A cyclical blame-game

The concept of blame is forever contentious, and more often than not, subjective. Even in cases where one finds a concrete entity to place the blame on, a little contemplation along with separation of facts from emotions might just lead to new revelations. People blame other people, themselves, their past lives, nature, kismet, stars, politics, state and even God. The merit in blaming all save one can be contested. And that one is the state.

Blame in the context of state should represent accountability and responsibility. With the theories of transformation from the ‘state of nature’ to a state composed by a social contract, the state should be held responsible for everything that transpires within its political territories. The effort here is to bring a cultural shift away from victim-blaming and towards the heavy bureaucratic and legislative machinery that decides for millions, often without being aware of the grassroot conditions.

It is imperative that a country aiming to acquire the ‘vishwaguru’ status be aware of the immense answerability it comes with. The five stages of grief could be analogous to a country’s journey towards development. Denial about the existence of structural problems; anger because of emerging dissent; bargaining, which manifests both internally and externally - among the executive machinery as well as with the society at large; depression (might just call this economic for the culture and lose my entire argument) and finally acceptance - regarding the state’s stake in the very existence of a territory’s problems.

A society includes three kinds of commoners - the perpetrators, the victims and the onlookers. All kinds are considered the root of the problems in different circumstances. However, what is often forgotten is that it is the state whose very organisation is on the promise of bringing an end, or at the very least, acknowledging and addressing the said problems. Pitting citizens against one another with an illusion of some causing discomfort to others makes it easier for the government to get away with its shortcomings scot-free. While people remain engaged in finding the humans responsible for an anomaly, the state continues its abysmal functioning without correcting its errors.

While in an apparent sense, people can distinguish between the victims and perpetrators, it is essential to understand how the conditions of both parties have been created by the same state. In most overt cases of thievery, the perpetrators are people from disadvantaged economic backgrounds. If such a person steals from another, apart from highlighting the crude nature of the thief and their temporary lapse of judgment, one also needs to underscore how the state has been unable to achieve an equitable society with basic amenities available to all. The rise of distrust towards the state apparatus in some strategic areas and the growth of anti-government elements do not only require the arrest and prosecution of individuals associated with such activities but also the redressal of the core values and feelings that have forced these people to take up arms.

In a very few instances the blame is put on the state. A cyclical blame-game then ensues between the government and the society. The government claims to be conducting all of its duties with utmost diligence and places the onus on the people for their poor conditions while the affected citizenry, which in most cases comprises of the poor, owing to the nexus between governments and wealthy, are able to present a very meek opposition which may continue for years to no avail.

All fault is state’s fault and hence, all blame should be state’s blame. A machinery with unimaginable resources should also have to face the consequences of its negligence. This becomes all the more essential when the said machinery is an elected representative government which came into power to organise, protect and ensure the lives and rights of people who elected it. There is a pressing need for the people to become mindful of their rights and hold the state accountable. Here as well, the state has ensured its supremacy and non-questionable governance by not bridging the gap between people and access to transparent information.

For a nation state to prosper, the majority of its population should have access to a decent standard of living. The state should not act as a machinery serving the interests of a select few but rather a guaranteer of ‘achhe din’ to every such citizen who still faces the perils of untouchability or is denied access to a facility because of their religious beliefs or whose clothes are declared to be the reason for her rape.

A demand for answers and questioning the legitimacy of a state’s actions should not be considered anti-national actions. Blaming the state for its incompetence should be as much a right as utilising the fruits of the state’s accomplishments.