There's usually a cloud of confusion hanging over any criticism of wrongdoing, as are witnessing in the commentary on the many recent public protests in India, the US and elsewhere. Some of this confusion arises out of lack of clarity in what is being said, but even when that clarity is found, there are questions on who has the moral right to say it. Accusations of sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy are flung around indiscriminately, and everyone starts finding fault with everyone else. It is easy to see that a lot of this is politically motivated - the work of those with vested interests in the status-quo, for whom this confusion essentially forms the smokescreen of expedience. But what about the others, who get swept away by this political rhetoric of obfuscation? Why should they let themselves be distracted by such machinations?
Brainstorming events, such as the recent Goa Think Festival represent the few opportunities we get to promote healthy public discourse (a vital foundation for a vibrant democracy) on key issues impacting our present condition. But even those have come under criticism for "sleeping with the enemy" or being otherwise impure, just as leaders of India's fight against corruption have been pilloried for alleged misdemeanours in their past lives. We tend to take this business of "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" a bit too seriously. We forget that none of us is without sin. We forget that it's not about casting stones. We forget that it is about systemic failures, and that any citizen has a right to demand reform to correct them. The point is, if we can't get everyone to the table, we can't have dialogue. And if we can't have dialogue, issues will remain deadlocked, and the status will remain quo, and history will repeat itself.
We need to remember a few simple and straightforward points, if we are to get this right and make some headway:
(1) You don't have to be a saint to criticize wrongdoing - the first step to reform is to recognize what's going wrong and confront it, without being confrontational.
(2) The scope of wrongdoing may extends beyond mere legalities and may even charge that the justice system is rigged - it is easy to confuse the illegal with the illegitimate.
(2) Protests are visceral reactions of a mass of people to unresolved issues, not necessarily about specific people or corporations (who in some sense are considered "people" in some parts of the world) though they may manifest that way.
(3) Even when they are about people (or corporations) the focus should be on what they DID and not who they ARE - we must punish bad behaviour, not persons, and we must punish it not so much for the sake of retribution as much for the sake of restoration and prevention.
(4) In those exceptional cases where people (or corporations) appear intrinsically "evil" (assuming there is such a thing), we need to figure out a way to correct them - everyone has a right to another chance; a right to redeem themselves.
There's an old saying that goes - every saint has a past and every sinner a future. Let's remember that each of us has elements of both. It's "normal". It's what makes us human. Reform should be about fixing what's broken and straightening out what's crooked. Not a competition to qualify for entry through the Pearly Gates.
