What struck me (I haven't read the actual book, but now want to) was his unending optimism regarding all the world problems that he talks about, and how the subject of his latest book seems to be the pooh-poohed approach of actually learning from history.
His opinion about the importance of public debate in democracy is particularly intriguing, and very relevant to India. Many if not most social problems in India seem intractable and impossible to solve because of our biggest curse: population. I can safely claim that a good part of my post-school life has been spent in wondering just how much fluff we were fed in school and how the world and indeed our own country is so much more complicated than that. This realization is the harbinger of halt, because every incidence, phenomenon and problem in India seems positively hopeless thereby discouraging any activity towards addressing it. How does one eliminate (or reduce) corruption, poverty and hunger in India?
Which makes his reference to Mahatma Gandhi eye-opening. Here was a man born in an era where technology was primitive, and its application was further hampered by foreign rule. Disease and famine ruled society. Forget email, even telephones or snail mail weren't readily accessible to the ordinary citizen. Virtually half the country was under princely rule (which means that the grand stories of our independence struggle largely covered only half the country). Indeed the Congress party was somewhat elitist until he walked in and made it a grassroots party. Granted that we were then at less than 33% of our current population, but the above challenges dwarf the "manageable" population. How did Gandhi manage a grassroots campaign (with the able help of many many others)? The parallels to me are striking! Given the daily struggles of poverty, hunger and untouchability, how would one make the common man care about an elite concept like independence of governance? Given the daily struggles of today's hectic life in urban and suburban India, and the poverty and backwardness of rural India, how would one make the common man care about concepts like good governance, social change and national security? Like then, once again the number of people killed in violent crimes (whether local or international) dwarf in comparison with deaths due to illness, malnutrition or just plain hunger!
The answer seems to somewhere within Sen's observations. The ability to empathize with others' suffering renders the proportion of population useless. And as a society we may be rightly accused of being callous (the infamous "chalta hai" attitude), but at a personal level we Indians are extremely good at empathizing and helping each other out. So at least part of the solution seems to be not creating a social revolution from scratch, but sharing our empathy with like-minded people to convert it to action. I guess that's what NGOs, social workers and doctors do :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment