--- On Sat, 2/7/11, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]>
> Subject: [silk] PLU, PLT
> To: "Silk List" <[email protected]>
> Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 23:23
> Reposting primarily for this quote,
> which had resonance:
>
> "If the “them” at the very top are unacceptably
> corrupt, it may be
> because the “us” taught them everything they know."
>
> Also because there' a notion that "chatterati" just
> "talking on mailing
> lists" can't cause or facilitate social change. I think
> that is a
> mistaken notion.
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/world/asia/02iht-currents02.html
>
> Udhay
> --
> ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com))
> ((www.digeratus.com))
The first part is from the cited article. It is not clear why the second part
was tacked on.
There is no doubt that every frequent flyer has seen, and on occasion raged
internally, against the display of utter selfishness by Indian passengers. It
stands out so stark and distinct from the behaviour of all others, except one,
that something is clearly wrong in our understanding of our own
responsibilities to society. Anand Giridhardas has presented a stark indictment
of our own responsibility for the mess in which we find ourselves.
Was there a primaeval political act at the bottom of it all? It is tempting to
speculate that our behaviour represents the rejection of alien systems imposed
on us by an alien minority and perpetuated by deracinated individuals who
represent that alien minority. We have been taught in our political life, and
to an extent in our social life, that rejection of these alien systems
represents a positive impulse, a divinely sanctioned freedom to reject systems
and authority which impedes our personal understanding of what is good for us.
Our individual measure of social good is what counts, and our collective
responsibility is to follow that individual understanding. Can we possibly
continue with the weakness of this open wound perpetually open to serve as a
fault line at the slightest increase of pressure? Or will we be increasingly
subjected to the sight of a section of society, aided and abetted by an
increasingly aggressive electronic media, insisting
that its view of events be reflected in administrative decisions, in court
judgements, in legislative action alike?
The issue has been raised of 'chatterati' talking on mailing lists causing or
facilitating social change. This is doubtful. All that chatterati on mailing
lists and blogs have achieved is adding point to the earlier lesson that we
have learned as a collective that we can destroy rules and decisions because we
find them objectionable, and destroying these by not observing them in practice
is the easiest as well as the most hallowed method. Mailing lists and blogs
have not contributed to reversing this process; they have only accelerated it.
There are no mailing list drives or campaigns against Indian refusal to obey
the rules; they all represent an obsession with the results, corruption and the
increasing breakdown of administration, justice and legislation under this
tidal wave of individual non-cooperation. Never, ever the causes, the
individual non-cooperation itself. Or, to quote Captain Corcoran, 'hardly ever'.
