This culture of divided loyalties and enforced camps, once confined to politics and scattered here and there, has now permeated every sphere of life and every level of society, surpassing all danger signals.
Published Jul 17, 2025 | 12:07 PM ⚊ Updated Jul 17, 2025 | 12:07 PM
The statue of Dr BR Ambedkar near the Telangana Secretariat. (Muhammed Fazil/South First)
Synopsis: Two members of the upper house of Telangana behaved in a manner unbecoming of their positions. Those with physical strength, wealth, or authority in our society act with impunity, disregarding the law. Members of legislative structures, rich and powerful, political leaders, and those in power are the root cause of societal ills, irregularities, and inappropriate behaviours.
When time ushers in a dire situation where thoughts, opinions, emotions, and loyalties are ruthlessly severed and tossed in two mutually opposing compartments, forcing one to live in confrontational worlds of “if not this side, then that side,” it becomes challenging for anyone to express a definitive opinion.
“If you’re not with us, you’re with them,” as if society consists only of “us” and “them,” with no room for differing or diverse opinions — this notion, perhaps once uttered by George Bush some thirty years ago, now reigns supreme across the board. Look at any recent economic, political, social, or cultural discussion, and you’ll see this divisive strategy officially in circulation.
There’s no longer any space to say that both sides could be wrong in a debate. The moment you utter the first half of the sentence, “One is wrong, and the other is wrong too,” you’re pushed into the opposing camp, and the prevailing extremism dismisses the need to even hear your full opinion.
This culture of divided loyalties and enforced camps, once confined to politics and scattered here and there, has now permeated every sphere of life and every level of society, surpassing all danger signals.
While one side, led by the Sangh Parivar, attempts to crush and homogenise the diversity and plurality in our society and culture, stifling dissenting voices to impose uniformity, the other side slices this homogenised mass into exactly two parts, forcibly assigning you to one side even if you resist.
Starting in politics and engulfing the entire society, this sycophantic culture has now embraced a divisive culture, decreeing that there can only be two opinions — no third perspective is allowed.
A recent prominent incident reflects that the dire state of our society has become glaringly evident.
Two members of the upper house of Telangana — names are unnecessary; let’s call them X and Y — behaved in a manner unbecoming of their positions. X used inappropriate, objectionable, vulgar, and personally insulting language against Y. In response, Y incited her followers to physically attack X or, at the very least, failed to prevent such an attack despite knowing it was happening.
After these events, the opportunity to impartially analyse the incidents, identify right and wrong, and acknowledge that both committed errors of varying degrees has vanished. Saying one is wrong is interpreted as implying the other is right.
“X shouldn’t have said that,” is met with accusations that it’s an attack on our culture. Instead of discussing the right or wrong of the words, they dig up history, cite irrelevant references, and illogically argue, “nothing wrong with saying those words now”.
When you say, “the physical attack was uncalled for; the scene of bloodshed and violence was excessive,” Y’s supporters retort, “if those words were said about your family, would you sit idly? If we had caught them, we would’ve cut out the tongue that spoke those words,” brazenly justifying their criminal actions.
Without considering right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, they display sycophancy and division culture, proclaiming, “everything our side does is right; whatever the other side does is wrong.” In doing so, they insult Telangana by claiming this is Telangana’s culture.
The environment for quietly discussing differing opinions is becoming scarce. If a wrong word slips out, whether by mistake or intent, the humility to correct oneself or apologise after others point it out is disappearing.
Despite its flaws, in the olden days, village gatherings at the chavadi, by the lake, in front of the temple would see people cursing each other’s ancestors and fathers, yet once it was over, they’d reconcile and move on together — a rustic wisdom that seems to be fading now.
On one side, verbal assaults with humiliating words, and on the other, bloody physical attacks — the deteriorating political culture that forms the backdrop to these incidents reveals, upon closer inspection, what is happening to our social values, culture, and discourse. It’s frightening to imagine how much further this decline might go in the future.
First and foremost, using the phrase “bed-sharing” when personally addressing a woman is entirely objectionable, inappropriate, and humiliating. If such a wrong word slips out in the heat of the moment, one should immediately recognise it or correct oneself when others point it out; retract the word, and apologise to those hurt by it.
That’s the courtesy society demands. Instead, justifications like “this is our culture,” “it’s in such-and-such book,” “your father wrote the foreword to that government-published book,” or “it’s an insult to our caste” are even more inappropriate and reprehensible.
The phrase “food-sharing and bed-sharing” exists in society; it’s not newly coined. They now cite its presence in Telangana Sametalu (Telangana Proverbs), published by the Telangana Sahitya Academy in 2017 under Chaitanya Prakash’s editorship.
However, it’s not just there — it also appears in Telugu Sametalu published by the Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Academy in 1959, in Telugu Sametalu edited by Divakarla Venkatavadhani, P Yashoda Reddy, and Marupuru Kodandaram Reddy, published by Telugu University in 1986, and in Sametalu – Podupukathalu (Proverbs and Riddles) edited by Gajula Satyanarayana in 2008, which includes the proverb, “There’s food-sharing but no bed-sharing.”
In sociology, when discussing caste, alongside traits like birth and hereditary occupations, the absence of food-sharing and bed-sharing is also noted. Some have simplified (perhaps trivialised) the concepts of commensality and marital relations into “food” and “bed.” As a broad analytical tool in social or collective contexts, the phrase might not be wrong.
However, when used personally against an individual, it inevitably carries a wrong connotation, becoming humiliating, inappropriate, and objectionable. Saying there’s no food-sharing or bed-sharing between two castes might be a sociological observation, but using it against an individual is unequivocally wrong.
Generally, what seems broadly correct in nature, society, or individual contexts may not hold at a micro level. Distant hills appear smooth.
From a distance, you see woods, but up close, you see only trees. A road that looks straight on a map has many turns in reality. Similarly, notions that seem appropriate at a broad, collective, or social level can be problematic when applied individually. It’s entirely wrong, especially when used against someone from a marginalised and oppressed group prone to disdain, inequality, suspicion, humiliation, or discrimination.
In the current controversy, the phrase might be valid in sociology when used broadly about group relations, but using it against an individual is wrong. It’s a phrase to be used cautiously, not recklessly, and especially when directed at a woman, it’s utterly wrong.
When such a mistake occurs, it cannot be corrected with another mistake. Efforts can be made to help the person who erred recognise his mistake, bring it to public attention for widespread condemnation, to encourage the individual to correct himself.
Protests can be expressed personally or collectively in front of the erring individual. Since using such inappropriate language violates the modesty of a woman, it is also an offence, and legal action can be pursued. There are many such solutions.
In reality, no solution is truly complete. Once spoken, a word cannot be undone, and the wound it causes doesn’t heal. However, in a civilised society, beyond apologies or legal trials and punishments, no greater punishment has been devised for those who use such inappropriate language.
Some might think, “We don’t need society’s accepted solutions; we’ll take personal revenge, impose physical punishment ourselves, following the primitive ‘eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth’ principle.” Many around us think this way.
However, this is neither lawful nor civilised behaviour; it only complicates the problem further. Modern governance systems assert that even victims don’t have the right to take “an eye for an eye” and that the state will conduct inquiries and impose prescribed punishments on their behalf.
What’s ironic, strange, and tragic in this context is that both the person who used humiliating language and those who took the law into their own hands to mete out punishment are part of the same governance system.
They are members of the legislative body, responsible for making laws, and prominent figures in political and social spheres. Yet, they are neither the first to use such language nor the first to resort to physical attacks. Over the past few decades, our political discourse has become so degraded.
Those with physical strength, wealth, or authority in our society act with impunity, disregarding the law. Regardless of their political affiliation, many of our political leaders continue to use inappropriate language and take the law into their own hands through physical attacks.
The fundamental problem in our society lies here. Members of legislative structures, rich and powerful, political leaders, and those in power are the root cause of societal ills, irregularities, and inappropriate behaviours.
They nurture and perpetuate them. By dividing society, surrounding themselves with sycophants, and trumpeting that their truth is the only truth while dismissing the other side as entirely false, they fuel this falsehood from both sides. It is the people’s responsibility to dismantle this falsehood and uphold the truth.
(Edited by Muhammed Fazil.)
