Paradoxically, many of the social forces which derive strength from the grassroots are becoming intolerant of dissent and diversity of opinion at grassroots in different parts of the country.  On one hand, social media is criticized and not for completely wrong reasons,  for keeping millions of people busy with trivia. On the other, it is also   providing space for people to express their opinion freely.  Public memory being very short, such issues fade out from the memory rather fast.  The youth of today has not been told much about the situation that existed during emergency in 1975-77.   Most of them take freedom for granted.  Those of us who experienced the situation first hand have not necessarily become champions of the freedom.  The result is that a lot of discussion takes place underground and through whispers which is more dangerous than explicit diversity of opinion.  Whenever information is not exchanged across the counters, the corridors become alive.  Every institution builder or system manager has to remember that by chocking the feedback channels, we put too much pressure on the safety valves.

There are five kinds of fears that prevent people from sharing their minority view or inhibit them to support those who do speak out.  First is the fear of being isolated and thus labelled or targeted through shame or ridicule. In a culture where congruence and compliance are put at such a high premium, it is not surprising that so many should remain quite when they should actually speak out.  Second fear is that of losing friends and supporters who may have a contrary viewpoint.  In our society, the dissent is often confused with disrespect not realising that it is the diversity and dissent which fertilise our imagination.  A society which does not appreciate and tolerate dissent also constrains and compromises the imaginative potential. Indian bureaucracy can become much more buoyant if only it puts premium in expressing honest opinion.  It is said that during Nehru’s time, there was a premium on expressing one’s views because while making various decisions he would agree with a deputy secretary’s opinion overruling that of the secretaries.  This is a healthy possibility.  The third fear is of retribution.  The state can use coercive power as it did in West Bengal and Maharashtra and several other states by arresting a dissenter.  In institutions, the probation  period of a young recruit could be extended or promotion be denied to quieten the voice.  Despite more than six decades of debate on the subject, bureaucracy still uses disadvantaged regions as the site of punishment of posting. The fourth fear is the worry that once labelled or censored, future opportunities may be denied.  And the fifth fear is the perceived loss of certain privileges or entitlements.

Many of these fears can be easily overcome and that is why fortitudinous capacity whether in the form of whistle blower or an explicit dissent is appreciated even when it is evident quite infrequently.  The recent cases demonstrate that social respect and support for dissenters is slowly increasing.  There are a large number of people who are aware of the timidity and who are not hesitant in making compromises but in heart of their hearts, they have a respect for those who stand up for what they believe in.  The challenge before us is how to create an environment where dissenters don’t feel inhibited in expressing their view so that social discourse becomes more inclusive and pluralistic.  It also means that the authoritarian structure of the family itself needs to change. Children must learn as early as possible that it pays to express one’s view even if which is an extremely unpopular and minority’s view. They should not be asked to keep quiet when elders talk, as is customary.

At the end of the day there is a trade off between not having a view and thus not involving oneself in the debate versus having a view and expressing it or choosing to have a view with or without expression.  In economics, Gresham’s law is popularly understood as “bad money driving out the good one”.  In politics, populist ideas drive the good but minority ideas.  The challenge is to make good ideas drive the bad ones out.  The intolerance for dissent, exclusion of the minority and lack of consideration for the disadvantaged cannot be sustained in a democratic society in the long term.  But, these attitudes can generate support in the short term.  Governments which want to subsidize 75 per cent of the people with cheap food are as much guilty of using a populist approach as the ones which squeeze space for minority views, no matter how uncomfortable it is with that idea.  Rise of authoritarianism hurts the authoritarian leader the most.  He or she stops getting timely feedback and early warning signals of the impending problems.  It is time that such mandarins realise in their own interest the need for expanding space for dissent.  Vibrant societies are characterised by pluralistic environment permitting a hundred of flowers to bloom.  I hope that the youth will stand up more and more often for the views and positions that are inclusive and at the same time, imaginative to make India a compassionate and collaborative society.

Anil K Gupta