The traits attributed to the masses, as opposed to the people, are that they are simple-minded and naive and can be pushed around with impunity.
DEMOCRACY is defined as a system by which a country is governed by the whole population, by those who are elected by the whole population; the word comes in part from the Greek word demos, which means the people. That is what the Oxford English Dictionary, that infallible oracle of the English-speaking world, says. It also says that mass in the plural, that is the masses, means the ordinary people. Notice the difference between the people and the ordinary people. It is significant.
Centuries of learning English as the language of, first, the ruling power and then of the elite, have made us take the difference for granted. Not only that, the words the masses have acquired certain traits over time, which, of course, many, particularly politicians, will deny strenuously. The masses can be persuaded, mollified, inflamed, soothed, pushed around, restrained, barred from certain places and made to go to others, all because of these traits, or, more correctly, assumptions of traits.
These assumptions are that the masses are basically simple-minded, that their powers of comprehension are limited, that they are credulous and naive and can be pushed around with impunity and be persuaded to believe that it is for their own good or for some good that those in power consider important.
Politicians will deny this, but they are the ones who firmly believe that the masses can be swayed by thundering rhetoric or promises of a better tomorrow or they can be told to remain calm and not to let issues agitate them. A comic example of this assumption made, obviously, by some bureaucrat convinced of his own shrewdness was the publication in major newspapers and journals of an appeal in the name of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that people stay calm when the High Court pronounces its judgment on the Ayodhya title suit.
The masses did indeed stay calm; there was no violent reaction from any community or group, although all those who proclaim they speak for some part of the masses have declared they will challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court. It would be foolish to think that the masses stayed calm because of the appeal. But the fact that such an appeal was made indicates that the age-old assumptions about the masses still hold good.
Another example of this assumption is the security arrangements made for the cycling events of the Commonwealth Games. To begin with, very little thought seems to have gone into the choice of the route Connaught Place and Vijay Chowk and Rajpath and India Gate through the heart of the city. Once this was done the security people got going and put in place such incredibly tight security that no one got to see the race. (The police claim some people did see it; probably their families and friends.) Not having ventured within 15 km of the route, one has to go by what newspapers reported, and all of them said the same thing no one got to see the race. In other words, the masses were successfully kept away. Various senior police officers congratulated themselves for this; for them, the masses are a nuisance, to be pushed away, barricaded and restrained whenever possible.
Strangely, these very police officers and security agencies make it possible for the masses to watch the Republic Day parade, which follows a route that is through the heart of the city. So the masses can be permitted to see a parade in the city but not a cycling event. Is there something one is missing in all this? Being a part of the masses one, predictably, is puzzled.
But it does make one reflect on just where this persisting mindset, which is so very colonial in its basic assumptions, will take us eventually. Having been, at one time, a part of the system, one has seen the mindset work on innumerable occasions. But those were the days when there was some historical justification, even if morally repugnant. Changes could come about only gradually, as Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel understood only too well. But does it have to persist beyond the first decade of the 21st century?
It has, regrettably, because it is so easy to let it. For the realisation that it is their job to facilitate life for the people, not make it an ordeal and to believe firmly that they provide a service and are not rulers or agents of rulers needs a basic alteration in the mindsets of the police and, more importantly, of politicians.
It is among politicians, not all but a sufficient number of them, that these attitudes are lodged, like a cancer. Consider how many Members of Parliament are multi-billionaires today. Clearly, those who have immense wealth now crave power and are out to get it.
For them, to manoeuvre the masses is a necessary nuisance; if one were to ask any of these persons what service he/she would like to render to the state, he/she would laugh in one's face. Again, there may be one or two who do think of service, of giving back something, having got so much. But they are pitifully few in number. To most it is a question of power, of ruling, of getting the masses pushed around.
Here is another of this obnoxious way of thinking. For the Commonwealth Games some arterial roads have had one lane on each side blocked exclusively for buses carrying athletes, Games officials and, inevitably, those who have managed the passes needed to use these lanes.
A Minister in the Delhi government has declared, the media report, that continuing with these lanes even after the Games will be considered. The Minister is obviously oblivious to the misery of those forced into the narrow strips of road that are arterial links to workplaces, hospitals, schools, stations and airports. That is for the masses to worry about. The Minister has some years before the masses become the people, whose faithful servant he suddenly becomes, pleading for their votes.
COMMents
SHARE