mind your language

MIND YOUR LANGUAGE                                                                                                                                                                                                           

“The tongue is a small thing,          

but what enormous damage it can do!” James 3.5(TLD)

Dayashanker Singh, VP of UP unit of BJP, and his family learnt it the hard way when he savaged Mayawati, BSP supremo, as ‘worse than prostitute’. Jailed and expelled Dayashanker received no daya (mercy) from any quarters. These are no biblical times when virtue was once a prostitute’s identity - woman of easy virtue, or when her Indian counterpart was called Devadasi, even Nagarbadhu. It is now a stinging pejorative term. And what is ‘worse than’ a prostitute, only he knows. Anyways the abuse was utterly repugnant to civil discourse even in the muddied waters of Indian polity. Better that politicos de-vocab the word from their linguistic armoury.

Malice in political rivalry is no licence to character assassinate. As a politician’s business is public oration, he needs to exercise more than ordinary care in the choice of tone, tenor and grammar of his language. If the reach of his words is wider and influence deeper, in equal  measure is the potential for self- damage that is inflicted 
upon him by ill  worded  and  ill-timed  assaults  on   rivals.Still, 
Dayashanker will not be last man on earth to viciously malign a 
rival, utter the cuss word or revolting expletives. Simply because as Orwell said “politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.". Trumpism is here to stay which buys the question, is there a better way to take pot shots without an injurious ricochet ? And what, in the first place, is the compelling need to abuse?

The word ‘abuse’ derives from the Latin ‘ab’ (away) and the French ‘uti’ (use), so abuses are ‘rude and offensive words said to another person.’ Now, who doesn’t lose his head once in a while, all of us do .We are humans after all, not automatons. And till we attain moksha we shall on occasions, be rude, utter the four letter word and in turn be paid back in kind. Yet none of us want to meet the fate of Dayashanker.

Though crude invectives like chickens come home to roost, an 
abusive intent draped in witty innuendos passes muster. And though it looks soft the punch is even more lethal. For instance, ‘Maa bête ki sarkar’, or ‘suit boot ki sarkar’, are both insulting. Sonia-Rahul were not a part of any government, and calling a ‘chaiwala’s regime pro rich is capital punishment. And the blow 
was deadly. The ‘Maa bête ki sarkar’ cost Congress its Delhi raj, and the latter forced a mid-course correction of Modi raj’s economic direction, besides a loss of mojo. No hell broke loose 
though, rather just a whine at being worsted in the perception game.

This, to me, is ‘dignified’ abuse, one in the grey area between profane and pedestrian, purple not red .A skillful play on words, an 
artful insinuation, or loaded sarcasm is bewitchingly within the boundaries of civilised public intercourse. There is, in a sense vesting of 'dignity', on what otherwise is abuse. Wit and tongue- in- cheek retorts ensure a bite without bleed.

What fun is there in calling an opponent ‘Butcher of Gujarat ' or a ‘Narbhakchi’, or a ‘Psychopath’, or Donald Trump insinuating that Hillary Clinton was an enabler to her husband’s peccadilloes. An 
Indian equivalent would be Mr Maurya calling Mrs Sheila Dixit, the Congress CM hopeful for UP, a ‘rejected maal’, maal being a misogynist rant. The salvos are too straight and narrow like hammering a nail. It lacks finesse, literary creativity, all in all seems too gauche, maybe even puerile, and is more likely to invite a virulent backlash.

The British, masters in the art of dignified abuse, would have said 
the same thing in innuendos, laced with just the right dollops of sarcasm and witticism to clothe the abuse. Judge for yourself.

1. John Montague ‘Sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox’

John Wilkins ‘that Sir, depends on whether I first embrace your lordships principles, or your lordships mistresses ’

Or

2.   Churchill calling Attlee a duffer,

‘An empty taxi arrives at 10 Downing Street and when the door is opened, Attlee got out”

Or

3. Jonathan Aitken saying much the same thing of Margaret thatcher

“She probably thinks Sinai is the plural of sinus”

Or

4.  Hislop on Boris Johnson 

‘People always ask me the same question, they say ‘is Boris a very very clever man pretending to be an idiot’, and I always say ,no’

Macaulay promoted the English language to produce brilliant Brown Sahibs but failed to ingrain humour in the Indian psyche. 
Our parliamentary debates, if they do happen, they are as fickle as the English weather, lack the Englishman’s witty sarcasm and innuendos, or the skill set of Aristotelian rhetoric. Mock, sneer, cynicism interspersed with sloganeering does provide some comic 
relief. But that’s only, beer without fizz. A few do humour the House with repartees that mirthfully kill. But just a few, most use the sledge hammer of unadulterated abuse.

Among the exceptions is Narendra Modi, PM. He spews a lot of vitriol in his sarcasm. On Ghulam Nabi Azad pointing out lacunae in Jan Dhan Yojna in MP, Mr Modi retorted “you went out with a 
microscope to see where we are lacking. Had you earlier worked with binoculars, this work would not have been left for Modi”. Though he too, at times, is known to attack crudely. On Rahul 
Gandhi he said, "Some people's age increases, but their wisdom does not increase." as riposte to Mr Gandhi’s “in villages people now say Arhar Modi, Arhar Modi ,Arhar Modi “ referring to soaring prices of Arhar pulse.

Now the question, why the need to abuse. The profane, ’don’t do stuff’ is seductive, even Adam couldn’t resist the forbidden apple. A leader trashing opponents in vilest terms trespasses political correctness and therefore finds an instant connect with followers or bhakts, the collective term for Modi acolytes, who share the antipathies being vocalised at a high pitch. The screaming, frothing political messiah sends blood coursing through their veins, and compensates for the exaggerations and hollowness of the spoken words per se. In desi lingo, for him full paisa wasool. Donald Trump has travelled thus far in the US presidential race on the strength of his vituperative attacks on his opponents, and not much more else. Who knows, may even take him to the White House

Secondly the abuse gets noticed, the pedantic, wishy washy stuff isn’t. One little knew that a Dayashanker walked on this earth till the infamous rant. In a news crazy world politicians abusing each other is worthy of prime time news byte, print headline. Thirdly, doing the not done thing is supposedly macho, bold and a strong take- on of his opponents. The fan is lulled into a false sense of security by this display of pseudo muscularity and courage .Lastly, it reflects a value system that puts too much premium on succeeding, winning, the best or nothing. The pressure to win seduces politicians to pander to the baser instincts of his fan following in order to cement their loyalties.

Many justify abuse as harmless rhetoric. No, it is not, make no mistake .Rhetoric, properly speaking, is the art of persuasive argument intended to win over people to the speakers cause. And abuse is no winning argument. Mudslinging, if anything is dissuasive of those not in thralls of the speaker

So should verbal abuse be exorcised from all public discourse? The alternative would be to walk through public life with Ramayana or Bible in hand, no fury just the peace of graveyard. Even if we desired it human frailties won’t allow it. A democracy must tolerate a certain level of abuse to animate discussions, sway public opinions, even to mobilise votes. But mind you, there is no space for hate speeches of the ‘Ramzade or Haramzade’ genre in a pluralistic society.

Let’s sign off on a lighter note.The master iconoclast ,satirist,  author, columnist who wrote from within an inverted bulb ,  Kushwant Singh, had this to say about his insatiable urge to write

“Nobody has yet invented a condom for a pen”