The happy early childhood memories of this middle-aged friend comprise to a large extent experiences with a couple of Muslim neighbours in a government colony. Three kids of the families shared a rickshaw to the school and a tiffin sent from each home. They played and grew up together till the friend’s father was shifted to another town. The families stayed in touch for long till more shifting made it difficult.
More than three decades and deceased parents on both sides later, the boys, now grown-ups, drop at each other’s home when in town. Stories of childhood days are heartily repeated and enjoyed amid favourite dishes cooked specially for the occasion.
On social media, the friend is a Muslim-hating fiend. He endorses and forwards all posts that demonise the community with no qualm. From four spouses per man to Muslims outnumbering Hindus in India in a few decades to love jihad to the community’s members being hand-in-glove with terrorists to spreader of diseases — you name an allegation and he is ready not only to accept it without a shred of suspicion but also to put up a spirited fight for it.
The case is not too dissimilar to that of the indefatigable 26-year-old online warrior from Bhubaneswar we have mentioned earlier. This young man never had the scope to interact with a Muslim in his life. The community does not have a big presence in Odisha, constituting less than five per cent of the total population. And their concentration is in small pockets. That does not stop him from subscribing to all kinds of bizarre theories about Muslims circulating on social and mainstream media.
Both are united in a cause. They are fighting forces arraigned against the country. Somewhere in the distant nooks enemies are active to destabilise India and destroy Hindus. These spaces are packed to the brim with anti-national elements. The strangeness of it all is unmissable. One would not let his personal experience stand in contradiction to wisdom acquired from other sources; another would not let his ignorance interfere with his choice to develop views. Tell them their views are backed neither by statistics nor official information and nor by common sense, you are likely to invite derision. They would rather believe social media messages tailored to feed their sense of insecurity than go by reality in plain sight.
Something has changed in the way people perceive and accept reality. Facts are dispensable, as is lived experience. Truth is determined by sources and forces external to either.
Welcome to the post-truth world. Sentiments define the truth here, not facts. Truth, as we knew it, is no more singular and immutable; it can have many versions, and all of them can be valid. Facts are no more sacrosanct because they were possibly manufactured to support the truth of an earlier ideology and establishment. All truth so far had been a lie agreed upon, now is the time to show them as they are. But let’s not be judgmental about these friends. If they have shifted to a new way of thinking, there must be a wider trend going around.
Now, a bit more about post-truth. In 2016, Oxford Dictionaries declared it the international word of the year. An adjective, it refers to the trend where emotional and personal appeal overwhelms objective facts in shaping public opinion. Casper Grathwohl, president of the entity, called it ‘one of the defining words of our times’. While it had been in use earlier, the usage spiked 2,000 times from the previous year in 2016. It coincided with the Brexit referendum and the election campaign of US president Donald Trump. Both Brexiteers and Trump’s campaign, according to observers, relied heavily on lies, half-truths, mischievous interpretation of facts and exploitation of negative sentiments in people to beat their opponents.
As worldwide evidence suggests, most big countries have entered the post-truth era. In Latin America, it arrived decades ago. In India, we started some years ago.
This coincides with the rise of reactionary ideologies–loosely and often inaccurately defined as the Right as opposed to the ideological Left. History, they say, is written by the victors, not the losers. Truth, we can say, is being rewritten by the victors in the war of ideologies.
The result: The whole ecosystem of earlier truth is disintegrating. Crumbling with it is the vestiges of the old political establishment, including institutions. The latter being either demolished or reimagined to suit the new ideology and ideas of the new order. It is chaotic, eluding a definite contour, but isn’t that how all change is initially?
The new, comprising several strands of reaction and by no means a comprehensive whole, finds completeness in the convergence of emotions. People may have separate grouses against politicians, the judiciary, the police, the bureaucracy, secularism, intellectuals, the Left, the Congress and so on, and disagreements among themselves over one matter or the other, but it’s the uniformity of sentiment that binds them together. All of them are deeply suspicious of institutions, arrangements and ideas connected to or associated, even remotely, with the earlier order. It reflects in the vehemence of their reaction to facts on all media, specifically social media. They want to construct their own truth, which is more credible.
Denouncing the prevailing sentiment as ill-informed and illogical only aggravates an already fraught situation. It closes the scope for correction and negotiation, and drives the sense of alienation among people deeper. People are already sharply divided everywhere. The pertinent question that needs answers at this point is this: Was the earlier truth exclusive, serving the interest of a limited few? Can truth be legitimate if it is rejected by the majority?
Of course, such complicated questions don’t bother our friends. He sees no contradiction in having Muslim friends close to heart and lambasting their community for being a nuisance somewhere far away. He feels good about expressing himself. That is more important to him. And the young man in Bhubaneswar? Call him stupid at your own risk.
