The trait of being ‘disagreeable’

In the last couple of months, I have heard this term ‘Ajaatshatru’ to describe two tall leaders – Atal Ji and Ananth Kumar. They were described as the most affable leaders having no adversaries in their area of work – politics. And hence they were referred to and revered as ‘Ajaatshatru’ – the one having no enemies. Given today’s environment, it will be difficult to find a worthy successor to this particular legacy of these leaders.

Today, we are all well connected through the social media. We find different platforms to express our views on all and sundry topics of general interest. Be it a cricket match, a team selection, a political event, a celebrity marriage, a judicial decree or a simple nostalgic childhood picture – all of this gets discussed, debated and disputed in the closed-group whatsapp circles.  

In the recent weeks, in at least three whatsapp groups that I am a member of, I have witnessed political statements, positions, arguments and counter-arguments leading up to heightened tempers and near-disruptions to the otherwise congenial group dynamics. Politics and politicians who were always the butt of a joke in these ‘intellectual’ groups, have suddenly found unflinching followers from amongst these armchair experts. Positions are taken and daggers are drawn at the slightest provocation.

We as a society have had our own share of disagreements leading up to violence; impatience resulting in road raze and disparities resulting in crimes. However, the acquaintances and friendships were always above these conceited considerations. But the situation has changed now. There is little room left for disagreements. The much clichéd expression of ‘agree to disagree’ has lost its meaning now. Is it the mutated trait of a society, a nation or a generation? Or is it just the cognitive part of the Darwinian evolution that was never studied.

I am not sure when, where and how this mutation originated. How the otherwise indifferent living room analysts suddenly became die hard followers.  Was it the constant reference to someone’s foreign origins or the influencing of a prolonged embargo on someone’s US travel. Was it a crude jibe of ‘Maut ka Saudagar’ or a pun laced ‘Pappu’ - that started it.  The barrage of unsubstantiated information, popularly known as fake-news, has also added fuel to the fire. The dubious role of the media, that keeps ranting about ‘polarization’ despite being the most polarized itself, has not helped the cause either. And one thing that this neo-army of social-media activists fails to recognize is that very often their emotions are flared up based on information that is not received firsthand. A hearsay is not good enough and is not worthy enough to put your years’ of friendship and acquaintance at stake.

It is not that we should not have a viewpoint or not have a followership.  Just that these are often only vicarious connects. It is more important to preserve the real tangible connects and place them over these so as not to lose them for nothing.  As Dr. Pranab Mukherjee pointed out in a speech recently - the beauty of debate and dissent is that we can disagree without being disagreeable, we can ideologically oppose and still be friends. And therein lies a message for all. For the politicians, to refrain from personal attacks and for the followers, in adapting to the ideological pluralism rather than adopting someone else’s hatred. We can all strive to be “Ajaatshatru” in our own realms.