Punjab will soon cast its vote. Punjabis will stream in their hundreds, thousands, to the nearest polling booths set up in schools from which kids have been kept away because schools could have, ostensibly, spread Covid, and will cast their votes. These will eventually be counted, and newspapers will carry endless stories about farmer leaders and their choices under the Sanyukt Samaj Morcha, losing their security deposits.

MANY WILL CHUCKLE AT THE NUMBER OF VOTES BALBIR SINGH RAJEWAL secure in Samrala. The fate of Prem Singh Bhangoo will give rise to endless mirth even among the hordes of those who spent a year at the Singhu border.

The total number of seats that the SSM will eventually win will become a subject of joke among second rung leaders of BKU Ekta-Ugrahan. Deeper shades of Red will colour Rajewal’s comrades pink lite.

Of course, all of these surmises could turn out to be completely off the mark, and for all you know, Rajewal could be sworn in as the Chief Minister of Punjab by the state governor, with Sidhu, Channi, Badals, Bhagwant Mann sitting in the front rows. In that case, Prof Manjit Singh could be a Deputy Chief Minister, and might be required to fight an election within six months. Lakha Sidhana would, with his experience, of course, be the home minister.

But that scenario isn’t getting much traction in the satta bazaar.

As of now, you could bet on them losing their security deposits and make some honest gambling money yourself.

Be that as it may, I am more interested in what our reactions could be to those headlines about SSM’s losses, the reactions beyond the “I told you so” or routine mocking or even trolling.

For a state that has watched an Andolan and large sections of whose populace has been part of a people’s resistance movement, there is bound to be a welter of strong feelings. And all of it could be very disorienting. The loss of those who were our comrades till the other day, who did not listen to us, or who believed in taking a different route to ostensibly reach the same objective of effecting more lasting change, is near certain to elicit a feeling of mirth.

The fact is that those in the forefront, SSM had made a significant contribution to whipping up, sustaining and carrying forward a movement that had brought diverse elements of society and had helped in channelling their energies in such a manner as to demolish the invincibility of an all powerful leader and regime.

Then, they parted ways. They wanted to go for executive power. They chose to fight elections. Others opposed them. They advised the SSM not to make this ‘mistake’. They told them this will weaken the pressure group that has been able to effectively defeat a much stronger enemy.

But the twain was not meant to meet. From a Rajewal/Charuni at the top to lesser minions like a university professor turned semi-politico turned un-appointed advisor to a rogue-turned-rogue element who remains a gangster in farmer politics, power beckoned them all. Well, not power, but the possibility of power. More precisely, not the possibility of power but a whiff of a possibility of power.

And then the story unravelled. The lack of preparation, the utter ideological bankruptcy in its outreach to the AAP and Kejriwal, the impressive clarity about Rajewal being the leader and the utter lack of clarity about anything else, the drama in seeking recognition from the Election Commission, its announcement of a manifesto committee without even seeking consent from those named, the selection of candidates, the embrace with which it received turncoats from parties it hated, the mess up in its relationship with the SKM, and the thinly-veiled cleverness in selecting a name for itself — everything pointed out to an utter lack of any scruples. One year at the Singhu border had not added a single moral strain to the character.

Any commercial brand arguing that SSM was not an attempt to steal the goodwill of SKM would have been laughed out of its stance in a trial court, but SSM had developed a much thicker skin.

One year at the Singhu border had not added a single moral strain to the character.

Now, the only reason some of those who hailed the same bunch currently called SSM are waiting for the day of the balloting is because it will be followed up by the counting of votes and then will come the day of those headlines they want to chuckle over: How many of the SSM candidates have lost their security deposits?

Many a chuckle are in waiting. Ignore the chuckles that will echo in the Akali Dal or Congress or AAP camp, but the ones that will come from within the Singhu Border camp. It is a saddening feeling, much like feeling vindicated by someone’s death. It’s almost immoral, but it also seems reflexive. Human.

Germans have a term for such joy, one that comes from another’s misfortune: Schadenfreude.

Colin Wayne Leach, a psychology professor at Columbia University, has spent a lifetime studying schadenfreude and has authored key works such as Psychology as Politics. He says schadenfreude comes from extreme polarization within the ranks. You love to see your enemies suffering because of what they believed, and how much they differed from you and how they did not mend their ways even when you told them to in all seriousness.

The chuckles from within the Singhu border camp will be almost immoral, but it also seems reflexive. Germans have a term for such joy, one that comes from another’s misfortune: Schadenfreude.

It is almost like not being sad at the death of someone due to Covid who had refused to be vaccinated even when you were feverishly looking for a booster dose and had told him not to listen to the inanities of some “Azad-style” doctor warning everyone about saamrajwadi sazish!

We have become practitioners of schadenfreude in our families, society, offices, relationship, politics. It has become natural. And acceptable. Human nature, some tell me. I have watched the glee on the face and in the voice of CNN anchors when reporting about the death of someone who railed against vaccines!

You can watch and listen to its corollary any day. Just turn to Fox News and listen to them talking about how someone with a double vaccination has picked up the virus. There’s almost vindication in their voice.

You will hear the same tone and glee when the election results are out and SSM wickets fall by the wayside in scores.

We have become practitioners of schadenfreude in our families, society, offices, relationship, politics. It has become natural. And acceptable.

The question is – should we be celebrating the defeat or loss of our comrades?

Let me tell you a story that the world has told itself for a couple of thousand years now, and that professors researching schadenfreude often tell their students: Two men were crucified at the same time as Jesus, one on his right and one on his left. They were both thieves. They mocked Jesus.

The story is slightly different in the Gospel of Luke. It goes like this:

Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.”

The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me, when you come into your kingdom.”

He replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

You can discuss the difference between Luke’s account and that of Mark and Matthew till Kingdom come, but see the one similar point the story makes, and that point is this: Jesus did not say to the two, or one (in Luke), “That’s what you get if you steal or rob.”

He said: “Today you will be with me in paradise.”

Gloating at the loss of those who differed from us is an immoral act, even if they differed from us despite our sincere warnings.

Schadenfreude is not even a loosely moral value.

Crowing over the death of a dream of some who parted ways with us even when we shared the larger bigger dream will show us how small we eventually turned out to be.

It is a reflexive emotion, this crowing/gloating. It is not a moral one. Schadenfreude is the dead end of our souls. People who find the misfortune of others as a matter of mirth are very small people.

Schadenfreude is not even a loosely moral value.

We are waiting for the day of counting to become very small people. And I see you doing that, and I recall a lot of moral talk that you indulged in on the Singhu/Tikri border stages, and it threatened to drown me in a flood of schadenfreude, and it is taking me some effort not to fall for it.

It is reflexive, but not humane.

All andolans are about becoming more humane. None are about becoming small men, or small women.