MODERN AND PRE-MODERN

The former prime minister of Britain, Mr. Tony Blair, who is a Roman Catholic, has reacted to the recent violent protests that caused the life of many people all over the world, saying, “I think what we shouldn't do is lose sight of what the real issue is, and the real issue is how do people actually think it is justified to react in a way that ends up innocent people being killed. […] So no, this is a profound problem; it’s a problem, as I say, which is about the struggle of modernization. The good news is, in the end, the modernizers will win incidentally, but it will take a long time to do.”[1]

One can well agree with Tony Blair that no one can justify the death of innocent persons. He is right in asserting that demanding the persons behind the film should be held responsible. But I am interested in his comment about modernity.

Modernization for most westerners means that it is about the freedom of the individual. A society is considered to be modern only when the individual freedom is attained. There should not be a major issue with this understanding. The further explanation at the comment of Blair is to indicate that one should be able to respect the views of others. This means that the modern people will be more tolerant and magnanimous in accepting the view of others even if it is a false view.

But how is that the individual who expects that everybody’s view should be respected does not respect the view of others even if it is a false one. I explain: sorry to use the name of Blair. If Blair thinks that the modern notion of freedom is to respect the view of others, then the Muslims should be able to respect the view of the director of the Movie. That is the sign of being modern. Because they are not modern, then they react violently.

My question is – if the views of others should be respected, why the director, who is a modern, does not respect the view of the millions of Muslims. 

Who is pre-modern – the director or the Muslims? Or Both?

*****

The irony is that the sister-in-law of Mr. Tony Blair 

converted to Islam 

three years after his conversion to Catholicism.

***** 

---

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/09/17/tony-blair-reaction-to-anti-islam-film-absurd_n_1889232.html

Democracy and Demonstration

India is a country partly ruled by the majority, partly ruled by the law. It gives an equal status to all the citizens of the country yet it tries to fulfill the wish of the majority. In the synchronizing model [of both Republic and democracy], the sufferers are the people because they do not have either control over the rulers or do not receive what they are supposed to receive by the benefit of the law. It is also because the law is in the hands of the few and sometimes dictated by the rulers themselves. 

In the continuous protest that we witness in Tamil Nadu, one can hope to explain the complexity of the phenomenon. The rulers see the manifestation of the people as irrational and as a divisive factor that goes against the rational decision of the majority. The vast majority of the people are made to rationally believe that the nuclear plant is the only option available to the continuous 'power cut' they experience in the country.  Joining hands with the rational belief of the government and the indifferent majority, the 'media' [some of them]     makes a propaganda writing against the protests of the people for their‘collective good’, say the safety of the present and future generation. They write that these manifestations do show that the protesters are against the unity of the country. 

The truth is that some rulers, and a pillar of democracy in fact do not understand that India is also a country that values the protection of every citizen. They think that demonstrations and protests are dangerous to the unity of the nation. They are against the demonstrations only to create an opinion of the majority. They do not understand that these protests are the sources that strengthen the system of the Indian governance in which every body’s right can be protected. It is only the recognition of these protests that strengthen the unity of the country. 

Only when the voices of protests such as these are not respected and the recognition is suppressed, then there emerges a danger of division. The voice for fragmentation may become stronger when the collective rights of the people are not respected. 

Therefore those who oppose a legitimate protest should understand that by supporting a majoritarian decision or the silent acceptance of the decision made by the majority, they are only perpetrating the system of tyranny and not of ‘democracy’ which seems their conviction.