Fear Factor in Politics

Authoritarianism and greed for power create fear of insecurity in governments, as a result of which governments try to intimidate those who dare to speak up in democracy to bring forward what is right and expose what is wrong. The government scares them so that they do not question. The government takes control of the media by intimidating it. Scared media with their group of scared journalists produces dead citizens. 

That is why the agitators are picked up by the police, FIRs are registered with a long list of sections, they are removed from their jobs, due to which our citizenship is weakened. 

Knowing and questioning are the two basic requirements of every citizen to fulfill the responsibility of a citizen in a democracy. Citizens who abstain from questioning due to fear forget that the country runs by the Constitution and not by the arbitrariness of those sitting at the helm of the power. Despite being a citizen, we are afraid when we are either not aware of our rights or we know much less about our rights and our intentions. In such a situation we even fail to fully recognize and express our feelings. A citizen is afraid only when he himself loses his voice due to little or no knowledge. As a result, today, the entire government system is strongly using the intimidated media to spread fear and the media scares the citizens every day by giving them new names to their every disagreement. Media nowadays has become a scare factory.

A journalist, whose concern is focused on guarding his livelihood, will do misleading reporting instead of bringing to light information truthfully. A scared journalist will also scare us not to question. The purpose of questioning is to catch or expose the lie and for this one needs to gather information from various sources. Information thus gathered needs to be verified for authenticity. And who questions? One who does a complete study of the information collected will only be able to raise questions of relevance. 

It is not difficult to ascertain whether the journalist has done his homework honestly to gather information before reporting, or he is misleading us into a narrative for the vested interest of the media house. 

It should also be the responsibility of a citizen to keep relevant information updated at all times. You will be able to ask questions only if you have the right information. So do not depend on media houses for gathering information. They know they have very short shelf value. Hence they are seldom serious with their reporting. Books, research papers, domain reports once published have long shelf value till revised editions hit the stand. 

Hence in a democracy it is very important to ask questions. It is not possible to question without information. We will be able to protest only when we can speak on the basis of facts. Is speaking or questioning unconstitutional? Is it a crime against democracy? 

Our ruling government is also scared of the people who question and that is why they name them as traitors, urban naxals, Pakistani, Khalistani, anti-national etc and are continually promoted by the lapdog media. Our Pradhan Sevak crossed all limits to insult supporters of  movements - from lawyers to laborers - by calling them aandolan jivi (professional protesters) and parjivi (parasites).  These insulting statements of PM Modi made in the parliament endorses the mindset of lapdog media and BJP bhagats who have been continually condemning the farmer movement. Whereas PM Modi and BJP claim to do politics of ideology, but on the contrary those who take an ideological stand in a democracy are called parasites. You are a nationalist if you do politics of ideology yourself. Others are parasites if they take an ideological stand. Does this kind of thinking enrich democracy in any way? Just think what kind of undemocratic tradition we are being pushed into, where the very need for movement is being rejected. Whereas movement in democracy should be respected as citizen watchdog. This is what our constitution also allows but rejected by our Prime Minister. 

The movement will only grow when different types of people are involved in it and advise the agitators according to the needs of their demands. They help them in gathering contents to negotiate for a solution. Just think whether any movement is possible without such supporters. The government has a whole host of paid secretaries and advisors. Are they parasites on the government? Is it a crime to have learned advice from the supporters of the cause to make the movement successful?

Just go back to 2012 and recall when the same group of BJP reached the bosom of Raisina Hills with the crowd of agitators demanding justice for Nirbhaya. Is it possible today to agitate around India Gate, Parliament House or Rashtrapati Bhawan? But this is also a fact that all kinds of people joined together in support of Nirbhaya or Anna movement. 

Narendra Modi himself played a main role in the Navnirman student movement of 1974 and he has accepted that he was also active in many movements. So was he then an agitator or a parasite? 

However, it is not hidden that the RSS BJP supported the Anna movement. One remarkable aspect noticed by all that farmers did not share their platform with any political party in their movement. 

Surprisingly, the Prime Minister who gives new names like recognizing people from the size of their pajamas to people with a mindset of  foreign destructive ideology (FDI), does neither react nor coin rhetorics for  those shouting "....goli maaro sa....  ko."

Keeping in line with the definition of our bhashan jivi PM, should Bollywood film personalities and sportspersons tweeting in support of the government be called a government-owned group of parasites or is it wrong to view them from the perspective of parasites? Just think it over. 

History has witnessed that the ideology based movements of ideas gained strength through national and international sources. The famous American agitator Martin Luther King of the Kennedy era gave a famous speech "I Have a Dream" and confessed that he is very much inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. The movement spearheaded by King a long and successful fight for civil rights for the Blacks, unemployment and poverty on the foundation of Mahatma Gandhi's ideals of peace and non-violence. Nelson Mandela,  inspired by Gandhi's ideals of non-violence, also fought for freedom of South Africa. These leaders put Gandhi's greatest ideals in front of their people. Gandhi was an ideal for them and not a foreign destructive ideology (FDI). Gandhi himself spearheaded several movements. So, will Gandhi who carried out so many movements or aandolan from South Africa to Champaran be called a parasite? Just give it a thought.

The present farmer movement definitely got support from abroad, but  farmers are not so gullible and ignorant lots who can be lured into being seduced and misguided. The rock solid unity of all the major 43 farmer unions vindicates they are very clear with their objectives. Our Prime Minister is adept at convincing a huge mass to vote for him and thereby garnering a vast majority to get into power. Why doesn't he directly have dialogue with the agitating farmers and convince them to free themselves from the aandolan jivi, parjivi and "FDIs" and accept the farm bills? Or he is capable of convincing the illiterate mass only? Brothers, if the farmers are naive it is even easier to explain and convince them or trick them to convince. What stops Modi from talking to the farmers? Modi knows that agitating farmers are not naive. They are capable lots and not going to be fooled by anyone. Farmers are real democrats. People with knowledge like these in our society make our Democracy strong, alive and vibrant.

Our Prime Minister never got tired of tweeting that mass movement is needed in our country. These kinds of political classes in our society are the actual aandolan jivi, par jivi. They are actually parasites in democracy, who enter politics through the movement and close the path of the movement after reaching their goal of assuming power.

Should it be understood that awareness in farmers and their unity have made the government realize its mistakes. Is the government now scared of the agitation? Is the government now feeling embarrassed to retreat and caught in its web contemplating ways to release itself from the prestige issue? 

Government is willing to stay implementation of agricultural laws for a year and a half, perhaps even for two years to buy further time to accept most of the farmers' demands before the 2024 general election. The delay may benefit the government, too, to come out of the embarrassing situation and might get election benefits by resolving the impasse with the angry farmers. It remains to be seen whether the farmer will wait for two years.