Editorial: Kirtey Parchas Debase Political Debate

Pamphlets have a history in political activism. These cheaply produced tracts were used extensively in the times before mass-media to convey ideologies and infiltrate public opinion. In all its political manifestations though, pamphlets have always been about propaganda - communicating essentially one-sided arguments and foisting a one-sided world-view. As mentioned, this was before the mass-media industry became what it is now – a more effective plank to hold forth and get heard. In its earlier avatar, pamphlets at least had an ideological grounding, and even though biased, attempted to at least make a point. This space is now offered by the contemporary forms of media. But to address people from that forum, one needs to attest what is being claimed; not prove it, but claim it. Anonymity won’t do. Anonymous pamphlets are thus taken recourse to when the allegations and tone are too noxious and spiteful for even political opponents to be seen making. Its intent thus, is limited to providing voyeuristic entertainment to recipients of the pamphlets. Anything substantive needs to be conveyed on record. One may also add here that even some recent public addresses by some leaders have been offensive and criminally defamatory, but then a public meeting offers a much limited audience, and hence the recourse to offensive printed literature. Such options are routinely taken by most political outfits, at least those with the resources to publish such material and manpower to circulate them. This applies as much to Sikkim as it does to the rest of the country and the State is currently witnessing a fresh bout of pamphleteering and some vicious violence has also emerged as a fallout.
What no one can deny anymore in Sikkim is that every hue of the political landscape here now has access to presenting its version of the situation and communicate its allegations and defences. When this release is now available, why then are there still so many anonymous pamphlets, infamous as ‘kirtey parcha’, in circulation? The answer is obvious; because their contents are unsubstantiated, unverified and libellous. Its creators and circulators, even if they have mediums through which they can address their respective constituencies, do not want to go on record with such offensive drivel. Of course, the Kirtey Parchas do not proclaim their anonymity, and invariably appropriate an identity, almost always claiming to be ‘concerned citizens’. What is obvious though is that they are agent provocateurs instead, instigated by personal stakes and ambitions. The cover of anonymity allows them room to vent their frustrations in acerbic tones and repugnant simulation that offend all recipients of their vitriol, save those who relish voyeuristic muck-raking. Even while agreeing that many fall in the latter bracket, fact also remains that even though they might see these pamphlets as ‘entertaining’, they do not ascribe any authenticity to its contents. The problem sets in when people start circulating the contents of such anonymous contentions by word of mouth. Sikkim has consistently proven its weakness for rumours and whispers. The ease with which con-artists have cheated Sikkimese with clumsily-designed promises, solely on the strength of word-of-mouth promotion presents itself as an apt example of the scale of damage the grapevine can wreck on the society. It is in this light that the proliferation of such drivel needs to be roundly condemned. The condemnation should be strong, but not violent as the Rhenock episode ended up becoming, because when that happens, the focus gets diverted. Those who indulge in the tit-for-tat of pamphleteering invariably see their posturing as a political show of strength, but what is really required is a social condemnation of kirtey parcha politicking because that debases political debate; in Sikkim, where political engagement is still far short of refinement, further perversion of this dialogue should be discouraged... by the people.