The rejection of the representation by these states at a platform where we celebrate our diversity, unity, and pride in being an Indian was baffling and insulting.
In the development of Moral agency persons refrain from behaviours that generate a sense of self-condemnation and engage with behaviours that develop a sense of self-worth and respect. They do that by constraining negative self-sanctions that violate their sense of moral standards and by supporting positive self-sanctions that promote and is in consonance with their personal moral sense. In the face of situational inducements to behave inhumanely, people can choose to behave otherwise by exerting self-influence or learn how to do so. Self-sanctions keep conduct in accordance with internal standards.
The exercise of moral agency works by inhibiting self-sanctions that permits inhumanity and by supporting proactive behaviours that are grounded in a humanitarian ethic and is manifested in compassion for the plight of others and efforts to further their well-being, often at personal costs. In cases of proactive moral courage, individuals prevail as moral agents over entrenched social practices that are unjust and inhuman. An all-embracing morality includes doing good things, not just refraining from bad ones.
An analysis of behaviours or actions that are prejudicial, detrimental, inhuman, vested with selfish interests or evil in nature would clearly manifest a certain inhibitive mechanism of moral self-sections that allowed the execution or perpetuation of such behaviours; very often they operate in concert with both personal and social systems.
Let us look at one of those behaviours that clearly manifest this negative, inhibitive mechanism in action that is employed to silence or prevent visibility or even to insult the victims. The intent may have to be inferred from the context that exists between the perpetrator and the victim. But the mechanism that was engaged is clearly detectable. We can call the mechanism in this context, “Displacement of Responsibility.” The contextual behaviour/experience is the rejection of tableaux presented by the states of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala.
The rejection of the representation by these states at a platform where we celebrate our diversity, unity, and pride in being an Indian was baffling and insulting to the people of these states. It was surprising and utterly shocking how even an artistic depiction of the contribution of the freedom fighter Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose to his nation by his native state was denied an entry though the centre itself was celebrating him at the national level. And Tamil Nadu that depicted the contributions of its local heroes and heroines to the nation building was denied the visibility it deserved. And finally, Kerala that came with the depiction of a social, religious transformer who helped the community to wriggle out of its archaic religious and social aberrations and practices was denied its right to express. It’s worth observing and reflecting on the direction of our actions, a certain numbing of our moral sensitivity at the individual and at the communal levels. Below are some of the responses by the government machinery of these ‘victim states.’
“I have been profoundly shocked and hurt by the decision of the government of India to abruptly exclude the proposed tableau of the government of West Bengal from the ensuing Republic Day parade. It is even more baffling for us that the tableau has been rejected without assigning any reasons or jurisdiction" Mamata Banerjee in her letter to Prime Minister of India. Banerjee said the proposed tableau was set to commemorate the contributions of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, and his Indian National Army. Bose’s 125th birth anniversary will be celebrated three days before Republic Day.
The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu said, "It is shocking to know that Tamil Nadu's tableau has been denied the opportunity to take part in the Republic Day parade without citing any reason." He added, "The tableau trumpeting the contribution of freedom fighters from Tamil Nadu who faced the Britishers bravely has been denied an opportunity at the Republic Day Parade at New Delhi. …”
"It is sad. I don't know why Sree Narayana Guru's tableau was rejected. We have no idea why the Centre is against the social reformer, … The float was avoided at the eleventh hour, and concerned people owe an explanation to the state," Kerala Education Minister Shivan kutty.
The Ministry suggested changing it to a monument of Adi Sankaracharya, an Indian philosopher and theologian who put forward the Adwaita philosophy. Sree Narayana Guru was an anti-caste social reformer who spearheaded the temple entry movement that demanded that individuals of lower castes be allowed to enter temples. According to the Defence Ministry jury, Adi Shankaracharya united the country, but Kerala felt Guru as the ideal representation. Since Kerala did not make modifications as suggested by the jury, their proposal got rejected. This is the third time that Kerala's tableau is getting rejected in a row.
Replying to the letters of the West Bengal and Tamil Nadu chief ministers protesting against the exclusion of their state tableaux, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh had said there is a well-established system in place and the selection process was fair. Singh had also said the expert committee in charge of the selection of tableaux for the Republic Day parade consists of eminent persons from the fields of art, culture, music, architecture and so on.
So, what is “displacement of responsibility”, as a Moral disengagement mechanism and how is it manifested in the above case scenario. Displacement of Responsibility is when an agent operates by obscuring or minimizing one’s agentive (and negative) role in causing harm. With displaced responsibility, they view their actions as arising from the dictates of authorities or systems or traditions/customs, etc. Because they are not the actual agents of their actions, they are spared of self-condemning reactions. Self-exemption from inhumane acts via displacement of responsibility is most gruesomely revealed in institutionally sanctioned genocide. Nazi concentration-camp commandants and their functionaries absolved themselves of personal responsibility for their unprecedented atrocities. They claimed they were simply carrying out orders. In his memoirs, Adolf Eichmann, who managed the mass deportation of Jews to the extermination camps, portrayed himself as a mere functionary obeying orders. He said, “It is normal that I who was not responsible, was not the master planner, the initiator or the one giving orders, should set out to defend myself against these accusations”. He had to obey.
Looking at the answer of the honourable minister on questions regarding the rejection of these tableaux, do you think we have something to be concerned about?
∎
