Inter Alia: The incredible lightness of indifference

Over the last few years, the reporting of news has exhibited certain, clearly noticeable patterns. Apart from the pattern itself, it is the frequency of these patterns that disturbs; a cyclical nature that shows little sign of abatement or change. One could say that these patterns are merely a reflection of our times, not aberrations that require a closer look. It is pattern that can be broken down into three steps..Pattern one – The blame game.It is not hard to observe that when news of an unsavory nature (is there any other kind?) hits the headlines, the blame game begins in earnest. This by itself would not be disturbing. But what is disturbing is that we are falling prey to appropriating all blame on the “outsider”, the “else” that needs to be corrected, the “others” whose corrupt practices need to be punished..This is dangerous..Continuous focus on the “other” destroys one of the most crucial ingredients of any intelligent debate – the ability to introspect. By raging and ranting about the “other” we are all too conveniently blinding ourselves to our own liability. And by clinging onto simplistic solutions for inherently complex problems, we are encouraging unrealistic expectations, and generating a polarity of opinion whose long-term effects could well be catastrophic..The judges who are accused of being corrupt are one of you and me. The lawyers who indulge in sexual harassment are products of the very same society that has produced the likes of you and me. Yet, it would appear that we are closing our eyes, willingly or otherwise, to the fact that institutions are made up of individuals that come from within our society..And any attempt to “cleanse” these institutions begins with accepting this truth; accepting that we are responsible for the sexual harassment, we are responsible for the corruption, we are to share some blame for all that is wrong with our society..Instead, we are becoming a society that is quick to blame, that angrily demands a solution and is happily satisfied with any half-hearted solution. Often, even the promise of a solution is enough to quell the mob; given enough time, the mob would have likely identified a new vice, a new cause to rally against..This is a trend that is most noticeable in the relatively new form of media – the online world. It is medium that brings its own set of problems..Pattern two – Debate or the lack thereof.It is my personal opinion that while the Internet facilitates the exchange of information like no other medium before it, it actually hinders the exchange of difference of opinions. Unable to come to terms with the sheer depth of information available, our minds are edging towards the comfortable and the familiar. We begin to look for similar views, similar prejudices and biases..When it comes to the online world, we are becoming a society that is hypersensitive; where public debate is being reduced to a barely disguised form of “my way or the highway”. Although concerns about stifling free speech are as valid as ever before, it is this stifling from the inside that can prove to be far more insidious, far more destructive..It is a state of affairs that generates little optimism..Worse, we are becoming a society where information and opinion is increasingly being met with, in the words of Andrew Marr, an “acid tide of cynicism”. Anything that does not subscribe to your point of view is either dismissed outright or subjected to hostile incredulity..Furthermore, this cynicism is based on an anger that is usually superficial, willing to be taken in any direction. It is a distracted kind of anger..This is worrying..For, a society that is highly distracted, that is continuously angry at something new, is a few steps away from becoming a mentally fatigued society; one that no longer has the patience, focus or wherewithal to examine complex issues..And this creates certain perplexities when it comes to reporting legal news..You see, law does not lend itself to simplistic reductions, no matter how much one would like it to. The transient, fleeting nature of news (do you remember yesterday’s headlines?) does not allow for the detailed examination that laws require..Pattern three – Maintain Status quo.And it is exactly this kind of situation that benefits the existing power structures; it is far easier to maintain status quo when you have parties that are simply unwilling to engage with differences. Negotiation and dialogue are reduced to redundancies; what is the point of dialogue with a party that is unwilling to budge?.It is a breakdown of communication that is being seen with alarming frequency – a complete absence of debate in Parliament, the simplification of headlines, amendments to the JJ Act seen as “solutions” for the Delhi gangrape case, or the NJAC being mysteriously linked to reducing corruption in the judiciary..Worse, the ones who harbor independent thought, the ones who are aware of the varying shades of grey – their voices are lost in the melee. The ability to critique and objectively examine an issue, precious rewards of a good legal education – are being rendered useless..To critique with a sense of objectivity and rationale rather than become prey to common sentiment – that is a hallmark of a good lawyer. Where is the detachment, where is the objectivity in our arguments?.To put it in lawyerly terms then, we are becoming a society that is becoming indifferent to the fine print. It is becoming indifferent because it is tired of the incredible violence of the headlines, it is becoming indifferent because it is impossible to be passionate about so much so often..And that, that is the most dangerous fallout. For an indifferent, unquestioning society is the most malleable of them all. .Should we then simply give up and instead mourn, in the words of Mitali Saran, the “death of nuance”?.No. Not yet..Because we cannot afford to do so, not now, not in the times that we live in. We can ill-afford such a state of being, we can ill-afford to succumb to the seductive lightness of indifference.