild elephant may get taken in by the sweet demeanour of the trainee elephant; and two, this trained elephant knows the weak spots of their opponent. 

 

Mughals and British may not have known Ramayan, but they exploited this principle to the hilt in capturing the kings  and  territories. We lost our independence and centuries in the process.  

 

Shalya is another category. He wanted to support Pandavas but ended up committing to supporting Duryodhan. Even then he committed himself fully in his heart. But, Duryodhan for tactical reasons made him Charioteer to Karna which infuriated him. He felt humiliated in being Karna’s charioteer, himself being a King. But, Duryodhan had his own reasons as he wanted somebody to match Krishna in charioting and Shalya being an expert charioteer he thought was most suitable for the role. In the battle, Shalya kept on comparing Karna with Arjun downplaying Karna’s prowess. He also kept advising him on tactics to be followed which Karna ignored persistently. The breaking point of the clash of ego came, when Karna did not aim his arrow nagastra as advised by Shalya towards the chest of Karna but aimed at his head which missed his head. Shalya took it as an insult. Finally, when the chariot got into a ditch, Shalya left saying it is not his job to pull it out. Karna got killed subsequently when he tried to pull the chariot out of the ditch. Post his death, Shalya was full of praise for Karna’s valour after his death but that was meaningless. Later Shalya himself became Commander in chief and fought valiantly for the Kauravas.

 

In the story Shalya was a great King and was well intentioned but by some fate and design,  became charioteer to Karna. He could have refrained from praising Arjun in the battle field which could have unnerved Karna. When it came to the stage of aiming arrow nagastra, the relationship was already at the bursting point. So, his well intentioned advice to Karna also was ignored. This is how the critics lose the leverage with the Government and policy making, if that is their intention. If their sole intention is to unnerve and distract the government, they are achieving it with clinical precision one should agree. The Government should simply stay focused on their targets. Even an honest critic loses his legitimacy and leverage if it is done excessively and in untimely manner.      

 

Vibishan’s and Shalya’s stories succinctly reflect the feelings of the general public and supporters of the Government. Critics should realize that even their genuine criticisms are highly discounted because of what is seen as a habitual tendency to criticise. Critics can also lose credibility and spite. 

 

Critics can clothe their voices in the sweetest language; can speak the most laudable things; can advance the most valuable advice, but their timing and the medium they choose can cause maximum confusion and damage. These may simply end building defences or immunity in the opponents. Probably they time their deliveries and medium to cause maximum damage, with unerring consistency and persistence. But, they should realize it is becoming counter productive to themselves.

 

Access Part 1 here: https://indiachapter.in/article/1/21/33

 

Representative image taken from Unsplash

Tags :

• India's Elections65
• Commentaries65

• Share on Social Media

• Follow us on Social Media