Feeding on Paranoia

Editorial:
It is embarrassing how discussions on communalism keep returning to this section. After all, how effectively can a population of little over 6 lakh be divided? And, into how may sub-groupings? Let us stop ignoring that divisions exist within the Sikkimese society and try and figure out why. Then, perhaps the anomaly [and communal divide is one] can be corrected.
Given that each of person belongs to some community or the other, it is natural that we are inherently communal. But, because we are also socially dependent on each other, this inherent communal streak seldom develops into paranoia or directed against other communities. This conditioning of social grooming, however, collapses fast when the leader of a pack smells blood – the possibility of making an issue emotive and convincing a people that they are threatened.
Few things move off the counter faster than a conspiracy theory. The more subtle the fabrication, the more looming is the threat perception. Years of shepherding a disinterested public has honed the skills of these leaders and they are only aided by the blunted perspicacity of the Sikkimese people.
India has arguably the best, most detailed Constitution drafted for the protection of minorities. Ironically, the minorities still feel perpetually threatened. It is unlikely that any minority was ever threatened by the system in the past; it was the majority they feared. As time passed, this suspicion fermented into animosity and now teeters on the brink of hatred. Who allowed this to happen? Surely not the people themselves. Our leaders failed us. This deduction holds as true for Sikkim as it does for the nation. Those claiming to represent communities started becoming instigators instead of counsellors. These leaders forgot that democracy offers people the right to self-determination, the right to negotiate, the right to harmonise. Instead, they allowed their supporters only the options of complaint, bickering and suspicion. Someone who speaks for a community should bridge the communication gap with other communities. It does not take a leader to whisper within the community, but it takes one to represent a cause with others. Leaders of various communities in Sikkim should have been the ones who lobbied support from other groups to address fears and aspirations of their people. Instead, what we got in Sikkim were representatives who restricted an exchange of ideas with others and kept leading their people away from the negotiating table. They fed on the fears that a shut-out community soon starts developing and pointed out a monster in every shadow.
But why do they do that?
That’s easy. In a democracy, the easiest option is to complain. Much more demands are made on the intellect when it comes to negotiating. First, one cannot approach the negotiating table without a solution. And then there is the whole debate over whether such leaders actually want a solution. It is more convenient to have a demand simmering than announcing an agreement. Offering a solution would ebb the wave they ride to remain relevant. But that is a travail of representative democracy one will have to live with, at least till such time that realization comes that Sikkim already has a very weak voice at the national level. The people here only make themselves weaker by speaking in such a babble of tones.