Transition as Sissy Maid

Roy Lictenstein




Transition as Sissy Maid

True democratisation of a polity gives pelf and power to the underclass. That is its self-evident litmus test however crudely performed. But the inheritors mostly lack the finesse of their predecessors, long used to their exalted status. The new hands at the controls are generally both nouveau and gauche as opposed to old, self-assured and discreet.

Of course, it becomes an unfair comparison: unequal, unlike, apples and oranges from very different orchards. And there can be no honourable contest between such disparate fruit, except in terms of vitality perhaps, till a few generations have gone by, and a number of grafts and hybrids have taken hold.

In Europe, this democratisation came about by default, in the early and middle part of the 20^th century, via the final destruction of monarchy, the agrarian economy, empire, and the near extermination of the land/title/privilege holding aristocracy, speared on the pike of their noblesse oblige.

This was most poignantly demonstrated by the trench warfare in WWI, when officers from the landed classes on both sides led charges with no more than their service revolvers held aloft. It reminds one of the destruction of the Kshatriya hold on power at the end of The Mahabharata, with both the warring sides finished off and sick-at-heart; as if, as “charioteer” Lord Krishna, born Yadava, implies, a little inscrutably, that it was both preordained and for the ultimate good. Were the noble/warring Kshatriyas evil then at the start of The Mahabharata, and more importantly, were they more evil than the other contenders for power? The answer to this, in epic fashion, is probably still playing itself out over the yugas and kalpas.

In colonised America, the British were overthrown first, but the class/racial divides were only sorted to an appreciable degree through the bloodletting of the Civil War and the ongoing Civil Rights Movement. And the Boston Brahmins or the East Coast  patrician Establishment haven’t given up the ghost as yet.

In India, untroubled by such pyramid overturning upheaval, save, late in the day for the freedom struggle, also at the end of WWII, during the radical surgery of Partition. But while that ghastly amputation without anaesthetic divided our people on communal lines, it did nothing for the cause of democratisation as such.

Instead it raised the curtain on our independence at the expense of opening a festering, hateful wound, unhealed to this day either in India or Pakistan, not to mention the other bits of British India cast adrift to fend for themselves, such as Sri Lanka, Burma(Myanmar) and Afghanistan.  

Mahatma Gandhi’s pre-independence focus on his beloved “Harijans”, condescendingly describe them as an idealised, defanged, docile quantity, a species of noble and downtrodden humanity, that should nevertheless reconcile itself to its fate in the caste hierarchy. Gandhi’s favourite Harijans were not erudite and assertive Ambedkars/Mayawatis, but mute, grateful and huddled chamars bowled over by upper class empathy and compassion.

Nevertheless, because of his enormous influence as the father of the nation and chief ahimsa/satyagraha architect of independence, the Mahatma did move the heavy boulders of neglect and oppression from the newly minted independent India’s policy vision. And considering 85% of our populace today are not from the upper castes; not a day too soon.

After the Mahatma, Pandit Nehru and Mrs. Indira Gandhi did their bits towards righting ancient wrongs by political affirmative action and reservation/quota administrations. Nehruvian Socialism and Indira Gandhi’s devastating attack on inherited privilege and the freedom of the private sector had their effect, as did the Congress’ collaborations with the various Communist parties extant. Today, we may not still be an equal society, amongst our SC/ST distinctions and our aam aadmi avowals, but the ladder of under privilege features the more obscure tribals, and not so much the dalits, on its lowest rungs.

But, unleashed,  however imperfectly, the Indian hoi polloi, like the tradesmen oriented tinkers, tailors, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers et al of Europe, glaringly lack sophistication and demonstrate a reduced level of efficiency even when given a chance!

Over the years since the world wars, the Europeans have managed to narrow the gap by dint of exposure and education. The nouveau and gauche have acquired some class along the way. And the remaindered ranks of the originally classy have overlaid themselves with some street credentials for greater relevance. And sometimes, the underclassmen are so astonishingly posh that it is hard to believe where they were even twenty five years ago.

But in India we are still in a tiresome transitionary phase. And like cross-dressing transvestites, also known as “sissy maids”, we haven’t found our metier as yet. Nevertheless, it is as if all classes have plunged into the déclassé third-class unreserved category, also much beloved of Mahatma Gandhi, if the bulk of the media analysis is to be believed.

Without going into the petulance of such perceptions, it might be fair to say that there is too much educated noise about the doings of rapacious underclassmen. It is as if they have no right to be venal and hypocrites. And, there is also a converse soft-pedalling of upper class wrong-doing, as if it were somehow qualitatively better. We Indians, new and old alike, also seem to believe in being above the law in direct proportion to how much pelf and power we manage to accumulate.

In this transition, the formerly privileged are put-out and refuse to self-examine.  They are insecure, shrill and sometimes illogical. The fact is, the underclasses have as much right to be corrupt, inefficient and self-serving as anyone else, and need to make up for lost time. They are, after all, late arrivals to the party.

In terms of corporate India, not only do we not see many of the top twenty players of the first three decades since independence in contention now, but there seems to be a perpetual churning taking place. Even the rulers of the latter three decades are being challenged by ever nouveau and gauche arrivestes.

This may not suit the well ensconced Tatas, Ambanis, Mittals and so on, but it is unlikely to make any difference to the eventual outcomes. Democracy must spread privilege, like fertililizer on a field, in open competition. And if it succeeds in doing so without blood-letting, we will have to put up with the stink and have much to congratulate ourselves for.

(1,054 words)

11^th December 2010

Gautam Mukherjee


Published in Leader Edit slot on Edit Page of The Pioneer on December 16th, 2010 as:Democracy as great leveler. Also appeared simultaneously online at www.dailypioneer.com, is archived there under Columnists, and was featured in the facsimilie version of the day's ePaper.