Reading This Is Compulsory

That was amongst Modi’s worst speeches. He is way more exciting, entertaining and inspiring speaking to adults while seeking votes. Saying “Bada ticklish sawal hai” with a childlike giggle doesn’t do his 56-inch chest justice and besides, it all looked too contrived or maybe it’s just me: as a school boy I was more Rambo & Rocky-inclined than Patch Adams or Dead Poets Society. But that’s not even the point.

I heard the Prime Minister’s Teacher’s Day speech even though I am neither a teacher nor a student – I chose to listen to Modi. It’s why I love India – no not Modi, choices. It was a choice given to me and I exercised it. I’m willing to be seduced by the firmness of Modi’s authority, the promise of his ache din and dance the dandiya to the beat of his drum, but not because it was compulsory for all students to listen to his speech. Now for me that is alarming and indefensible, if you believe in democracy, freedom, liberty and such lofty ideals.

Let’s first address the confusion about whether it was compulsory or not. Headlines like this don’t help, as pointed out by alert tweeter Kanika Gahlaut.

So for those of us confused by tweets/headlines, we turned to BJP spokesperson for clarity. No such luck.

For Mr. Sambit Patra tied himself up in knots, not sure whether to say – “It’s compulsory – so what? Big deal”, as many others have done (not BJP spokespersons, but lively and active supporters – we will revisit this “big deal” later) or to say– no, it’s not compulsory, so don’t listen to it if you don’t want to.

Nimble-footed Mr. Patra was caught in that let’s-make-no-sense zone between two arguments – suggesting it’s not compulsory, it’s optional but you must do it because it’s good for you.  Ok? Ok!

To try and get clarity on this, I present to you exhibit “note from school”.

Also this, and this.

Several such “directives” were issued based on the note below from the Directorate of Education. Presenting exhibit “Directions for making arrangements to show Prime Minister’s live address to all school children on the occasion of Teacher’s Day on 5th September, 2014”.

Let’s clarify this first. Please note this paragraph (italics and bold are mine).

“It has been directed by the Ministry of Human Resources Development that all the schools throughout the country are to make arrangements so that children shall view the Prime Minister’s live address on TV.”

The note goes on to say that, “Following directions are issued in this regard” After which the list of “directions”is full of “shall make arrangements” and “shall be” and “must” and I repeat,“directions are issued”. At no point does it advise or state it’s an advisory (although if you’re in the news business you know “advisories” are to be taken rather seriously too). This note is unambiguously giving directions, which is why it is called a directive. Let’s pull out the dictionary for this one.

directive |direktiv|

noun

an official or authoritative instruction : moral and ethical directives.

And what does the Thesaurus say?

Directive: noun

a directive from the front office: instruction, direction, command, order, charge, injunction, prescription, rule, ruling, regulation, law, dictate, decree, dictum, edict, mandate, fiat; formal ordinance.

Words don’t sound very optional, no? Now if one has to pull out the dictionary to make sense of a debate that does not even involve TOEFL-type words, the quality of spokespersons needs to be turned up a notch. It’s not an easy position to defend, but surely re-interpreting language is not the best idea. Rule one of having a sensible discussion is that both parties should speak in a language both understand, and the second important rule is that you can’t make up your own meanings to words that are otherwise known to mean something else.

Oh, did I say compulsory? I meant optional. Oh, did I say lotus? I meant hand. Imagine if that’s how you fought the election, eh? Did I vote Modi? I meant Rahul.

However, this circular sent out by the Ministry of Human Resource Development does not really say the speech is compulsory.

How an optional order became compulsory from the HRD ministry to Directorate of Education, one will never know. Possibly it’s part of the rich oral tradition that our culture is known for, or maybe the samjhdar ke liye ishara kaafi hai tradition. Although I did speak to the Dean of a prominent school (not in Delhi) who told me that the first order to come several days before the event stated the speech is compulsory for all students, but another message was conveyed a few days later that it’s optional. Whether that happened in all states across the country or even for all schools he was not sure. Either way – the fact is, schools in Delhi and many other cities saw the order as compulsory and not optional.

Now the big deal, coming to the thoughtless retort “Even if it’s compulsory, big deal!” Yes, it is a very big deal. And if you don’t understand that, you’re not on very firm ground when it comes to belief in freedom and liberty. And if you say you love freedom, but think making this speech compulsory is acceptable, you remind me of the comic strip below. Replace science with democracy.

No you don’t love freedom or democracy, you’re just checking out its butt as it’s being stifled. I’m not sure you really understand or love democracy.

The note to schools above is clear in its messaging, which is why many schools did in fact make it compulsory – it is a very big deal and to shrug it off in my view demonstrates a feeble belief in liberty and an illiteracy of history. Things like this don’t usually end well.

A Prime Minister interacting with kids is great. I wish it happened more often. Not just the PM but CMs and other leaders too. That’s not the problem. Making it compulsory for the whole country is the problem. Not the act itself. And I see too many people defending the latter while pretending to argue for the former, some without really understanding what they’re defending.

Also, the argument that  he says inspiring and non-controversial stuff, is a terrible one. Again, that’s not even the point. You can’t say that if the content is good, make it compulsory and if it’s bad then it should be optional. Directives like these can’t be content or individual specific. Defending the directive being made compulsory or optional is an absolute position unconnected with the content of the speech.

Just like statements like – I am against the death penalty except for terrorists/pedophiles/serial killers etc, is just dumb. A position on death penalty is not crime dependent. Either you believe in the death penalty or you don’t.

The PM has the electorate and national media eating out of his hand with his oration, which is impressive by any standards and he certainly should not have a problem charming children. But if it’s by making it a rule to listen to him, he’s lost them already while also disappointing many adult supporters who aren’t completely blind to the implications of this move.

And if you have read this far, thank you. It wasn’t really compulsory, I just put in that title to get your attention, and even if you hadn’t read the piece, no action would have been taken against you. Promise. We’re democratic like that.