Demonstration of people power

If change has to be the motto of society, then ordinary people have to express themselves. Change cannot be in the hands of a few who wield power, but a collective expression of desire from ordinary individuals. The examples of people powere were demonstrated in the collapse of communism in the eastern block in 1989. Now, the recent example of Nepal gives people an indication of the demand for change.

India can take a leaf out of Nepal's books. We may argue that there is no autocratic rule in India. Unlike the communist dictatorships and economic stagnation of Eastern Europe, there is plenty to cheer about in India. Economy is thriving, the country is establishing itself in the global arena. But, there is the growing inequality in economic and societal terms that pulls back India.

All the while when we are portraying our growth on the outside, we are disintegrating on the inside. It is not a rapid disintegration, which is why people can work towards change, but at the same time, if this slow disintegration is not stopped, then we could face irreversible damage in social and economic terms. At the same time, the mindset will be more pertaining to the status quo, rather than to change.

Nepal fought monarchy and aristocracy, India needs to fight an inherent battle with the bureaucracy and vested interests of elitists in social, political and economic fields. Industrialization and modernity are inherent, but only if it convinces the citizen that ordinary people are not affected. It is then the job of the media to highlight a pros and cons aspect of the situation, regardless of commercial pressures.

This is easier said than done. Commercialism is such that the same thing benefits one person but does not benefit the other. In such fragmentation, it becomes imperative that honesty and vigilance is exercised by the media in particular and the citizen. If the need for change and moral outrage is great, then it is a natural reaction that people will come out on the streets. Barack Obama, the possible US president, is talking about change, but it remains to be seen if he manages to bring change to the US.

Change should be all encompassing, meaning a ratio of 70:30. It is a lenient ratio, considering in India that 70 percent is rural. But, at the same time, if change brings about egalitarianism, as was the perceived result in the Eastern Bloc, then change it shall be. But, people have to show themselves, because then change is not possible. The phantom public, as mentioned by Lippmann, is seriously not desired for change.