Evangelise Change, Don't Enforce It

This government has come under attack for its fondness for banning things. Meat, porn sites, books, the mobile internet in times of trouble, even the use of some specific words in films - the list is a long and growing one. While it is true that this government has been trigger happy in this regard, it has by no means been a pioneer in this area. The previous regime was no slouch in this matter, having done its fair share of banning. Some of the bans attributed to this government, are in fact the handiwork of previous regimes, so the habit runs deep.

 The issue is a larger one, and banning is just part of the story. The ban seeks to excise behaviours or perspectives that are inconvenient- rather than deal with the messiness of divergence, it is simply removed. It seems that opinions, whatever they might be, are increasingly wielded like hammers that are slammed down on us, leaving little wiggle room for any discussion. Every side seeks to enforce its beliefs- and this cuts across the ideological spectrum. Opposing opinions are dealt with using a variety of techniques, all having one thing in common- they leave no room for the other side’s view. Banning is of course the most obvious strategy, but one that can only be employed by those in power. Bullying, shaming and being abusive are some of the other ways in which the intolerance of opinions finds expression. Legislation is the other short cut employed; when change on the ground is complex and difficult, a new law is thrown at the problem. Everyone knows that implementing these is often an uphill task, given the entrenched nature of the problem, but it is the easier option and gives the illusion of action.

 What is rarely seen is the old fashioned attempt to evangelise or market one’s point of view. To evangelise is to believe strongly in one’s own view, but to simultaneously acknowledge that the other person does not share the same belief. The attempt is to find ways of communicating what one finds compelling about the idea to the other, by understanding where the other person comes from and in trying to build a persuasive bridge that allows them to cross over to this side. There is both an implicit arrogance (in the absoluteness of one’s belief) and a certain humility (acknowledging that others may not share this belief) involved in the process. Missionaries employ this method and do so by investing an enormous amount of themselves in the process- years are spent living in remote and unfamiliar areas in the pursuit of their beliefs. Most modern religions and ideologies have at least in part, been spread by ambassadors travelling around spreading the word, prevailing upon people to see value in their espoused way.

The Gandhian method of resistance relied heavily on being able to promote his ideas, many of them quite radical and dramatically at odds with the dominant ideas of the day, widely to large sections of the Indian population. By articulating his ideas in writing and in speech, by engaging in detailed discussions with all those who wrote to him, by travelling the length and breadth of the country and interacting with a wide cross-section of people, by converting ideas into symbols that captured the essence of his thinking, and by living by the otherwise abstract principles he espoused, Gandhi managed to rally a very large and diverse set of people around decidedly unconventional ideas.

 But today, that kind of patience and openness is increasingly difficult to muster up. Opinions held by any group are presumed to represent universal truths and become inviolable benchmarks against which words and actions of others are measured. When these are found wanting, the other side is attacked ruthlessly. Neither tradition nor modernity are being evangelized, and the same is true for economic reforms or social change.

 The benefits of a more progressive outlook in terms of greater gender equality, secularism or the freedom of speech have seldom been marketed. These are assumed to be universally accepted truths (this is the 21st century after all), and judgment is passed when these are not adhered to by those that have not got the modernity memo. The result is that after sixty years, these ideas have not really taken root and face a fundamental challenge today. Today, the same pattern is being repeated by those who wish to espouse a return to a more traditional way of life- the instinct is to issue cultural fiats rather than carry people along with their consent.

 The advantages of economic reforms are also presumed to be common knowledge and successive governments have been evaluated on how committed they are to reforms without acknowledging that politically, reforms have a limited constituency, for it is far from clear to the people whose lives these are purported to transform, as to how exactly this is to come about. No one has bothered to explain the benefits of economic reform, for that involves having a dialogue with people and more fundamentally, it means showing respect for their point of view.

 Perhaps there is something to learn from a very different world- that of advertising. Here, every new idea is presented with great fanfare to those that might be persuaded to choose it. Every effort is made to cater to the desires of the audience and to answer the questions it might have. There might be many things wrong in the way advertising is practiced, but the potential buyer always comes first, and is catered to with great humility. Ideas, however self-evident in their correctness they might seem to some, need to be marketed, not enforced. The true evangelist believes in the idea that is being sold, but believes in our right not to be persuaded even more.

(this piece has appeared previously in the Times of India)