THE MORAL HAZARD OF WHATSAPP GROUPS

 There are more than 532 million Whatsapp users in India (July 2022 figures), which is 40% of the population. Most of them belong to some Whatsapp group or the other, usually to multiple ones. It would not be incorrect to state that the country, socially and politically, is divided into innumerable Whatsapp groups, which now provide the bricks and mortar for our society and polity. The sheer diversity of these groups is mind boggling, encompassing various categories of citizens, all dedicated to their particular niche- RWAs, bloggers, business entities, political parties, vloggers, civil services (both serving and retired), yoga, trekkers, civil society, family groups and many others.

These WA groups are an unparalleled medium for exchanging news and views- and therein lies the problem. Ever since the right wing juggernaut started rolling in 2014 we have been divided as a nation as never before, in our ideologies, political loyalties, religious proclivities, levels of inclusivity and tolerance. It was inevitable that these divisions would spill over into the WA groups too but the levels of toxicity and venom that has accompanied this process was perhaps not anticipated and presents some of us with a moral hazard.

The right wing elements, bound by a common Hindutva thread and an unquestioning adoration for the Supreme Leader, are by far the more aggressive component of these groups, supported and egged on by the BJP's I.T.Cell, a fawning media, fake news, an omnipotent and over-arching government whose spokespersons provide fresh ammunition to these "bhakts" on a daily basis. Most groups have been taken over by these elements.

This presents a problem for the more moderate elements, the much abused "sickulars" who would rather go by evidence and not mere claims, by cold figures and not ranting, respect history and not redact or rewrite it, do not subscribe to the view that the BJP and the nation are synonymous with each other, who are happy with our current Constitution and do not wish it to be dismembered, believe that India's strength lies in its diversity and not an imposed homogeneity, who abhor the deliberate differentiation  of majority and minority (whether by a government or an opposition party), are opposed to the oligarchs taking over the economy, believe that fundamental rights are the bedrock of any liberal democracy and do not believe that this country needs a Hindu rashtra. But they are usually shouted down by the majoritarian loyalists, whether the issue under discussion is Gaza, Canada, Kashmir, the hijab, CAA, madrasas, MSP, EVMs, partisan Governors, federalism, election bonds, denial of bail to thousands, bulldozers, Pegasus, Adani or Arundhati Roy.

The trolling can get vicious, abusive and even personal. Which is why one has to ask oneself the question: should one put up with the rabid rantings of these politically illiterate and ethically bankrupt elements, or should one quit the group? It is a question many of us have had to ask of ourselves sometime or the other in these last ten years. The standard response is to either fall silent in the face of these attacks, or to try to reason with these BJP shock troopers. Neither serves the purpose of defending what one stands for.

Silence is never an option in the face of bullying or intimidation, nor is it an adequate defence of what we stand for; in fact, it can even amount to passive collusion. As Martin Luther King Jr had said: In the end we will remember, not the hatred of our enemies but the silence of our friends. Silence only emboldens the oppressors. Reasoning with these lumpens also does not help, for their minds are as tightly shut as bear traps and the light is never allowed to penetrate there. It is also not a good idea to wrestle with pigs, as someone said, for they will drag you down into the mud and win with their superior experience in that element. Continuing as a member of these groups only provides their administrators a fig leaf facade of open mindedness and fair handedness, of intellectual inclusivity, whereas in reality these groups are actually being used to spread their messages of hate, Islamophobia and support of fascist ideas. Because the problem here is not one of mere differences of opinion or perspectives. One can certainly differ on policies, whether they relate to the economy, business, education curriculae, climate change, the creamy layer and reservation, defence strategies or a host of subjects that make up the fabric of daily living and governance. In fact, a diversity of views and debate is the mark of a healthy society. But there can certainly be no two views about the fundamental values of civilisation and democracy-pluralism, religious tolerance, human rights, secularism, freedom of speech, affirmative action for the disadvantaged, respect for the Constitution, and so on. These values have been arrived at after millenia of conflict, slaughter and suffering, form the bedrock of humanity, and are indivisible and inalienable. There should be no compromise on them, no give and take. They are, to use a phrase now famous, the basic structure of civilisation and cannot be allowed to be tampered with, least of all by a political party in search of a thousand year Reich. 

There is also a larger issue of basic morality involved here: should we continue to associate with people who oppose these fundamental truths and possess such toxic values which are completely antithetical with our own? Should we become complicit with their messaging by our silence or quiet acceptance with just some mild protest? Or should we quit these groups, whether they involve friends or relatives? For some wise guidance on these vexed questions we can do worse than heed these words of author and activist Ijeoma Oluo:

"We cannot be friends with those who actively support oppression and hate. Friendship requires a certain level of integrity."

Or these sentiments of the American talk show host, Jon Stewart: "If you're a friend of a bigot, you're a bigot."

Guilt by association is an accepted principle of law. Quitting such groups is  a statement, a positive and not a negative one, it makes clear where you stand, validates your conscience and frees you from the asphyxiation of toxic relationships.

Something to think about.

WHEN YOU FIND YOURSELF IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING!

 The first rule of excavation is that when you find yourself in a hole, you should stop digging. It appears, however, that our venerable Chief Justice, who has now seen the (saffron) light, has not heard of this truism, notwithstanding his vast knowledge and learning. He continues to excavate, somewhat like the Archeological Survey of India, probably hoping to  strike Hindutva bedrock. With his "legacy" already under the public scanner one would have expected him to lie low and weather the storm. Instead, just last week he has publicly gone on record to gloat that (a) he authored the Ayodhya Ram Mandir judgment and (b) that he had prayed to God for a solution to this thorny issue, and the "solution" was promptly sent to him by the deity, presumably via Blinkit or Zepto. Predictably, this confession has raised another fire storm, with eminent lawyers and even retired judges coming down on him like a ton of the famed Ram Mandir bricks.

His revelation, as far as I know, is only the second judicial epiphany after Moses was handed the Ten Commandments by a burning bush on Mount Sinai, with the difference that the Directive Principles of the Commandments have now been replaced with the binding Ayodhya judgment; after all, it is a tenet of spirituality that divine revelation always precedes divine authorship. And since the Chief Justice himself has implicitly attested to the authorship of this SC judgment, the epiphany itself must be acknowledged. But the fecundity of the implications of this spiritual communion is mind boggling; this piece attempts to unravel some of them.

India must be the only country in the world which now has two of its top leaders in direct communion with God: the Prime Minister (who is probably God incarnate himself) and the Chief Justice. We must consider ourselves exceptionally fortunate in this respect, though we still don't know with whom our third pillar of democracy- the Presiding officers of the two houses of Parliament- communicates. The evidence points to either Johnny Walker or Alfred E Neuman (of MAD magazine fame) but I could be wrong.

The Hindu pantheon reportedly has 30 million Gods (not including our Prime Minister) so it would be interesting to know which particular deity the Chief Justice had consulted. There is also a problematic dimension to this, as was raised by Karan Thapar in a question to retired Justice Rekha Sharma of the Delhi High Court: if it was indeed Ram lala (as most people suspect) then is not the whole Ayodhya judgment vitiated, since Ram lala, through his "next friend" is a party to the dispute? Even by our dismal standards of jurisprudence we can hardly have a judge consulting one of the petitioners in a case as to what type of order he should write! Justice Sharma would not be pinned down on this question, but she was obviously uncomfortable with the point raised by Thapar. It would be interesting now, wouldn't it, if some lawyer were to file a curative petition in the SC on this point to challenge the judgment?

Justice Sharma was, however, emphatic that Justice Chandrachud's admission had lowered the image of the court. What if it had been a Muslim or Christian or Sikh judge claiming that he/she had consulted his/her God before writing a judgment? There would have been a majoritarian outrage, charges of a "judicial jihad" would have been bandied about by the likes of the Assam Chief Minister whose career is based on his study of jihads, and all manner of bhakts would have descended on Jantar Mantar, like the proverbial "Shivjiji ki barat". In contrast, the present Chief Justice will in all probability be well rewarded for his epiphany. One good turn, or about-turn, deserves another.

Will every court now have a temple attached to it, for ease of doing judicial business? After reserving a judgment the concerned bench could repair to the temple (the five star hotel with the bar comes later), confer with the deity of choice, and then announce the order. Or, better still, why have these pesky and expensive courts at all, which are nothing but convenient venues for gangsters to shoot down their rivals?- replace them with temples and head priests who will function as the Registry and convey the divine orders. We could adopt the Himachal model for this, where the "devtas" speak through their spokesmen or "gurs" and tell the simple Himachalis what to do. I would suggest that a committee of judges should go to the remote Malana village in Kullu to study this model: right now the "gur" of Jamblu devta has told the government that the devta does not approve of the Kullu- Bijli Mahadev ropeway; in years past it was the "gur" who also approved the tour programmes of officials who wished to visit Malana on duty!

The complexity of the Pandora's box opened by CJI Chandrachud is mind boggling. There are approximately 17000 judges in India; what if each one of them decides to consult his or her family God before passing judgment ? There is also a strict hierarchy of gods and goddesses in our religion, which you tamper with at your own peril. This shall make the whole appellate process of our jurisprudence chaotic. What if the god of the trial judge is superior in the divine hierarchy to the god of the appellate judge? Whose judgment will prevail? And how will a Bench ever come to a final conclusion on a matter if the respective gods of the member judges are unable to agree? What if the senior most god (not judge) on that Bench insists on exercising his veto, like the USA does on Israel?

No, sir, this new jurisprudence will not work, not even in Naya Bharat. The Ayodhya judgment must be struck down as non-est. A Joint Parliamentary Committee should be immediately constituted to investigate whether the gods were also consulted while passing orders on a host of other cases- rejection of the EVMs petitions, denial of bail to Omar Khalid, upholding of the abolition of Article 370, multiple rejections of the bail applications of the Bhima Koregaon "accused", junking the Rafale case on the basis of sealed covers and redacted statements, papering over the charges against Adani and SEBI in the  Hindenberg expose, giving the quietus to the  Pegasus inquiry report, the disembowelling of the Places of Worship Act, the refusal to investigate the mysterious death of Judge Loya, and so on. We must know whether we are still a democracy or have silently, through a judicial coup, become a theocracy.

And Justice Chandrachud, of course, should stop digging, for he will be sorely disappointed in his attempts to uncover a destroyed Hindu temple under the Supreme Court.