The irrelevancy of conflict and war in the human domain, has been part and partial of the general rationale for the last five decades. Ideologies and manifestos, in recent times, have also been designed and processed over the churning social behaviors, significantly focused upon the soft corners that usually serves to demonstrate the essence of humanity. When that being the case, when such activities in the form of promotions and catalyzation are done, common people always failed to digest the sinister undercurrent. While an adolescent, leaving aside all the basic commands and seductions of the hormones, is striving for a future, a comfortable future, accentuating all the responsibilities and accountabilities to come, he/she is being dragged out of their dreams by some unknown force. We always intend to implicate this unknown force as the sinister undercurrent. This inability of a common man to digest the arising situation, is often been accused of being senselessness, of being ignorant, etc.
It takes time even for the class of intellectuals to conceived the meaning of popular slogans; slogans manufactured from panic rooms with all the good intentions; intentions closer to self-appraised divinity. For instance, who would ever imagine of making the famous ‘war on drugs’ a political agenda. The common men are often fascinated by such ambitious move intended to free the society from the impacts of the chemical war. However, we also know that the laws of every state had already declared the illegalities of harmful and intoxicating drugs. We are astonished because such phrase which implicates the internal problem of a state, or the duties of a law to deliver justice, is being reproduced vaguely before the public. This alludes to, either seeking people’s attention on the matter, or unveiling the incompetency of the state and its machinery in delivering justice. But the question is, is it essentially legible to become an agenda, promoted and articulated regularly in public domains? Loosening the grip of intoxication of the society by the substances, is pivotal to the idea of development in larger context, and also in saving the humanity from a phenomenon of mass insanity. But, are the democratic leaders qualified enough to present the proposal? Is it truly relevant to use the promotional phrase in the political domain? Is it not a subject of social issues? Is it fair to burn down a house in search of a rat?
Who knows that the famous ‘war on drugs’ could end up as ‘war amongst people’. Social issues constitute multiple expressions of malpractices exhibited in human actions. This includes violation of law, and other forms of deviations that has impacts on the society, visibly or invisibly. Such issues must be dealt with using the machineries of the state. When slogans are composed on any issue or topic, may be public welfare in the best-case scenario, there is the possibility of establishing a binary opposition, not between good and evil, but between right and wrong through diverse perspectives and standpoints. This might invite moral dilemmas and hence there could be aggravation rather than solution. This is like those shallow communists attempting to overthrow capitalism (attempts with zero fruits) through inferring and justifying the evils of capitalism. When communism is misunderstood, and attempts were made to accelerate empty and irrelevant slogans, there also arises other slogans that refute their claims. The point is, when there are certain assertions in the form of slogans, it is always open to discussions and debates, and thus inviting oppositions and their claims followed by strong and irrefutable arguments. Slogans can at least be framed and publicised in favour/against certain ideologies, by anyone (other than the men in power) who is for or against the one in power. This is not sanction by anyone, but the nature of antithesis itself is being manifested as the voice of the opposition. This does not imply that they are against the general welfare of the state.
Now demanding public support in exterminating drugs, is a bold claim alluding the incompetencies of the agency. It is common for the developed countries that they are well equipped and capable of handling such issues through their organisational machinery. What the sovereign can, at most, expect from the subject is the obedience to the law of the state. It is understandable when small stakeholders publicize a slogan for some desired ends. But when the throne publicizes a slogan, it might turn out to be a topic of debate on a democratic platform. And when the throne attempts to suppress the antithesis, the other party will interpret it as a commitment of a fascist, a dictator, etc. Everyone conceived the imminent danger posed by the arising domination of the people (people who are deficient in their capability to reason) by the power of intoxicating drugs. The state and its machinery, which possess the power of a demigod, should be able to handle the issue with some right efforts. The outright illegality and unlawfulness need not be publicized as illegal or unlawful. This is unnecessary truism, and at the same time it also insinuates the incompetencies of the men responsible for safeguarding the law at large, and also it will always wreath havoc by inviting opposing views. In the beginning, the desired ambition of the throne seems to be achievable, but in due course, the tussle will escalate itself to an unimaginable wildfire. This argument, or claim, can be easily inferred out of the remarkable human history. Mussolini, Fuhrer, Stalin, dreamt of a paradise where everyone should work in favour, or in conformity, to their whims and fancies.
All we can see right now, is the mid-term moral policing which eventually yield those unwanted events. Most people had those awful tendencies to impart moral lessons to the people around them. Things will go smoothly as long as the individual impart the lessons in the form of an advice. But when attempts are made to glorify the lessons in the form of slogans, then people will react to it from multiple, unimaginable fronts. On the other hand, it is uglier when such slogans are being publicized by the state. Greatness of a king is measured/evaluated not according to his thoughts, intentions, and comments, but through the outcomes of his decisions. Common people possessed, at least, the sense that can perceive the difference between a hero and the one who intend/pretend to be a hero. And some people get easily confused on the functional meanings between the terms like man, morality, and politics.
The writer is Assistant Professor, Imphal College
