October 2020: The One — Rupee Question: To Obey or Not to Obey?
If the Supreme Court of India, or any figure of authority, asked you to obey, would you?
Most of us would. We are wired to do so. So, said, Stanley Milgram a Yale social psychologist. He had come to this conclusion after running a controversial experiment that asked people to inflict electric shocks on others (it was set up — the shocks were not real. Those giving the shock didn’t know this and those getting the shocks were pretending to cry ) to see if people would continue to apply electric shocks to others despite seeing them in pain. Milgram had been motivated to investigate the question of how ordinary people obey commands by authority figures. His experiments had begun soon after Adolf Eichmann — that man who had meticulously carried out Hitler’s plan to annihilate the Jews — had said in defense he was merely following orders. Milgram wanted an answer to this question: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? To his utter surprise, and to the moral embarrassment of a team of psychiatrists who had predicted that very few participants would continue to inflict pain on others, 65 percent of the participants (26 out of 40) obeyed the experimenter’s commands despite the receiver’s rather convincing cries of pain.
Milgram also noticed that there was a massive difference between those who merely protested against giving shocks, from those who refused to carry on. In his landmark study, Obedience To Authority (1974), which became the go-to book to understand why we capitulate to authority figures, institutions, and regimes, Milgram, concluded that we do so because humans have evolved over centuries is social hierarchies, which has has hard-wired them to obey. On the other hand — humans are not taught to disobey. Over the years, this psychology of “mass — obedience” has explained many an event — including why and how ordinary people bear witness to and participate in hate-speech-induced mob-violence, massacres, and genocides. The same logic has underpinned silence and complicity of many a corporate fraud. Indeed, only if people called out unethical practices when they first came upon them instead of going with the social norm of being silent much could have been avoided. Even today, special “whistleblower protection policies” and “well-hidden ombudsman offices” have to be navigated before people feel ‘safe’ to speak the truth or call out an injustice.
Thankfully, the courageous few among us, feel compelled by their conscience to dissent for all of us and in doing so improve the world we live in. They shine through — in life and in afterlife.
Always Disobey in A Democracy
In August 2020, Prashant Bhushan, an Indian activist- lawyer, when asked to apologise for tweets that were critical of the Indian Supreme Court — protested, disobeyed, and simply refused to do it. With this one act, Bhushan succeeded not only in bringing to public’s imagination what constitutes ‘contempt of court’, but perhaps more importantly, bringing back into our acquiesced minds that it was ‘ok’, ‘possible’ and even a moral obligation to disobey the highest authorities in the land.
In the legal saga (still ongoing) which was brilliantly broadcasted by, Livelaw.in, The Supreme Court of India, fined Prashant Bhushan, one rupee. In this measly sum, lies a priceless message. But it isn’t an obvious one. One rupee isn’t the cost of dissent — Prashant Bhushan got lucky. Others have, can, and will continue to pay a much heavier price — including unlawful arrests and prison time. Rather, the one — rupee toss-up, is a not so gentle reminder of the Court to itself. It is a reminder of the words spoken by Attorney General MC Setalvad, at the inauguration of the Supreme Court , who said “ like all human institutions, the Supreme Court will earn reverence through the truth”.[1]
Big scholarly minds like Lavanya Rajamani and Arghya Sengupta, who study the Supreme Court’s role in our democracy, have talked in depth about both — the institution’s shining moments and its darkest hours. This historical ying-yang is testimony that at different points in our democratic history, the highest court of the land will demonstrate, its courage and its vulnerability, versus the executive and legislative branches. And that, in this contest, sometimes, these guardians of justice, will rise like a gleaming phoenix, while at other times, they will surrender.
Teach Dissent in Class
In another part of the world, almost like we needed a reminder and a crash course in the value of individual and political dissent — a doyen of dissent, U.S Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bather Ginsberg (RBG) passed away. A book about her, titled, “I Dissent” talks about her life through her judgments which often required her to dissent from the majority opinion on the court bench. Her life’s message was clear — learning to question, dissent, or express your opinion that may appear to go against the norm or your own obedience — gene, can benefit us all and so, it must be done.
RBG’s book, I Dissent, is written for 8-year-olds. There is a there is a reason for this — teaching how to dissent is as important as teaching how to obey.
This month every conceivable organisation — a political party, public sector company, a private company, and of course, all our schools — will celebrate the Mahatma’s life. But only a few will intentionally teach — the art and mechanics of deliberate dissent, disobedience, and moral resistance. Even fewer will create a forum where difficult questions are asked and answered. Most will prefer to maintain the toxic combination of social hierarchy and silence — which as Milgram told us — is a perfect place to obey. And because of this gap, in how we honor the Mahatma’s legacy, this year, these October celebrations have come at the end of the month where the government of the day has done away with the “Question Hour” in Parliament. That very space intentionally created in democracy to ask and disagree was taken away.
Even still, India’s great and furious democracy must find solace in a modern-day poet, David Whyte’s piercing poem which tells us that there are some questions, which have no right to go way.
Update: Prashant Bhushan has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court against the decision to fine him a nominal Re 1. And so, he digs further into his wellspring of courage and asks the court why he should pay any fine at all ?
What happened when others carried out the same experiment: Milgram’s experiment has been replicated many times over since — sometimes showing 85% obedience rates. BUT — in later experiments — conducted by Milgram he stated the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenter’s orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks. So by watching others, we can slowly, but surely, build up our courage to dissent. Thanks, Mr. Bhushan.
Afterthought: Mahatma Gandhi, RBG, and Prashant Bhushan would have probably not participated in Milgram’s experiment just because it was carried out at Yale — a university of considerable repute and high-standing. They would’ve probably asked why it was necessary to inflict pain on anyone to study human behaviour? Surely, common sense would have told us that there was already more than enough documented evidence from the holocaust and other events across the world, which proved, that a majority of people obey of out of fear of consequences or because they agree with what is going on.
Quote: “…and non-cooperation is an equal duty when the Government, instead of protecting you, robs you of your honour”. Mahatma Gandhi
