The Neutrality of Balaram

In the great epic The Mahabharata, Balaram, the elder brother of Lord Krishna, plays a curious role. When the two clans, Kauravas and Pandavas prepare to fight the great battle, Krishna joins the Pandavas, but Balaram, to whom both Duryodhan and Arjuna are dear, decides not to join any side. Instead, he goes off to pilgrimage during that period.

Was Balaram right in not choosing one of the sides? What would the course of the war been had he sided with Kauravas or even the Pandavas? The battle of dharma that Mahabharata was, poses various dilemmas, including, the neutrality of Balaram. The similar dilemma extends to everyday life when one has to choose among conflicting narratives.

What does one do when one has to choose? Choose anything.

Every choice we make gets our mind to evaluate pros and cons, ease and difficulty, dharma and adharma, cost and benefit and many such factors. We get conditioned fast and deeply and then these evaluations becomes mundane for things that do not affect us much. It is only when the situation poses a challenge, when the conditioning is at loggerheads with new set of thoughts that conflict arises.

So, does being neutral take away the burden of making a choice? And in doing so, does it absolve oneself of the conflicts?

There are no easy answers to that.

Think about the numerous battles of narratives that are fought, as an extension, in the social media. There is a constant pressure on one to choose, to take a side. Is neutrality an option available though?

Yes, perhaps neutrality is an option available when one is faced with situations where there is a conflict between ideology depicted in a movie, where there is a fight over origin of a food item, about a certain depiction of history, etc.

But there are certain situations where the line gets drawn.

When it comes to neutrality, parts of Nobel laureate Elie Weisel's famous acceptance speech is often quoted. And in those beautiful lines are defined those situations where neutrality ceases to become an option. (many people I know, know nothing about Holocaust. If you, the reader is one of them, I plead you to read about it)

His famous lines are part of a story. Excerpt from his Nobel Prize speech:

"I remember: it happened yesterday, or eternities ago. A young Jewish boy discovered the Kingdom of Night. I remember his bewilderment, I remember his anguish. It all happened so fast. The ghetto. The deportation. The sealed cattle car. The fiery altar upon which the history of our people and the future of mankind were meant to be sacrificed.

I remember he asked his father: “Can this be true? This is the twentieth century, not the Middle Ages. Who would allow such crimes to be committed? How could the world remain silent?”

And now the boy is turning to me. “Tell me,” he asks, “what have you done with my future, what have you done with your life?” And I tell him that I have tried. That I have tried to keep memory alive, that I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty, we are accomplices.

And then I explain to him how naïve we were, that the world did know and remained silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe."

So was Balaram, the "centrist", erroneous in his choice? To be a centrist is all right, to be a fence sitter is all right. That can as well be someones moral compass. Not everyone, especially in the public (real or media) appreciates confrontation. It is for the competing narratives to sway the centrist. Arjuna could not do that to Balaram, Duryodhan could not do that to Balaram.

Would participation of Balaram saved many more lives? Would the war have ended earlier had he sided with Pandavas? Would he have persuaded Duryodhan to end the battle earlier? There are no answers for these questions, but the possibilities are aplenty.

To be or not to be neutral. That is the question (h/t Shakespeare). To sum it, I feel, it is all right for someone to be neutral about many issues. In a networked society, constantly outraging, one can choose ones peace of mind over chaos. But when it comes to issues of injustice, of oppression, of stifling of freedom, neutrality would not confer high moral ground to the individual. The luxury to be Balaram may not always be there.

The Toxicity of Twitter

 

(Pic source: https://www.atulhost.com/6-biggest-problems-social-media)

There is no escaping it. 

But is there something we can do?

Well there has much been written on perils of social media, umpteen research have now shown the ill effects of spending too much time on it, concerns of privacy of data has hit the headlines recently, and at the same time the user numbers are increasing, new platforms are emerging and the growth curve of social media is on the rise.

What do you want?

The first question that one should ask from one’s social media choice is what one wants out of it. Is it news you want to follow, music, art, politics, literature, whatever it is, there are pages, handles which will be of your interest and a wise thing to do is to restrict oneself to those.

But, it is often not the case. We want to keep abreast with happenings around the world; we want to see what a particular leader, a head of the state, has to say, for these things have bearing on our life and even if it does not one generally likes to be well informed.

And then there is the professor, your relatives, colleagues at work, friends, whom one follows, because that is how social media is a microcosm of the society we live in.

There starts the problem.

The TL (timeline) then starts filling up with stuff beyond our areas of interest.

In such a scenario one is conflicted when one sees that the colleague from work, otherwise a sane guy, is a bigot on Twitter. One is conflicted when one sees the professor peddling fake news.

What to do then?

Unfollow and sanitize your TL?

Ideally yes, but practically tough to do.

One can rather adopt this path. (I have done this on few occasions and plan to do it more aggressively in due course of time).

Check for your own bias

Disagreement, not toeing the same line, ideological differences, should not mean drastic measures. One should first check for ones own bias. Difficult, yet possible.

      Quality of argument

One should give the person one is disagreeing with some merit by critically analyzing the quality of their argument. If the points they make, makes sense, even if one is diabolically opposed to it.

Drawing lines

However we all have strict no go areas. Bigotry, racism, derogatory comments, whatever is ones absolute no-no area must be clear. Anyone crossing that should not be given benefit of doubt.

    

      Talk, if possible

In the example of the professor who peddles fake news that I cited, it might be the case that he is unaware of how to check veracity, to not be impulsive in posting, etc. If possible talk to him. Same with friends and colleagues.

      Do not feed trolls

This golden rule is very important. The troll is not just that handle with 3 followers and 10K tweets. It is the same professor, the same colleague that we are talking about. Avoid engaging with them on a public platform. It is pointless.

Don’t make a scene (if that is your way)

It might be difficult to unfollow that professor or colleague. Use mute option or any such feature where their posts do not appear on your TL in case you don’t want them to come ask you why you unfollowed them (lot of people do, and ugly RL scene ensues)

Dump them

If you are clear about your choices, you give a damn to what people might think, you have a healthy RL relation with people you engage with on social media, just dump the ones you feel are spreading negativity on your TL.

It is all easier said than done. When the mere ‘like’ of one you follow appear prominently on your TL, when news handles themselves indulge in all sorts of whataboutery, misinformation and bias, it is difficult to sanitize ones TL. Yet one can do it to a large extent.

For people who have been on the scene since a long time, they might have figured a way of doing it right, but for many who make new entry, for the purpose of having fun, to learn things, to engage meaningfully, the toxicity of social media can generally cause much negativity in their lives.

In the end it is imperative to understand that duels on social media, one-upmanship, belittling others, being caustic, is not going to change anything. You are the world and the world is within you. Improvisation and enriching of your being by learning an art form, reading books, spending time with family, watching movies, etc, is primary. Social media, much down the list.

The Two Sides of the Fence

The polarities are suddenly becoming sharper, the splits very wide, and the schisms very drastic. There are numerous raging, burning, outrageous issues (note the adjectives used for issues), which demand one to take a stand, either for or against; nothing in between. One is expected to take a position on either side of the fence, not on it. This phenomenon causes cramping in the room for informed debate, understanding nuances, broadening horizon of thought, to be considerate at times and above all to understand that life is not about polarities all the time.

In social sciences polarization means the social process whereby a social or political group is divided into two opposing sub-groups having conflicting and contrasting positions, goals and viewpoints, with few individuals remaining neutral or holding an intermediate position. The few are becoming fewer, are bullied into becoming fewer, are coerced into becoming fewer.

Social space, both media and otherwise is rife with issues that concerns the general public. Be it the political ones, where either you are pro-Modi or anti-Modi, social ones where either you are against airing of a convicts interview or for it, one related to sports where one is required to display well demarcated allegiance. And ‘display’ has become an important element of this narrative.

In the melee of such strongly voiced opinions sadly the views of the fence sitters doesn’t get heard or gets misconstrued. Her thoughts are most likely to be interpreted by the majority as one on the extreme sides. Now there is a social reason behind this. It is a constriction of understanding of a middle path, which we are gradually shunning since a long time now. One either cracks an entrance or not, one either gets past that IIT gate or not, one either marries or not, you get the drift. For on the other side of ‘not’ is an unforgiving world.

A whopping 65.8% teens report to have been cyber bullied. The percentage only drops for adults but the fact that it occurs doesn’t go away. Anger, frustration, sadness are the predominant feelings that those bullied on facebook, or twitter or by e-mail have felt. Bullying at one level is again based on sharp differences in opinions expressed socially and that which is then taken to a much personal level.

Many of us must have experienced or noticed that after a point, which is not very distant, debates and discussions give rise to untoward personal attack. Intolerance is on a rise, if one doesn’t belong to a camp, a basic divisive entity, one doesn’t find a place elsewhere. All this breeds another kind of individuals who are groomed with the belief that unless you hold and express strong and controversial viewpoints you will not attract friends or attention. The mental trauma for those who are unable to withstand tirade against them leads to dire consequences, a fact represented by increased percentage of suicides stemming from cyber bullying or social media acceptance.

We should understand and make understand the vulnerable young that it is ok not to have opinions on everything, it is ok not to indulge in slugfest online and lose sleep over it, it is ok not to be identified with the majority or the minority, it is ok not to outrage all the time, it is ok not to have followers who follow you for the bigoted views, it is ok not to choose a side of the fence, it is in fact just fine to sit on it sometimes.

'The Big Connect' - Book Review

 

Elephant in the room – Book review of ‘The Big Connect’ by Shaili Chopra

There could not have been a better time for the release of this book by award winning journalist Shaili Chopra. At the outset she must be thanked for three things. Firstly for embarking on a topic that has gained tremendous significance in recent times. Secondly for bringing it out at a time when this significance is getting translated on ground. And thirdly for a meticulously researched piece of work

‘In this new era, every tweet counts’. The first sentence of the book sets the tone for what is to follow. The Big Connect – Politics in the age of social media is perhaps the few published books at present that deal with how social media, the Web 2.0 tools and platforms have had an impact on Indian politics. With the revolution in accessibility to internet, politicians have found a new dimension to reach out and receive feedback. The book discusses various elements associated with this new dimension.

Ms Chopra straightway deals with the recent events that has shaped politics in conjunction with social media, be it the humongous social media PR exercise of Narendra Modi, the rise of Arvind Kejriwal led AAP or the measured distance of Rahul Gandhi. She delves into the budget allocation by the parties for social media, teams which manage these and the platforms. In Chapter 4, a good introduction to the platforms, primarily Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube is provided. The author educates the readers on how politics and social media were married during Barack Obamas campaign and has since captured imaginations in political arena.

Chapter 5 describes major events of the recent past with a social media connect, beginning from the Osama Raid which was liveblogged to The Arab Spring to the Delhi gangrape to the cattleclass controversy to Tehelka Goa sexual assault case. It is the next three chapters that brings the best in the book. ‘The First Mover Advantage’, ‘Reluctant Followers’ and ‘Social Media Wonder’, dedicated to Modi, Rahul and Kejriwal respectively discusses how these three Indian politicians deal with social media.

It is in these chapters that the blitzkrieg that Narendra Modi's social media campaign has created comes out. 1.19 billion Facebook active users, nearly 40 lakhs Twitter followers (Jan 2013) (which as on 4.14.14 is at 3.74 million), NitiCentral, india272.com, NRI management are all part of brand Modi. All this has resulted in creation of a larger than life persona which we see today. In sharp contrast is Rahul Gandhi (and Congress) who has not actively involved in social media and has been at the receiving end of a slew of jokes. AAP scripts a social media success story, now being emulated by many.

Chapter 10 deals with the most contemporary issue – elections 2014. It discusses how about 160 of the 543 seats have been suggested to be swayed by public perception built by social media. It will be only interesting to see the result of these constituencies. The last two chapters are more reflective which discusses the social churning owing to social media and its credibility issues.

The Big Connect is an elephant in the room for most political parties barring the BJP and AAP who have made optimum use of it. Whether one like it or not connecting with people via platforms of social media will largely determine the approachability, responsibility and transparency of the new-age neta. The book could have been crisper; facts repeat at various stages of the book. A lacking is also sensed in greater discussion of relevance of social media with respect to the millions who still do not have access to twitter on their smartphones or how ground realities could be different than the virtual world.

In the cusp of general elections 2014, with social media being used by parties and politicians like never before, and the social impact of social media being discussed in various narratives, Shaili Chopra’s well researched ‘The Big Connect’ makes for an interesting and captivating read.

 

The book can be bought at:

 http://www.flipkart.com/big-connect-politics-age-social-media/p/itmduk7p66x8xdnf?pid=9788184005509&otracker=from-search&srno=t_1&query=the+big+connect&ref=991f717d-8161-4579-a725-72f0a1b0977c