Abuse vs invective

Published December 20, 2014
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.
The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

THE first week of this month witnessed political discourse plumbing the depths of vulgar abuse. It can only undermine democracy unless it is stopped by severe condemnation.

On Dec 1, the Union Minister of State for Food Processing Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti, asked the people “to decide if they wanted a government of Ramzadon (followers of Ram) or of “-----zadon”. The reader can guess the rhyming word.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi rejected the opposition demand that she be sacked. Of a piece with Jyoti’s foul abuse was the language used by the chief minister of West Bengal Mamata Banerjee. She publicly threatened to wield a bamboo on the backside of her critics.

In both cases, what was on display was neither wit nor political invective; it was vulgar abuse which should be visited with prompt and deterrent punishment.

Of this, there is no danger. For only an alert and assertive public opinion can prod the prime minister or the West Bengal governor to administer a strong public reprimand; if not, indeed, dismiss the offender.

The inaction in both cases does not stem from the deep political polarisation in India today. It stems from political decay. And that decay lies at the root of the malfunctioning of various institutions and the distortions in the working of the constitution.

Formerly, politics centred around the clash of policies, programmes and principles. It now centres around unbridled pursuit of power for its own sake. In the former case, anger was expressed in wit and invective; in the latter, it is expressed in coarse language.


The anger of politicians is expressed in coarse words.


The debates in the Central Legislative Assembly of India before independence, were not free of passion, spirited repartee and sharp invective. Sample this: “Have you no eyes, have you no ears, have you no brains?” That was Mohammad Ali Jinnah addressing British officials in the assembly in 1925 on the report of the Reforms Inquiry Committee. When the clash with the Congress intensified, Jinnah used his armoury of invective, honed in the years at the Bar, to deadly effect.

The most striking instance of this was the famous telegram to Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in which he branded him as a ‘show-boy’. It stuck. Even admirers of Jinnah questioned the use of the word. The exchange is recalled to illustrate why invective was used calculatedly for political reasons and not as sheer abuse.

On July 12, 1940 Azad wired to Jinnah: “Is it the position of the League that she [sic] cannot agree to any provisional agreement not based on the two-nation theory? If so, please clarify by wire.” This was too clever by half. Elucidations on matters sensitive are sought in meetings; not through telegrams.

Jinnah seized on Azad’s prefatory caution ‘confidential’ to reply “cannot reciprocate confidence”. Jinnah went on to add: “I refuse to discuss with you, by correspondence or otherwise, as you have completely forfeited the confidence of Muslim India. Can’t you realise you are made a Muslim ‘show-boy’ Congress president to give it colour that it is national and deceive foreign countries?

“You represent neither Muslims nor Hindus. The Congress is a Hindu body. If you have self-respect, resign at once. You have done your worst against the League so far. You know you have hopelessly failed. Give it up.”

While critics have a point, the context must not be overlooked. The maulana was engaged in parleys with the premier of Punjab, Sir Sikandar Hayat Khan, to detach him from the League. That posed a serious threat to the Muslim League. Hence Jinnah’s remark, often ignored, “You have done your worst against the League so far. You know you have hopelessly failed. Give it up.”

The retort was given with a political purpose. The telegram was published before it reached Azad. He never recovered from the blow.

Two of the greatest masters of invective were Benjamin Disraeli and David Lloyd George. Both were merciless towards their adversaries. Each destroyed his foe in a famous debate. Disraeli ruined Robert Peel in a debate in 1841. Lloyd George ruined Neville Chamberlain in the historic debate on May 7, 1940.

He said: “The nation is prepared for every sacrifice so long as it has leadership, so long as the government show clearly what they are aiming at, and so long as the nation is confident that those who are leading it are doing their best. I say solemnly that the prime minister should give an example of sacrifice, because there is nothing which can contribute more to victory in this war than that he should sacrifice the seals of office.”

Chamberlain won the vote but by so small a margin that he resigned.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn December 20th , 2014

Opinion

Editorial

Afghan turbulence
Updated 19 Mar, 2024

Afghan turbulence

RELATIONS between the newly formed government and Afghanistan’s de facto Taliban rulers have begun on an...
In disarray
19 Mar, 2024

In disarray

IT is clear that there is some bad blood within the PTI’s ranks. Ever since the PTI lost a key battle over ...
Festering wound
19 Mar, 2024

Festering wound

PROTESTS unfolded once more in Gwadar, this time against the alleged enforced disappearances of two young men, who...
Defining extremism
Updated 18 Mar, 2024

Defining extremism

Redefining extremism may well be the first step to clamping down on advocacy for Palestine.
Climate in focus
18 Mar, 2024

Climate in focus

IN a welcome order by the Supreme Court, the new government has been tasked with providing a report on actions taken...
Growing rabies concern
18 Mar, 2024

Growing rabies concern

DOG-BITE is an old problem in Pakistan. Amid a surfeit of public health challenges, rabies now seems poised to ...