Over the last few months, I have watched protests across the country, first after Jammu and Kashmir was to be ‘integrated’ fully into the Indian union of states, and more recently, after the Citizenship (Amendment) Act was passed by Parliament. There have been expressions of disquiet, dissent and solidarity with victims of violence and repression.

Students, academicians, public intellectuals, activists and the odd film personality have been in the forefront of the democratic theatre, expressing themselves through poetry, song, spoofs, appeals, plays, protest marches, and other more creative ways. Parallels from history and parliamentary record have provided ammunition to various sides of the argument. Such expressions echo in social media, and others who don’t join in, report after the fact, forwarded reports and passionately argue their cases through tweets, posts and WhatsApp messages.

The voices we seldom hear

It is rare to see people in government and industry speak their minds on issues of the day. The former may be governed by conditions of service that prohibit it, but it is the latter’s silence that is worth exploring. Equally deafening is the silence of industry bodies.

On rare occasions, a Rahul Bajaj submits ‘respectfully’ a point of view that may be interpreted as veiled criticism, helpful counsel, or sharp questioning of the government, a Narayana Murthy pronounces sagely on the virtues of good governance or couches his criticisms of the ruling class with deft footwork and diplomacy. It is an unhinged M Pai who fills other spaces in a conversation when his silence may have been preferable.

We have scores of wealthy, powerful industrialists, some of whom are rumoured to wield significant influence on a choice of ministers and policy. Perhaps they experience greater safety and legitimacy when they express views and demands in terms of the economy, finance, taxation and labour reform. 

Have you ever heard them make statements about human rights, law and order, police brutality, illegal detention, lynching, fundamental rights, immigration, the health of legal, regulatory and enforcement institutions, women’s safety, constitutional morality, prevention of corruption, trends in judiciary, Kashmir, NRC, CAA, the gradual dilution of constitutional provisions…?

How many statements, speeches, posts, or tweets from them shed any light on where they stand on the burning issues that agitate people? What are they willing to stand up for, root against: be seen, be heard, lend leadership, stake a position, step out of the comfortable trappings of security, power, follower-ship and control that their organizations provide?

In a noisy and sometimes chaotic democracy such as ours, isn’t it strange that these luminaries (entrepreneurs and professional managers, also called leaders) have nothing to say (aloud) – these doyens of industry, seen as paragons of espoused values within their business empires, these influencers whose every word is lapped up and circulated freely for inspiration by their own bhakts?

Safety or blinkers?

Maybe it is the wise thing to do – keep quiet. No individual or institution is beyond reproach or the reach of some enforcement arm of the government. Why run afoul of the powers that be?

It is any day safer to go on about future-readiness, strategy, learning organisation, excellence, talent, digitalisation, agility, value creation, investor sentiment, global sourcing, green shoots that only they have the privilege of sighting, business confidence, animal spirits, AI, machine learning, billions and trillions (starting with sustainability, carbon footprint, carbon neutral, zero-waste, mindfulness… if you are a New Age corporate messiah)… or deliver a homily a day under some hashtag.

This is not to suggest that ‘corporate types’ are not public-minded or that they somehow fall short of their duties as citizens. A non-controversial view would be that they do cast their votes as an act of citizenship. Let’s also assume for now that they are law abiding and have nothing to fear (though in our country, you have to fear harassment even when innocent). Let us also assume that they pay their fair share of taxes without the taxman’s knock on the door. You might think this is stretching it…

One may argue, what more do they need to do? As citizens?

It will be instructive to examine what they perhaps assume away – the very pillars on which their businesses depend on to thrive. At the core, these are the fundamental rights, the rule of law and healthy legal, regulatory and enforcement arms that work transparently, and within a framework sanctioned by the Constitution. When these are under threat, are non-responsive, or suffer erosion, one would expect that everyone, low and mighty, would step forward to restore them to their original form and purpose.

It will not do for businesses and their bosses to wait it out while the protests and movements seeking restoration ride on the personal risks that thousands take when they hit the streets or use other non-violent means. It will not do to view them as disruptions inconveniencing business.  It will not do to stay silent when there is violence and excesses, when law enforcers turn vandals and become violent.

It can be argued that businesses and business leaders do serve the public interest. Say, through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects. That it is their act of citizenship. The reality is that CSR budgets are mandated by law. More to the point, the modalities of public service by corporations and their owners/leaders beyond legal compliance is largely governed by welfare, philanthropy and capacity-creation for gainful employment, and enhanced earnings. They seldom enter the arena of advocacy involving struggles for rights or freedoms and legal aid.

The paradigm of a market-based society

If my memory serves me right, Rajni Bakshi, some years ago in her book, ‘Bazaars, conversations & freedom: For a market culture beyond greed and fear’, spoke about the gradual morphing of civil society into a marketplace where value has a singular meaning related to trade and exchange, the commodification of all things and the human being is reconceptualised as a producer or a consumer of goods and services, and all institutions are recast progressively to support this market logic. Land and public space is no more than real estate, people are a resource, identity is but a badge number, and your worth is a function of market forces.  

Is it possible that our business leaders are captives of this paradigm – that they will confine themselves to commerce and celebrate the triumph of homo economicus, and treat things to do with our humanity, our rights and duties as citizens as someone else’s work?

Image from Wikipedia.