19
IT is a given that public rallies and milling crowds don’t always reflect democratic fervour. Iran and Turkey are great exponents at staging rallies but it is questionable if these outings are not controlled. And not all rallies staged even in democracies reflect a democratic purpose.
Consider the milling crowds in Chennai the other day. People in millions, all men, were demanding the right to play an Indian variant of the matador, to tease and torment snorting bulls. The government issued an ordinance to overrule a Supreme Court ban so that a milling crowd could torment bulls.
Decades ago, a supposedly secular Indian government in a similar vein overruled the apex court’s verdict in order to fish for Muslim votes. Rajiv Gandhi intervened regressively in the Shahbano case to placate the milling crowds of Muslims. Across the border, Imran Khan-style marches on Islamabad are not dissimilar to the scary turnout of mourners at the funeral of Salmaan Taseer’s executed radical Muslim killer. One has to be mindful of being bowled over by massive rallies per se.
There’s no gainsaying how heart-warming it is to see women-led street fighters, including in the rallies held across America and Europe against Donald Trump. While Pakistan and India claim some of the most outspoken women’s activists, in a larger context, women leading rallies are not always the best advocates of justice and equal rights for their ilk. Hindutva outfits in India and Muslim groups everywhere use women to endorse or press for a regressive agenda limiting their own rights.
Remember that Atticus Finch defended a black man in vain after a white woman, who was supported by a white mob, falsely accused him of raping her. Harper Lee’s racial idealism is embraced and mocked alike in a rightward hurtling America, which includes its women. There was no dearth of women who voted for Donald Trump when everyone thought his horrid comments on their sexuality would put them off.
There was no dearth of women who voted for Trump when everyone thought his comments on their sexuality would put them off.
Let us turn to Michelle Obama who spoke passionately to cheering crowds while campaigning for Hillary Clinton. Perhaps Trump’s vulgarity and the prospects of his worrying presidency pushed her to her new resolve. There’s no doubt that Michelle Obama was a dignified and intellectually gifted first lady. And there is something admirable about the way she cares for her beautifully groomed daughters.
But let us pause here. Did the former first lady at any time, publicly or privately, spare a thought for the daughters of those parents who may not be American citizens? Has she worried about young girls whose lives were destroyed in Libya and Syria and elsewhere by her husband’s and her candidate’s militarism? Are we supposed to applaud the American Dream and curse the luck that is everyone else’s lot? There’s nothing wrong with the dream. Everyone in the world should aspire to those standards, more so the dreams conjured on American college campuses and in universities. All too often, for the less refined minds, however, the American Dream is another name for mindless consumerism.
Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton are great role models for women in most ways. So why harbour such insensitivity towards men, women and children assaulted or deserted by their country in its celebration of democracy? If either of the ladies had said sorry for Libya or Syria the election results might have been different. But Clinton displayed no guilt. In fact, she wanted to outdo the Republicans in crass nationalism. Clinton’s threat to impose a no-fly zone over Syria, in my view, took away a few votes without adding even one to her kitty.
But rally after rally Democratic supporters applauded her. Even Shakespearean crowds had better instincts, fickle and vengeful though they occasionally were.
With Trump laying into the American media, a graver threat to democracy lurks. “If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter,” George Washington had said. Clearly, his purpose was to include as many sides as there are to a debate, or in an ideological war. But the sides that claim to swear by Washington’s sober words are fighting like wild cats about whose rally was bigger, as if it matters. What really matters is that Trump needs to heed the opponents, a prospect he clearly seems to grudge. The opponents are a varied mix, at sixes and sevens without a focused plan to limit the new president’s damaging prowess.
Following the celebrations by Trump’s opponents, an obvious question that came to mind was why such crowds didn’t gather across the country before the elections when the challenge everyone faces today could have been nipped in the bud. Several reasons are possible, both positive and potentially sceptical. The most glaring explanation seems to be that the opponents of Trump, out on the streets today, were severely divided during the elections. Even today, have migrant Muslims started to share the pain of fellow black Americans, Latinos, gays and other minorities or are they planning to remain in their victimhood mode?
Another factor that may have swayed the crowds but didn’t win any votes was the juxtaposition of the CIA versus Trump. In order to run down Trump one had to be seen as supporting the CIA’s version of the truth. That should put even the proverbial Hobson’s choice in a contrite corner.
The women-led anti-Trump rallies had a few excellent orators who described the medical care, gender rights and sexual freedoms they had begun to enjoy under President Obama, which they must fight for under Trump. I wish someone had said that they supported Trump’s move to mend fences with Russia. That promises to stave off the lurking misery for millions of Sashas and Malias on foreign shores as their mother might privately admit. Swimming against the currents can be more rewarding than shuffling with the crowds.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
Published in Dawn January 24th, 2017
