How to Deal with Rejection and Setback?

Yesterday, I was rejected by a prospective freelance client.

Today, one of the platforms I use to promote my books – and interact with readers – changed its policies. This will force me to drastically change my book marketing plans for the year, and I’m still not sure how it will all work out.

Did it hurt?

Well, my first instinct is to say – Nope. I don’t care about a rejection. In my 5+ years of freelancing (and working full-time), I’ve faced hundreds of them. What’s one more to the pile?

The truth?

I had a nightmare this afternoon. The first one I’ve had in months.

I won’t bore you with the details. It was weird and incoherent, as dreams tend to be. You don’t want to go into the nitty-gritty of that. Trust me.

The point is, the rejection clearly had affected me, much as my ego would like you to believe otherwise.

Rejections usually do. But this wasn’t just any old rejection. This was different. Special.

Because I didn’t see it coming.

That’s not to say I can usually tell the future. But I’m naturally pessimistic. I never think things are going to work out until they actually do. I never assume I’ll get a job until the contract is signed and the first payment languishing safely in my bank account.

But this job was right up my alley. I had worked with similar clients before and received positive feedback from them all. The trial assignment was simple and straightforward. In my opinion, it had gone well.

For once, I was almost sure I had this one in the bag.

Well, the best-laid plans of mice, men, and freelancers…

That’s what I got for being overconfident. I was rejected – because my grammar wasn’t up to the mark. Salt to the wound? I’d say so.

And hardly had I gotten over that unpleasant surprise, when I was hit with a new one. Twice, in as many days.

I received a stern, slightly condescending – if politely worded – email from Goodreads. It warned me that I was engaging in ‘self-promotional activities’ on their site, which was now against their community guidelines.

For the uninitiated, Goodreads is the most popular social media site for book lovers. It allows users to rate, review, share, and catalogue the books they’ve read, while also keeping tabs on the books that their friends are reading. 

The self-promotional activities I was engaging in, for the record, involved requesting book reviews from readers.

Why that would be against the ‘community guidelines’ of a website solely dedicated to reading and reviewing books is anyone’s guess. But when on Goodreads, I guess we must do as the Goodreads gods command.

Which brings us to my current predicament. Down a client and a promotional platform, all within a span of 24 hours.

What Led Me Here?

Tired of hearing about my First World problems yet? Good. There’s more where that came from.

After all, it’s not every day you get to whine about your First World problems from a Third World country in the middle of a global pandemic. Imma milk this for all it’s worth.

Anyway, this year didn’t start out badly, professionally speaking. After working from home for more than six months, I quit my fulltime job in November of 2020. No sense in staying bound to one city when I was working entirely through the Internet. If I was going to spend all my time at home, one way or the other, why not explore greener pastures in other cities and countries?

It was perhaps the best decision of my life. Not only did it increase my income, fulltime freelancing also left me with enough free time to get caught up on my chores and write more fiction than I had in months.

Consequently, I completed the final draft of my fourth novel, A Call for Brighter Days, and hit publish. This is the second book in The Aeriel Chronicles, my campy urban fantasy series about a war between humans and angels.

I also made the first book, A Flight of Broken Wings, available for free on a bunch of online retailers and webnovel sites, including Amazon, B&N, and Wattpad. That’s a marketing technique I stole from more experienced authors, which has been paying rich dividends ever since.

As you can see, things were going pretty well. The early reviews coming in for Book 2 were better than I’d hoped for. Usually, I collect at least a couple of 1-star reviews almost a month after release day. This time, they were nowhere to be seen (although I’m sure I’m jinxing it just by typing this sentence).

Reviewers were happy. Clients were content. Life was good.

And that’s when I should’ve realized the other shoe was about to drop.

But then, hindsight’s always 20/20, isn’t it?

My biggest problem, 24 hours ago, was that the glowing reviews weren’t coming in fast enough (and that PayPal seemed to be raising its fee by the day).

A moment of silence for the lost innocence of that sweet summer child.

But I’m writing this post to remind myself that this isn’t the first time something like this has happened. Heck, this isn’t anywhere close to the biggest setback I’ve faced in recent years.

There are always more clients to be found (although it mightn’t feel like that when an unexpected rejection hits you in the face). And Goodreads might be an important platform, but it isn’t the only one.

In short, this too shall pass. I’ll find a way around it. I know, because I’ve done so many times in the past. But I wanted to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about rejections and setbacks. To reassure myself (and anyone else who might need it) that the dejection and self-doubt you’re feeling now are temporary. But your dreams and goals are not.

So take a break. Give yourself permission to wallow – in front of perfect strangers on the Internet, if you must. But don’t forget to pull yourself back up and take the next step forward.

What seems like an insurmountable hurdle now will look much less daunting after a good night’s sleep and a strong cup of coffee. Problems are permanent, but this one isn’t. Breathe. One day, today’s panic attack will be a funny story you tell your friends over dinner. Your job (and mine) is to make sure that day arrives as soon as possible.

How to Deal with Rejection?

It’s not really possible for me to answer this question objectively, at the moment. This blog post is very much a case of the blind leading the blind. So I apologize in advance for the absolute lack of any simple, step-by-step solutions to your problem.

What is the problem?

Well, it’s that rejection sucks. Hard. It plays havoc with your self-confidence and makes you want to quit. To crawl into a hole and never come out again. Or, at least, that’s what it does to me. I’m not projecting or anything.

But really, it’s the emotional fallout of rejection that’s the hardest to deal with. It’s not like losing one potential client will wreck me financially. Objectively, I know that. But, damn it, it was a good client. An interesting project. A project I’d hoped to be working on for the next few months. And that stings. Rejection always stings.

It also causes a lot of anxiety.

Am I really as good as I think I am? Have I been deluding myself all these years, telling myself I can write, when I clearly have no idea what I’m doing? Was all that positive feedback – every 5-star review – just people being polite? Taking pity, perhaps?

Will I ever really achieve the goals I’ve set for myself? Or were they just the delusional daydreams of a hapless, untalented hack?

Okay, I’m being melodramatic.

But, really, that’s my brain in a nutshell. Melodramatic.

Hindi soap opera writers have nothing on my brain. If a spoon falls off the counter, my brain immediately decides that it’s an earthquake and the ceiling’s about to cave in. If I get a single negative review…well, obviously, my writing career must be at an end.

Thankfully, these thoughts rarely last long. My brain is easily bribed with coke and nachos. A positive response from a client – or an enthusiastic email from a reader – also does the trick.

Nevertheless, these episodes of anxiety and self-doubt are distracting. I was supposed to be applying for freelance projects this evening. Instead, here I am, trying dubious self-therapy through this longwinded post.

Rejections – especially unexpected ones – will do that. Knock me off my stride for hours or days on end.

My brain keeps playing the rejection on loop – be it a bad review or some negative feedback – obliterating my ability to concentrate on anything else. At least for a little while.

Does that happen to you too? It sucks, doesn’t it?

But believe it or not, it does get better. It certainly did for me. If you think I’m a fragile snowflake now, you should have seen me five years ago. Or even three. That’s when I published A Flight of Broken Wings, Book 1 of The Aeriel Chronicles.

It wasn’t the first book I’d published, but it was the first one that I’d tried to market or promote in any way. I didn’t really know what I was doing, but my efforts did yield some sales and 100+ reviews on various platforms.

The first time I got a 1-star review, I couldn’t bring myself to eat anything for a whole day. I felt like I’d throw up if I tried, so I didn’t.

Bad reviews still faze me, but not for more than a couple of hours at a time. The last time I got one, the effects only lasted for the half hour it took the pizza delivery guy to reach my flat.

Yes, I bribe myself with food. And I’m only a little bit embarrassed about it.

I started looking for a fulltime job for the first time in 2017, after earning a post-graduate diploma in journalism. The prospect of talking on the phone with potential employers scared the shit out of me.

To the extent that I refused to apply for a job at any newspaper that required you to call them after you submitted the application. (Yeah, some of the older, more traditionalist newspapers in Kolkata still did that back in 2017. I’m looking at you, The Statesman.)

Now, I regularly give interviews and attend meetings on Skype, with clients from various parts of the country and the world. This would never be my preferred mode of communication. I will always prefer an email (or a DM) over a phone call. I didn’t become a writer for all the social interaction, after all.

But that instinctive fear of facing potential rejection head on is gone. My gut no longer clenches painfully at the thought of a difficult call with a client. Negative feedback no longer makes me want to crawl under the nearest rock and never come out.

And while that may just be ‘normal’ to most people – not much to write home about – I’ll take my wins where I can get them. To me, they’re precious. Achievements unlocked in the game of life after years upon years of dangerous missions and hard-fought battles.

Even if the only real danger was to my ego – my confidence and sense of self-worth.

Success Is the Slow Realization of a Worthy Ideal

I’m not sure where I first read it. But this quote’s stuck with me for the past year or so, because of how true it has been to my own experience.

When you first start doing something, it’s difficult. Painfully difficult. And despite all that difficulty, you’re not doing it very well. It’s easy to think that this is because you naturally suck at the thing.

And maybe you do. Ask somebody (or preferably, multiple people) who don’t give a shit about you, what they think of your skills. They wouldn’t have much reason to lie to you.

But even if you’re not an absolute hack, the first few times you do something, you probably will suck. Whether or not you realize it at the time. I can no longer read my earliest manuscripts without cringing constantly. Content writing is no different. There are sites on the Internet I avoid like the plague, for fear of coming across one of my old articles.

It’s a natural part of growth. But when you’re in the throes of sucking at something – of being rejected left, right, and center – it can be hard to see the light at the end of the tunnel. To even imagine that there is any light in the world. (See? My melodramatic brain is at it again!)

What I’m trying to say is that when you first start doing something – and doing it badly – progress can be slow. So slow, in fact, that you don’t even notice it. I never noticed my writing getting better from one day to the next. I didn’t notice myself becoming less anxious and nervous when dealing with clients.

The only reason I know that those things happened is that I have tangible proof.

I have articles and books that I wrote years ago, that I can compare to the ones I wrote more recently, in order to see the improvement.

I have screenshots of longwinded WhatsApp messages sent to friends – cribbing about how scared I was about this interview or that client call. Things I wouldn’t think twice about, today.

Through all that whining and panicking, I was making progress. It was just too slow for me to notice.

But the only reason I can talk about it today is that I stuck to it.

Despite knowing that I sucked. Despite facing rejection at every turn. Despite losing my appetite every time I received a negative review. And despite having no guarantee that things would ever get better. That I would ever get better.

Because there are no guarantees I can give you. Or myself.

You can make all the progress in the world, only for the market to shift right before you hit it big, so that you’re forced to learn a whole new way of doing things.

Or one of your articles/stories/songs/videos could go viral and change your life overnight.

There’s no way to predict the future. But I can tell you this. You’ll be better off for having tried. For having given it everything you had.

After all, twenty years from now, you’ll be twenty years older. Twenty years closer to death. You can’t change that.

But you can decide whether you will have spent those twenty years trying to make your dreams come true, or being so afraid of failure that you couldn’t even reach for success.

Because that’s the secret to success, insofar as there is a ‘secret’. Fail as many times – and as badly – as you can, without killing yourself.

Try again. Fail again. Fail better.

Ten years down the line, you would still be failing. But when you look back, you’d be surprised at how far you’ve come. How easy it is to do the things that had once seemed impossible.

Ten years down the line, you will be failing spectacularly at things you never imagined you’d have a chance to do.

That’s the goal.

1-star reviews are terrible. Until I remember, there was a time (less than half a decade ago) when I never thought I’d get any reviews. When I would’ve given anything for someone – who wasn’t a friend or a relative – to read my stories and tell me what they thought. Even if they thought it was shit.

Yesterday, I was rejected – for the position of freelance script writer for a famous YouTube video essayist.

Two years ago, I would never have imagined that such a job was even a remote possibility for me.

Today, I have written scripts for two famous YouTube creators, one of whom was awesome enough to give me writing credits. Yesterday, I was rejected by the third such client, because my grammar wasn’t up to the mark.

You see? I just failed spectacularly at something I had never imagined I’d have a chance to do!

And really, that’s all there is to it. That’s the secret.

Just keep sucking at the thing until you suck at it a little less.

Keep getting rejected, until you’re getting rejected for projects you’d never have dared apply to, before.

You can never solve all problems and eliminate all setbacks. So why not aim for better problems? More interesting setbacks?

Being reprimanded by Goodreads – for asking readers to review my books – is super frustrating.

But it’s a better problem to have than the one I had five years ago – not having any books. Or three years ago – not having any readers.

I don’t know how I’ll get around this one, yet. But experience tells me that I will, eventually. The trick is to keep at it; keep trying different things until something clicks into place. It will happen, eventually. It always does.

And until that time comes, I’ll go drown my sorrows in coke and nachos.

See you around, the next time I have an existential crisis to work through.

Systemic Discrimination and Nepotism: Are We Victims or Perpetrators?

Photo by Micheile Henderson on Unsplash

The recent suicide of the famous Indian film star, Sushant Singh Rajput, has triggered a massive online debate about nepotism in Bollywood, the biggest (though far from the only) film industry in the country.

Since the late SSR did not leave behind a suicide note, I don’t presume to know the reason behind his actions. But the national outcry against Bollywood nepotism had been – for many years – a time bomb waiting to go off.

And now it has.

So here’s the problem as I see it. The more popular an actor gets, the more directors, producers, and other film stars want to work with them. Hence, they make more and more powerful connections in the industry, while also making a substantial amount of money in the process.

By the time their children are old enough to start their own careers, these yesteryear film stars have the connections and resources to make sure that their offspring, the so-called ‘star kids’, get leading roles in movies from the very start of their careers. Even if their initial movies bomb at the box office, they keep getting new opportunities, because of the friendships their parents have forged in the industry over the years.

After all, how many of us can bring ourselves to tell a close friend that their child is a talentless hack who needs to reconsider his career choices? Even when it’s the truth. Especially when it’s the truth.

These are advantages that most certainly aren’t available to newcomers in the film industry. To those budding actors and entertainers who didn’t have parents who spent decades building up connections, to pave a smoother path to stardom for their kids.

Talented actors and performers go unrecognized and underutilized while the aforementioned ‘hacks’ get overnight fame and success, rewarded handsomely for the achievement of being born with the right surname.

Hence, the long-awaited public outcry against nepotism in Bollywood. Late in the coming, perhaps, but sizzling with suppressed fury and bitterness, now that it’s finally here.

Bollywood – A Microcosm of the Society at Large

It is true that nepotism is entrenched and pervasive in the Hindi film industry. The list of ‘star kids’ who keep getting acting opportunities despite multiple flops in their resume is ridiculously high.

However, Bollywood is not so much an exception, as a symptom of a larger societal problem that we are all a part of. We all participate in nepotism and systemic discrimination – both as victims and as perpetrators. But it’s hard to see when it is a part of our regular, humdrum, everyday life.

Everything’s more glamorous when it happens to a ‘hero’, including discrimination.

While complaining about the advantages the ‘star kids’ get over other actors, how many of us stop to consider that our own career successes are, in fact, the result of educational and career opportunities that people from the lower classes never had access to? People who probably were far more talented than us; who probably could have surpassed us in every way if given half the opportunities we were?

Consider this: how many of your colleagues come from a completely different social class?

When questioning why the children of bank managers so rarely become film stars, how do we never question why the children of domestic servants so rarely become bank managers?

What nepotistic advantages are the kids of white collar professionals getting, that allow them to follow their parents into middle class professions so effortlessly, when it’s nearly impossible for the kids of a slum-dweller to get those same jobs?

We benefit from the same systems of nepotism that we criticize when we are the victims of it.

There are, of course, exceptions to every rule. There are famous movie stars who hailed from middle class families and there are middle class professionals who began life as slum dwellers.

But you shouldn’t have to be the exception to the rule, in order to have a shot at a better future.

A big, star-studded launch facilitated by daddy’s connections may be a star-kid’s ticket to instant fame. But so is an expensive professional degree a ticket to instant career upliftment among the middle classes.

Plenty of private colleges offer admissions (and degrees) to anyone willing to pay for them. Naturally, those who aren’t able to pay have to work much harder for that salary hike. As do outside actors in Bollywood.

Which is not to say that you cannot succeed without an expensive degree; or that you will succeed with one. But then, plenty of outsiders succeed in Bollywood and plenty of ‘star kids’ fail. Like I said, exceptions only serve to prove the rule.

How to Deal with Discrimination?

We haven’t even scratched the surface of this nepotistic abyss, so far. Because I’ve just touched upon class discrimination. And that’s by no means the only type of discrimination we live with, day in and day out.

There’s also racial, sexual, caste-based, linguistic, and neurological discrimination left to talk about. And those are just the ones I can think of, off the top of my head. I’m sure there are others you’ll be able to come up with, as you read this.

So, perhaps the most important question in this discussion, is how do we deal with this? There are primarily two schools of thought:

i)             Fight it

ii)           Ignore it

Essentially, this perennial debate rages between two distinct worldviews. The first is that you should always protest discrimination and unfairness whenever and wherever you encounter it. The second is that you should mostly ignore larger societal ills and try, instead, to become that exception to the rule we just spoke about – the actor with no connections who becomes a superstar, the woman who rises to the top of a patriarchal society, or the homeless kid who grows up to become a bank manager. Societal dynamics are entrenched and hard to change, especially over the course of a single lifetime. Far better, then, to try and change your own destiny first.

In my opinion, there’s merit to both arguments. The ideal course of action will vary from one situation to the next. However, to me, the final determinant is whether I’m dealing with the problem on a personal or a societal level.

When dealing with discrimination on a personal level, the second school of thought is often the most effective. Although, ignoring it doesn’t mean you pretend to not see it. Rather, it’s about analyzing it, understanding it, and finding creative ways to work around it. You cannot overcome something you don’t understand. But you can embrace your constraints and find ways to turn them into a springboard for success.

This isn’t easy, nor is it always possible. But if there’s something you want to achieve that’s just beyond your reach because of systemic discrimination, this is the fastest way to get there (without getting murdered on the way). Societal systems are inflexible, deep-rooted, and hard to change on a fundamental level. Bending the rules to get around them, while hard, is still the easiest path to the finish line.

Besides, privilege and discrimination are not unidimensional concepts. Even the most privileged people have faced discrimination and even those discriminated against have certain privileges, whether or not they realize it. Very few people are solely the oppressor or the oppressed. Most of us play both of those roles, in different situations.

From my own experience, it’s hard to get international rates for freelance work when you come from a ‘third-world country’, as many clients tend to have preconceived notions about how much someone should be paid, depending on where they live. But if you live in a rich country and don’t have many specialized skills to distinguish yourself, you’re at constant risk of being replaced by someone in a poorer nation, who’d do your work for half the price and live a comfortable life with that pay.

You don’t get to choose not to have problems, just which ones you’d rather have.

Some advantages, like money, beauty, and social connections are more visible and ostentatious than others. A common complaint on social media these days is that nepotism causes talent to be smothered by financial or social power. This is true. But talent is also a privilege.

Much of what we call a talent – an innate ability or ‘gift’ – is genetic. Of course, it can be developed with practice and dedication, just as inherited money can be enhanced with smart investments. But you need to have some money to invest in the first place. And you need a certain degree of inborn talent to be able to develop it into a world-class skill.

Moreover, you need a talent that corresponds well with your external circumstances. A talent for figure skating won’t do you much good in a South Indian village; and a talent for fashion designing would be hard to leverage in one of the mountainous Bhutanese monasteries.

Intelligence, mental and physical health, and emotional resilience are some of the other advantages that are, at least to some extent, based on luck. Health problems, either mental or physical, can counteract the most profound social and financial advantages. And a stable, charming personality, combined with above-average intelligence, can help individuals overcome many external drawbacks. But these privileges and handicaps are hard to see, so we often don’t understand how to leverage or overcome them, as the case may be.

Some people are luckier than others, but we all have things working for us and against us. On the personal level, instead of bemoaning our lack of privilege, the trick is to objectively analyze the cards we have been dealt. And to then leverage what we have to get what we want.

Would my life have been easier if – all other things being equal – I’d been born in a richer family, a richer country, or even a richer neighborhood? I don’t think there’s anybody who doubts that. But since I don’t spend much time being grateful about the fact that I wasn’t born in a slum or a warzone, there isn’t much point spending that time wondering why I wasn’t born to a tech-billionaire in Silicon Valley.

Building a Better World

When dealing with discrimination on a societal level, however, the approach needs to be the opposite. We need to understand where and how systemic discrimination is being perpetuated, and speak up against it. Not just when we’re the victims of such discrimination, as is the case with Bollywood nepotism, but also when we’re the perpetrators of it.

Many private schools refuse to accept students without conducting an in-depth interview of the parents. I’ve seen people boasting about how their kids’ school grilled them as if they’re the ones seeking admission. Somehow, this is a mark of the ‘quality’ of the institution.

In reality, it’s just another form of nepotistic gatekeeping, keeping first generation learners away even when their parents can pay the school fee (which can be hard enough for many people).

Does a child not deserve quality education because his or her parents were illiterate or semi-literate, even if they’ve managed to scrape together enough money to pay for that education?

To many middle class Indians, the ‘pedigree’ of their child’s school is more important than the education of other, less privileged children. Those of us who have a problem with their kids studying side by side with the children of an illiterate (if prosperous) fishmonger, have no right to complain about the nepotistic practices of Bollywood producers.

It is easy to see discrimination when we’re the victims of it, much harder to notice it when we’re the perpetrators. Which is, in fact, quite often.

This is not an accusation I’m leveling at others, but rather a (disturbingly common) experience of my own. I never fail to notice it when a freelance client asks for my location before disclosing their rates, but it took me years to realize that schools conducting ‘parent interviews’ before granting admissions to students was effectively a ploy to keep first generation learners from poorer (or nouveau middle class) families away.

I have relatives and acquaintances who always complain when they fail to secure government jobs because of affirmative action programs (the much vilified ‘quota system’), but never take a moment to appreciate the fact that they have the resources to continue studying for the civil service exams year after year, while many others in their position have been forced to forget about their professional dreams and take up fulltime employment just to survive.

And I’d be lying if I said I’ve never felt that resentment myself.

I’m a brown woman living in a relatively poor country. I’m also middle class, able-bodied, and part of the linguistic and religious majority in the city where I live. I have advantages that many could only dream of.

But somehow, that first part is always easier to focus on than the last. Comfort is easy to get used to, pain is not.

On a personal level, we can afford to ignore nepotism and discrimination; bend the rules without breaking them to get what we want. You’d be better served filling out the application forms for government colleges than thinking about the fact that your family can’t afford to send you to a private one.

On a societal level, however, discrimination needs to be protested and reforms introduced, because we’re not the only ones being affected. Millions of people currently alive, and millions who will come after we are long gone, will live with the impact of the decisions we make today – whether it is to fight or to remain silent.

There will always be exceptions that the establishment points to. Some street urchins will overcome poverty, some women will break the glass ceiling, and some outside actors will achieve stardom in Bollywood. And on a personal level, it behooves us all to try and be that exception to the rule. 

However, while systemic discrimination may not be able to stop an exceptionally talented, determined, and lucky individual from achieving their goals, it does beggar the society wherein it occurs.

If a lot of children are left without access to quality education because their parents were illiterate, some of them will still grow up to succeed in their chosen field. However, the society as a whole will remain backward, as most of those kids will never reach their full potential, nor be able to contribute to national and global development as much as they could have.

A disproportionate amount of societal resources will be spent on a small group, many of whom might be incapable of making the most of them. While those who could have made the best use of those resources will never have access to them.

Many great movies will languish without a producer and many path-breaking discoveries will remain unmade because we couldn’t give our children a level field to play on.

And that truly is something to be outraged about. 

Why the Nation is Not United, and Why that is a Good Thing

Photo by Spenser on Unsplash

Boxes. We've demonized them a lot in recent years. And unfairly so, in my opinion.

Nowadays, it's all about thinking outside the box, living outside the box, burning the goddamn box, if at all possible.

But there's nothing wrong with boxes, is there? In fact, they're quite essential. They help us store stuff we don't always use but might occasionally need, label them so they're easy to find when needed, and keep them safe.

The problem arises when we've sealed the box so tightly that, when we have put something in it that doesn't belong, we can no longer take it out and put it somewhere else.

In Defense of Categorization

Categorization – putting things in boxes and labeling them – is a useful tool, essential for our survival. And like most tools, the effect it has on the world depends largely on the wielder. It can be used both badly and well.

When you're feeling unwell, you call a doctor and not a florist. You don't stop to think about it and decide if an individual doctor will be better able to help you than an individual florist. That's categorization.

And when you hear of a violent crime and immediately decide that the person who committed it must belong to a particular ethnicity or class, without considering whether an individual from another group might be responsible, that's categorization too.

One of these could save your life, the other could get someone killed.

Categories aren't bad, but bad people can categorize. And it's these bad categorizations that I want to talk about today.

Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark

Or India. Or America. Or maybe even Britain or Brazil. Journalist and historian Gwynne Dyer said in a recent column:

“‘Homo economicus’ is dead. Long live ‘homo tribuarius’!”

Basically, he was talking about how people around the world are no longer voting for their economic interests, but rather from tribalistic sentiments of loyalty to the in-group and hatred for the out-group.

It doesn't matter what group is in and which one is out. That's cyclical, of course. And there always is a villain to throw stones at. Sometimes it's the rich, sometimes the communists. Sometimes Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, or the moon worshipers. Sometimes it's also the politicians or the police.

Basically, we want something to be angry about, and someone to be angry at. And neat categories help with that. They make it easier to be angry, because of course everything (or everyone) in a single category must be the same, or at least similar. Hence, they must all be deserving of the anger directed at that category.

Why? Because they're all in it together, of course. They're all UNITED. Your enemies always are, somehow. They have the best teamwork ever!

I grew up hearing how India was colonized by Britain because the British were UNITED, whereas India was divided and fought constantly among themselves. Never mind the fact that Britain is smaller than most states of India, which makes that comparison absurd. India cannot be compared to Britain, but it can be compared to Europe, a group of people with a similar culture (with significant differences in language, clothing, etc.) who constantly fought, killed, and married each other.

Not so united after all, were they? In fact, they were kind of just like us. And just like people all around the world. The history of Africa is largely the same, as are the histories of East and West Asia:

Lots of groups, lots of (closely related) languages, and lots of conflict.

I don't know much about the history of the native inhabitants of the Americas (before the arrival of the Europeans), but I'm willing to bet a lot of money it wasn't all that different.

Why? Because the Native Americans of the 12^th century had something very important in common with the Africans and the Europeans and the South Asians of the 12^th century. They were humans.

And humans behave rather predictably, wherever they go. They form hierarchal groups. And then they break away from those groups and form new groups and sub-groups. And then they cooperate. And fight. And people within the same group also cooperate and fight. And sometimes, they cooperate among themselves to fight a third party.

The Myth of In-Group Unity

There is no grand unity anywhere, and even the most cursory glance at history would prove that. Even within the tiny country of England, many of those who vociferously criticized the Empire were English. And the British weren't special in this regard. The (Muslim) Mughals fought each other like cats and dogs, and often teamed up with Hindu kings to fight members of their own family. These same Hindu kings later teamed up with European colonizers to vanquish their neighbors, and the Europeans in turn spared no effort – up until the 20^th century – to drive each other into the ground.

There was no grand unity within (or between) nations, regions, religions, or communities, and there still isn't. Because that is not how human beings behave. And the people of other countries and religions (and even time periods) are, in fact, human. Despite rumors to the contrary.

But it makes for a good story –

Them versus us.

Them – united, ruthless, calculating.

Us – scattered, helpless, innocent.

If only we could be more like them. If only we could get obsessed with one aspect of our identity – nationality, religion, race, sexuality – and become UNITED. Gang up against our enemies, the scary and singular THEM.

Then and only then will we be victorious. And hence, any dissent from within is of course unacceptable. Any member of our group who isn't single-mindedly obsessed with the group, who points out flaws within the group, is an obstacle in the path of that ultimate victory. As dangerous as THEM.

This is why we have been conquered by other countries, the dissenters are told. We're not UNITED. Look at the Chinese. So united. They'd never go against their own countrymen. Look at the Muslims, also united. They would never speak against their own co-religionists.

And yet, more people died in the Great Chinese Famine (1959-61), caused by their own government, than the Bengal Famine (1943-44), caused by the British rulers of India. And most of the people killed by Islamic terrorism are – surprise surprise – Muslims!

And if I'm dying, what does it matter if those killing me are part of the US or the THEM? How is it better to be killed by those who speak my language and worship my God than by those who don't?

But we like simple solutions. Who has the time to study the wide variety of causes, events, and policies that lead to conflict, victory, loss, civilizational progress, and decline? Who has time to understand the geographical, climatic, technological, and cultural factors that allowed the tiny nation states of Western Europe to colonize massive empires on five different continents?

Who has the time to analyze the reasons for the different outcomes of colonization in different places? The Asians were largely subjugated, the Africans frequently enslaved, the original Americans all but wiped out...but why? Why were the nations of Western Europe so much more successful in global conquest than those of Eastern Europe, despite fighting numerous bloody wars among themselves?

Well, the answer is a complex combination of germs, geography, disease, climate, food-habits, technology, culture, and contemporary geopolitics.

Booooorrriinggggg!

Who has time for all that, when we can have a short and simple solution that doesn't tax the mind and provides us with the requisite dose of self-righteous indignation? They were UNITED and we were not. They believed singlemindedly in their Gods and their Kings, and we were doubtful and treacherous.

So now, we must make amends, be more like them. We must define ourselves by our unquestioning devotion to our Kings and our Gods. We must become devoted nationalists, or nationalistic devotees. And if we're not? Well, then we're anti-nationals, of course!

But don't worry, it's all for the greater good. After all, how else will we take back our rightful place at the helm of the world, driving our ever-united enemies to the ground with our UNITY–XXL?

The Problem of Dissent

Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) said Azadi (freedom), and the entire nation went for a tizzy. How could they!! How will India become a superpower, if our students aren't united and nationalistic? If they don't agree with the stance of the central government and the Indian state on contentious issues such as the governance of Kashmir and the North East? Surely, this was the beginning of the end.

Thing is, JNU always was what it is today. In fact, college and university campuses around the world are and have always been variations of JNU – liberal and contrarian. The ideological tilt of JNU and its students isn't much different today than it was thirty years ago, nor has the culture changed in any significant way. If JNU didn't destroy India in the 80s, it's not going to do so now.

But JNU is just a symptom of a larger problem. And that's the problem of dissent. And despite our myths of the UNITED Imperialists and Islamists, dissent is universal, inevitable, and pervasive. Remember the Arab Spring? There has never been a society or a government in the history of the world that didn't face dissent. The difference, really, is in how they dealt with the dissenters.

In some countries, comedians earn their living by making fun of the ruling classes; in others they might be executed for doing so. Imagine a North Korean comedian calling Kim Jong-un the names that American late night comedy show hosts regularly call Trump. And there are many others like them – neither the North Korean nor the American model of governance is particularly unique in this respect.

But guess which of these countries would be more likely to experience a violent revolt wherein the ruler's head ends up on a pike? You don't get to wish away dissent, but you can often choose how you'd like it served. You can either swallow a few insults or a few bullets, but no government has ever successfully avoided both for any length of time. If you don't let your opponents shout, you'll just make them more inclined to shoot.

Ideological Bubbles and the Importance of Opposition

Dissent is not just inevitable, it is extremely important. I've always leaned relatively liberal, but I was perhaps one of the most right-wing people in my college.

Why?

Not because my views had changed in any significant way, but because, like I said before, college campuses often tend to be liberal bubbles. More so in the humanities and social science departments. I hadn't become any more conservative than I'd ever been, I was just surrounded by people who were more liberal than me.

And that's the thing with bubbles. When the loudest voices in your vicinity are saying something, it is human instinct to want to go with the flow, to not oppose the majority even if you don't always agree with what they're saying. In the distant past, our ancestors got killed for opposing their tribes. We're the descendants of the people who managed to keep their heads down and not get lynched for long enough to reproduce, so of course most of us are instinctively reluctant to oppose the majority.

The loudest voices on campus were liberal, so those who agreed with them shouted louder, and those who didn't kept quiet. Just as the loudest voices in the country today are majoritarian and ultra-nationalist. Those who agree with these sentiments are shouting louder than they ever have before, and most of the people who don't find it safer to keep quiet and not draw attention to themselves.

And that's why ideological bubbles are so dangerous, because they lead to rapid escalation and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And this is true regardless of the ideology.

If you criticized the unfair corporate practices of a particular company at a business conference, you'll get some support and some opposition. At best, you'll get people to agree that that particular company is poorly run. But start this same discussion in a group of devoted communists, and the discourse will soon devolve into the vices of the capitalist system and then the oppressive tendencies of the capitalists/businessmen themselves.

Tell a group of campus liberals that you met an asshole who happened to be Sikh/Muslim/Christian, and at best you'll get your friends to agree that that particular individual was indeed an asshole. Start this same discussion in a right-wing WhatsApp group (we all have those family groups, be honest with yourself), and the discourse will soon devolve into the characteristic demerits of the religion and the universal vices of all its adherents.

Ideological bubbles facilitate escalation, because people are reluctant to stray too far from the group consensus. If you feel like you might encounter opposition, you'll watch what you say and refrain from saying anything extreme that'll be widely opposed. But if you think that everyone in the group already agrees with you, you'd be more likely to air your more extreme views, thus creating a feedback loop of agreement and escalation until you all agree on something that you'd never dream of saying out loud in public.

Such an ideological bubble can exist in a college campus or on a WhatsApp thread, but it can also exist in a community, a city, or an entire country. And when it does, otherwise normal, well-balanced people openly defend the large-scale imprisonment of thousands of innocent people in detention/concentration/filtration camps and the blowing up of public buildings.

People who once held bigoted and extremist views in secret are emboldened to share their ideas in public, causing more people to convert to their way of thinking. On the other hand, those who would normally have opposed such ideas feel pressured to keep quiet, for fear of being rejected and ostracized by the 'tribe'.

This kind of thing has happened over and over again in history, in all places around the world, and it'll probably happen again. No group or ideology is safe from this type of escalation, be it leftist, rightist, or anything in between. When you have too much unity and not enough dissent, systems tend to go haywire and become oppressive, regardless of whether you live in a communist country or a theocratic one. Too much ideological unity is harmful.

And this is why dissent is so important. Not because the dissenters are always right but because they help maintain the balance. They keep the ideological extremists in check.

So if you ever find yourself in the middle of an ideological conflict and don't know which side is right, choose to oppose the majority. If you're wrong, you won't do much damage. After all, most people are against you, ready to oppose you if you go too far. But if you're right, you'll help restore the balance and prevent destructive extremism, at least for the time being.

The Need to Preserve Our Culture

Public opinion is ephemeral and ever-changing. Those who think culture is stagnant and unchanging just need to read books written by people of their own country, who died a few decades before they were born. The calls to protect ‘Indian (or Hindu) culture’ are meaningless for the simple reason that there is no such thing as ‘Indian culture’. There’s only ‘urban Indian culture of 2020’ which is very different from ‘rural Indian culture of 1950’ and still more different from the Indian culture of the 1700s.

Last week, I was chatting with a young Nigerian book reviewer. We talked about our favorite books and TV shows, our experiences at school (which were surprisingly similar), and our mutual love of BBC’s Sherlock. The only differences between our ‘cultures’ were cosmetic and superficial, like her telling me how pretty she thought women looked in sarees. Hell, there is more cultural difference between me and my grandmother than there was between me and my Nigerian reviewer.

So those who fulminate on social media about preserving ‘Indian culture’ – it’s not Indian culture you’re trying to preserve but mid-20^th century middle-class culture, which would no doubt have shocked and appalled the inhabitants of 18^th century India and will probably shock and appall the inhabitants of  22^nd century India as well.

After all, in the India of two hundred years ago, it was perfectly normal (and acceptable) for a 25 year old man to marry a 10 year old girl. If present trends continue, in the India of two hundred years later (or even sooner), it would be perfectly normal (and acceptable) for a 25 year old man to marry another 25 year old man. Indian culture was never in any danger, because as long as there are people living in India, those people will have a culture. And their culture, whatever it may be, will be ‘Indian culture’.

You may well want to preserve some aspects of that culture as it exists today, but it’s silly to expect that the culture of any place will stay the same over any significant period of time. Because people never agree with each other, and there’s as little unity between generations as there is between nations or regions. 

Our descendants a couple of centuries down the line, if they still choose to call themselves Hindus, will follow a brand of Hinduism that’ll seem more alien to us than any religion currently practiced. The same is true of Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Buddhists. And there really isn’t anything that anyone alive today can do to prevent that change. Nor, in my opinion, will it be worth their time to try.

A couple of generations ago, caste was all the rage, and people went through all sorts of trouble to preserve and uphold the purity of their particular sub-caste. Most urban millennials today couldn’t care less about it. And the youth of the 22^nd century will probably be as mystified by our obsession with religion as we are by our forefathers’ emotional investment in the intricate subcategories of caste.

In this regard, India is far from being unique. Prince Harry and his American wife recently stepped down from their positions as (senior) British royals. Two hundred years ago, this would have been an important political development with repercussions around the globe. Today, it is fodder for tabloids and gossip websites. The European aristocracies have become as irrelevant as the Indian castes and a Marquess or a Kshatriya, to our children, will probably sound like the names of rare Pokémon.

The mood of the society will shift again, as it has done a thousand times before, and all the categories and subcategories we care so deeply about today will seem ridiculous and meaningless to generations to come.

This has always been true, but that has never stopped people from perpetrating unimaginable suffering in the name of silly social categories that no one will care about a few centuries down the line. Because humans may not care about the same groups and categories for very long, but we absolutely LOVE groups and categories. India was divided on the basis of religion, then Pakistan was divided on the basis of language, and the Sri Lankans fought a civil war spanning decades on the basis of ethno-linguistic differences that outsiders would be as hard-pressed to understand as the complex web of old Hindu sub-castes.

After all, if we can’t categorize people, we can’t stereotype them. And how exhausting would that be – having to see every person as an individual and judge them on the basis of their unique merits and drawbacks? I want to take a nap just thinking about it!

Exploring Universal Themes

The first beta reader I had for my latest novel, ‘The Brightest Fell’, asked me if the story was based on the Tamil/Sinhalese conflict of Sri Lanka. It wasn’t. In fact, until he asked me that question, I’d had a very vague idea about the devastating civil war that had rocked our southern neighbor for more than two decades.

But his question made me curious, and I began researching the war that led to more than fifty thousand deaths. And I can understand, after having read up on it, why he would think my story was based on that conflict – it bore some uncanny similarities with Sri Lanka’s recent history.

Here’s the thing, though. I hadn’t had Sri Lanka in mind while writing that book. I wasn’t trying to write about any particular real-world incident at all, but the closest historical parallel I’d had in mind was the partition of India. The reason why I’d unconsciously incorporated elements of the Sri Lankan civil war in the story, while knowing almost nothing about the Sri Lankan civil war, is because the elements aren’t all that different after all. The human condition doesn’t change much with geography.

Many of my readers have asked me why I don’t write about real-world places, people, and events. Well, this is why. The real world is just repeated iterations of the same universal themes. The players change, but the story remains uncannily similar, if not the same. Sometimes, the characters in the story call themselves Protestants and Catholics, sometimes Hindus and Muslims, sometimes Chechens and Russians, sometimes Tamils and Sinhalese, and sometimes Nigerians and Biafrans.

In my book, they called themselves Zanyars and Birhanis.

There are no actual communities called Zanyar or Birhani; I just made them up. And doing so allowed me to explore the themes that were common among all the above-mentioned groups and their conflicts, without having to worry about anyone feeling misrepresented or taking offense. Without anyone trying to explain to me why their case was unique and different, and how I’d know that if only I read a little more about their history (preferably written by their historians).

That’s because people tend to have blinders on when it comes to the ideology or group of their choice. They can easily spot the things that are going wrong in other countries and cultures. Hence, there was almost universal consensus in India that Trump killing the Iranian General Soleimani was an irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. There were no frantic WhatsApp messages trying to explain, at length, how Iran was part of a centuries-long conspiracy to take America down and how Soleimani was the high-priest of this ancient cult. No doctored videos of Iranians planning to destabilize and attack the US made their way into my social media timelines and inboxes, shared by friends and relatives I haven’t met in years.

Because nobody felt the need to defend the pathological beliefs and actions of a group (country) they do not personally identify with, as they did when a similar controversy broke out at home and the participants were more relatable. Nobody feels the need to defend American slavery or European colonialism but I’ve heard many explanations for why the caste system was a great idea that was later corrupted by Bad People^TM.

I write about wars and social conflict set in imaginary countries inhabited by imaginary peoples, so that my readers can judge the actions of each character not through the lens of ideological or national allegiance, but in the context of humanity and their own conscience. My heroes are often accused of being unlikeable and bigoted, and those accusations aren’t incorrect. That’s how humans are – blinded by what is close and dear to them – and they can change, grow, and learn with their experiences.

More importantly, my protagonists are never heroes. Because human beings usually aren’t, despite our penchant for deification and hero-worship. Most individuals – like most ideologies – have their own flaws and do not deserve unqualified support; or unqualified opposition, for that matter. One person (or idea) can be great in one situation and terrible in another. Policies designed to solve one problem can give rise to others, despite the best of intentions.

Support (or criticism) needs to be provided depending on the merits of a given situation and its context, and we don’t need a person or an ideology to be perfect before it can be used to solve an immediate problem. Nor do we need to keep using it (or following them) once that problem has been solved.

Politicians, after all, are just service providers. If a doctor has treated you well during a past illness but fails to diagnose you properly for a new condition, would you think twice before seeking a second opinion? Replace doctor with electrician, plumber, or hairstylist, and I think your answer will be the same. So why do we treat policymakers differently?

Opposition, Dissent, and Balance

So speak out, disagree, debate.

Take a stand, even when most people don’t agree with you. Especially when most people don’t agree with you.

And if you’re not sure what that stand should be, stand against the majority. If you’re wrong, you’ll learn quickly enough; if you’re right you’ll prevent dangerous escalation and ideological myopia.

Most importantly, don’t be united. Because nobody ever really is. Unity without dissent is a myth, and it’s a myth that has cost us dearly, in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and a thousand other places around the world at a thousand other times in our history.

Going against the majority opinion is never fun. Intense, short-term conflict is painful and uncomfortable (which is why most people, understandably, avoid it). But it’s better than simmering, long-term degeneration. Which is the price of unquestioning unity – be it in a household, community, or country. What you allow, you encourage.

And it’s better to be the villain in a WhatsApp group than the lesson in somebody else’s history book.