This is something that i have been thinking of ever since Chomsky et
all brought out their series of letters on Nandigram, left unity etc, and now Tariq Ali on Why he will
not participate in Turin Book Fair. At such points, i imagine the
writer of the letter in an almost kung-fu posture – balanced on one
foot, maybe raised on one toe to make the stance more complete, the
other leg bent at the knee, hands in classic double punch pose. The
moment of “taking a stand”, defining his/her stance.
I do not doubt the intentions of those who take stances – its
important that people do take stances on things. What i am interested
is public act of taking stance. I suppose when our kung-fu fighter
takes stance, s/he assumes that s/he is a “somebody” – that the taking
stance has some public value – that people actually care. Could we say
that the act of taking stands is often an attempt to remain alive and
relevant in increasingly fast paced debates that span countries,
cultures and regions?
Tariq Ali could have written about why everyone should boycott the
Turin Book Fair – Why the Turin Book Fair committee should be
condemned – I would have gladly condemned and boycotted. In fact I
had already decided not to go to the Turin Book Fair well before Tariq
did, for two very good reasons:
a) I wasnt invited; and
b) I can’t afford the air fare.
However, Tariq chose to tell us why “he” is not going. So its no
longer about Turin, its about Tariq.
Maybe Tariq and Noam get up every morning and scan through the papers
at light speed – selecting events that they will attend and boycott,
endorse and disown; looking at candidates in rainbow revolutions
across central asia and eastern europe; speaking out, hitting out, and
talking up; emancipating, commiserating, condoling and supporting by
simply writing about why they will not go to the sistine chapel, shop at
Walmart, wear nikes or feed animals in the Delhi zoo (because its
against zoo rules of course).
Maybe Noam slaps his forehead as he thinks “Damn that Tariq, he has
rejected the invitation to the weekly meeting of the Siliguri Gram
Panchayat because they are parochial, narrow minded and only speak in
bengali. I wasnt even invited.”
And Tariq silently curses Noam for taking a stand on the Cynical
Supporters of Mass Hypnosis before he even knew they existed.
Perhaps they have secretaries who provide them with a list every
morning – a sheaf of cuttings, a zip folder of revolving revolutions.
Maybe they actually covertly set up organisations and institutions
only to take stands on them.
I propose we all come up with lists and stands. I shall take the
plunge by declaring that I shall not eat Gajar Matar ki Subzi with
Ghee wali roti- because its yucky, fattening and the red and green
represents an unholy alliance of the communists and the green
movement.
Come on guys take your stances, I’ll be the crouching tiger, you can
be the hidden dragons.
yeah… even i have thought so, about why people take a stance when they actually do not mean much by doing so… silly people i say, who just want to fashion themselves in a particular way so the world would think well of them…
LikeLike
a brilliant and acerbic satirical piece! Runs parallel to the classic conundrum faced by marxists- should we engage and participate in the bourgeois world or reject it by virtue of being marxists? The latter almost amounts to an ascetic rejection/alienation from a world which we cannot escape. So, is it better to work within the system and cultivate a change or to reject it and start afresh? The need of the hour is to think in terms of a collective consciousness and to shape the same, since individuated notions do not inspire change ( this is a paradox considering the bourgeois, individualist ethos of our times).
But, at the same time, I disagree with the article on a certain level. Taking a stand to oppose something even within the capacity of an individual is a very radical step (and not at all modish as you seem to perceive it!)– it is anti-consensus and against the dominance of an authoritarian ideology. Constant opposition is the essential thrust behind consistent critical thinking. This article seems to belittle the individual’s ability to critically analyse and take a stand; but if we all were to be passive thinking that our individual opinions and microstruggles would lead to no change, then a macrostruggle is impossible.
Just pondering over what you wrote.
LikeLike