Skip to main content

The Line of Control

Lockdown, quarantine and emergency. These words have newfound prominence in the vexing times of the pandemic. We praise them; we berate them. Still, we must follow them. For our government has them formally executed. While I agree with governments across the world that their citizens’ lives matter more than their opinion, I fear and question their fidelity to that opinion. The question to ask is not how will it help us but rather how much will it help us (and hence, how much will it help you).
The question does not insinuate that lockdowns and emergencies are in bad spirit. It implies a question which may be increasingly posed in the future when coronavirus cases are flattening in their graphs. It asks for rational reasoning to understand how a measure will stop the barrage and what are the alternatives.
Dear reader, you must understand that there is no problem without alternative solutions. Even a mathematically defined Rubik’s cube has multiple algorithms to solve it. So when a government chooses a measure to curb the rise of coronavirus, it is to be assumed that the alternatives have been explored with (to the best of their then knowledge) them choosing the best alternative. However, my question actually is, is it best for us, or best for them?

Many of you would still be dogmatic to my conclusion. How can we suggest that the government wishes the worst for us when we elected (and will elect) them? Unfortunately, the government is made of power-seeking politicians. And lest there is a strong constitution backing a nation, nothing can get in the way of these rabble-rousers and ‘ultimate power’ (wherein they are despotic and inevitable). Thankfully, we, the people who are being ruled, are not dimwits to be fooled by their ruses to reach their goal of power. We protest, demonstrate and fight.
Except now, they utilise our fear of Coronavirus. It acts as an opaque sheet, disallowing us from seeing their furtive ulterior motives. They place national emergencies, lockdowns and curfews upon us, with us willingly accepting them. Yet, how do we know that these measures are not just another political tactic to increase power? How are we certain that these measures aren’t to destroy democracy?

There is a fine line between controlling authoritarianism and beneficial health-centrism (with a side-view of electoral gain for the politicians in power). The Line of Control. The line which divides the power-hungry who take advantage (of their people) and the not-so-power-hungry who are the advantage (to their people).
Where is that line? A tough question to answer. We may say with certainty, however, that when your nation begins taking effectively anti-democratic alternatives when other better alternatives remain available, your country is beyond the line.
However, in the current scenario, it may be impossible to determine whether your head of state wishes to become your ‘Supreme Leader’, or is just a benevolent administrator who wishes for the citizenry’s welfare. When cases begin to clear up, and the coronavirus wanes, then shall we see which states have changed structure for the better and for the worse.

Recent times have seen the wane of democracy worldwide. From its position of renown liberator to its current depiction of a battle three-quarter lost, democracy has declined. Its fall has given rise to a frightening regression towards authoritarianism and its related military junta-governance.
Democracy is hard-won but easily lost.
In light of these times, the statement stands true. Coronavirus and fear have proved to be banal to democracy. Governments around the world have tied the arms of constitutional instruments with their manipulative tools without citizen protests. When the world is freed of virus attacks (at least massively), these governments will release their plotted schemes and proclaim an authoritarian government.

Coronavirus is dangerous, and we need protection from it. Yet how much protection is too much, is a factor we must regard with suspicion. Is the government plotting and scheming nefariously? Are there alternatives? What must we read between the lines?
In these vexing times, the government words of support act as a much-needed tonic to our minds. We are coaxed by their sweet-sounding flattery and (sometimes) real action. We slog to maintain our loyalty to the government and nation. But aware we must be. For when authoritarianism overcomes democracy, nations lost cannot be easily won. And those nations will cost us more than pandemics and wars — they will cross the line and be Humanity’s bane.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India's Real Problem

Recently, the BBMP (A municipal body existing in Bengaluru) announced another scheme for the metropolitan city's security. As many laws, regional and nation-wide, go through about citizen security; this one was centric upon Women. The BBMP generously provided 33.64 crores of Indian Rupees to this project (Bengaluru only). The scheme engages the making of chambers for Women at Bus stands. The fogged glass enveloping the separate seats will ensure their security, shielding them from the looks of others. Such laws and schemes are commonplace in India. To the average eye, this may seem like a benevolent move by the authorities. Looks are deceiving; in this case, more so. These laws have inconceivable depths. Many consequences uncover upon a thorough investigation of the proposed scheme. Unfortunately, their existence substantially hinders the intention of the programme.  The BBMP must protect women from harassment (Cutthroat political competition). If the BBMP aims to get re-...

Save Dissent NOW!

A patriot is one whose heart beats true to the country. While our archetypal vision of a patriot happens to be of pre-independence liberators and smartly dressed khaki suited army men, they happen to be a minority in the patriotic community. Howard Zinn, historian and playwright, once said: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." His words imply the significance of dissent in any nation. Agreeably, dissent plays a remarkably fundamental role as the guiding star of a nation's democratic polity.  The real heroes of any nation's success lie shadowed and filmed over by overhanging politicians aiming to desist dissent amongst the voters. While we continually see incumbent governments whipping out advertisement campaigns and fiery speeches for patriotism and army service, almost rarely does any incumbent parliamentarian wish for active citizen participation.  Dissenters in India who reject the incredulous proposal of the Citizenship Amendment Act of 2019, have tak...

DECODED - Divisive Statements (P1)

Divisive statements. They are ubiquitous and not specific to any particular field. However, their most explicit usage is majorly in the field of politics. Nation-wide or region-specific, these statements are cunningly crafted to shock, provoke and divide. The Britons were pioneers in the strategy of 'divide-and-rule'. These tactics are conventional methods of providing a 'stable' base to configure an electoral gain for any candidate or political party. Its extensive usage threatens the pillars of democracy and the foundations of the Constitution. To immunise the populace to reject knowledgeably the statements made for the sake of electoral glory and not for the true spirit which it withholds. Readers here is an accurate and fact-filled description and analysis of the problem we are faced by today. Political parties are, in the author's definition,  an organised group of politically motivated individuals progressing an ideology forced upon them by Adam Smith...