PACIFISM, CONSENSUS, & ACQUIESCENCE
“Whereas it is in the nature of things that ‘resolution by
consensus’ mechanism over period of time shall drift through the stage of acquiescence
into the arena of coercive consensus; it is the degree of pacifism in a society
that determines the rate of this drift.” – Col RS Sidhu
Common Understanding of Key Words
Consensus – a harmonious
agreement/judgement/common opinion among a group of people.
Acquiescence – tacit or unwilling or reluctant acceptance
without objection or full comprehension.
Coercion – Intimidation/threat to use force/use
of force to compel involuntary compliance.
Backdrop
Consensus through coercion is not a new ‘mantra’ (magic chant) of
the 21st century; it’s as old as humankind. More pacifist a society,
greater the probability of its body politic drifting from resolution by consensus,
to acquiescence, to coercive consensus.
Resolution through consensus is the traditional
enabling tool that facilitates harmony in heterogeneous societies, diverse
business groups, and multipolar geopolitical world order. However, increasing
strife, enforced displacement of population, and fierce competition for natural
resources and markets for business produce, is leading to breakdown of
traditional norms and structures for maintaining a harmonious environment.
The dynamics of achieving consensus
through subtle coercion flow from the ‘Principle of Duality’, and
are enmeshed in governance philosophies of societies, organisations, and
States. This gets pronounced in democratic governance, where vocal minority
self-interest groups often take to the streets to force legislative
acquiescence. Consequently, the philosophy of consensus is getting sidelined by
a policy of employing coercive measures to muster acquiescence rather than
consensus.
While India has frequently been at
the receiving end of this dubious approach, both in its domestic society as
also in the external arena, reflections of this approach are now also distinctly
discerned in the internal polity of US, under its current political leadership.
In its external affairs too the US has sidelined the UN in international
dispute mediation fora, and has adopted a coercive approach to force
acquiescence rather than seeking consensus.
The Omnipotence of Coercion
Coercion, both subtle and overt, has
been integral to human societies and culture. Social exclusion or
ostracization, religious excommunication, denial of freedom, and punitive
externment, have been frequently used as coercive instruments for compelling
compliance to established norms, customs, and rules.
Religion, that exercises the most
pervasive influence on individuals and societies, offers the most common
example of subtle coercive adherence to its core beliefs through the concept
of ‘Swarg and Nark’, ‘Heaven and Hell’, or ‘Jannat and Dozakh’.
On the other hand, the State employs
the most overt coercive means of governance; the law and order machinery
for coercing internal compliance; the revenue administration for enforcing
collection of financial dues; and the military as its external coercion arm to
safeguard or expand its national interests.
Why Acquiescence
Acquiescence flows
from a psychological factor wherein an individual or a group accedes to an
idea, goal, or an outcome that they may not fully comprehend or be comfortable
with. Though this reasoning may result from several dynamics ranging from
cognitive ease, cultural bias, peer or group pressure, the most primary cause
may be attributed to an underlying fear psychosis, or a pacifist attitude.
Pacifism &
Liberalism
An enquiring
mind is less amenable to manipulation and unlikely to acquiesce to a future
course of action detrimental to core interests. On the other hand, conformism
and pacifism inhibits independent thought, making the mind more prone to
acquiesce rather than confront.
Promoting
pacifism through liberalist welfare policies is, therefore, in best interest of
the self-centred ruling elites and the commercial interests. It softens the
citizen/customer for psychological manipulation and to acquiesce in decisions
thrust upon them.
India, Pacifism, and ‘Akhand Bharat’
India in its prehistoric avatar of ‘Bharat’,
was a society that was comfortable with violence. Its Gods and Goddesses bore
arms, it followed temporal customs such as ‘Ashvamedh Yagya’
(Sacrificial horse) for coercive expansion of state boundaries, and ‘Kshatriyas’
(warriors) occupied a prominent place in social hierarchy. Picking up arms to
defend the faith and protect the weaker sections of society was enjoined as a
sacred duty.
Over a period of time the society deviated
from its traditional ethos, leading to its degeneration, making it easy prey to
powerful colonial forces. Centuries of living life of servility under foreign
tyrannical rule created psychological environment favourable for growth of
pacifism in the body politic; a process that was actively promoted by the foreign
ruling establishment.
For India to evolve into an ‘Akhand
Bharat’, the first and foremost need is to shed its pacifist attitude to
embark on the destined path of greatness.
Comments
Post a Comment