The modern democratic framework puts effective stress on free and fair elections, to generate legal and moral authority for governments to perform their function. If one can establish absolute trust in the modus operandi of these elections, be it the earlier used systems of ballot papers or the widespread adoption of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), there still remains an inherent piece of the puzzle which remains to be considered effectively – who are we essentially putting in power?
An emerging trend following the advent of social media has been to create data sets of voter behaviour and analysing what the public celebrates and links to the nation as a whole – like the Indian team winning a cricket match, or attacking a hostile neighbour through surgical strikes. These events give purpose to an otherwise idle population, which takes pride in the ‘nation’ without seeing what people in the nation are really concerned about.
How else could we explain the deliberate ignoring and condemnation of large marches by farmers in cities like Mumbai and Delhi, but the widespread celebration of something as wasteful for the public as the Statue of Unity built on the banks of river Narmada? How is it that organisations like the RSS can publicl carry out armed processions but adivasis and other activists protesting across the country against illegal land-grabbing and deprivation of their lives are mercilessly beaten and prosecuted under laws of sedition?
Nationalism And Toxic Masculinity
The appeal to the voters to cast their votes in favour of a strong and fiery leader is expected to build the discourse on hyper-masculine appeals of a nation-state, still trying to find its due place in the global diaspora. What else is the emerging trend which sanctions the revelry of chest beating and repeated theatrics of the incumbent Prime Minister! As the elected head of government, when Mr. Modi challenges opponents, domestic and outside, using a language we had not heard of statesmen invoking before, these are celebrated as the way forward in political discourses.
The recurring misogyny of these leaders is conveniently ignored even when they disrespect and patronise women leaders. Slowly, even women leaders among the ruling classes pick up this language and ask their male counterparts to prove if they have the guts to stand up to these leaders. ‘Maa ka doodh piye hain ki nahi?’ (Have you not drunk your mother’s milk?)
The primary accusations against Mr. Manmohan Singh, a veteran of the Congress party and architect of bringing home the neo-liberal agenda, were not made to address his polices, but his appearance and his tone. His simplicity and self-righteousness were no match for the upcoming contenders and their flamboyance. Glittered with large events and media coverage, we saw the current PM address all election rallies, visiting foreign countries and bypass parliamentary process – to do what he deemed fit – of course in the service of the motherland.
For a country which took a physical shape in the course of British imperialism, the mainstream history of the country juxtaposes several junctures during the Indian National movement with a deep sense of inferiority among people in the Indian sub-continent. A subsequent struggle for entry and access of Indians in administrative, cultural and political participation ensued. The largely Brahmin leadership of the freedom struggle ignored centuries of oppression it had caused through building several layers of control over land and other resources, social privilege and diktats of cultural norms.
The post-independence period has seen the consolidation of privilege of these caste-class groups to appropriate power – social, cultural, economic and political. The state of top leadership in media houses, government offices across the country, academia, industry and the private sector clearly show a domination by these members of the society. Through a complex set of instructions based on kinship, endogamy, property rights and control of sexuality, men belonging to dominant castes have continued to shape the discourses of polity in their favour, lending support to machoism and maintenance of caste-pride.
The toxic masculinity, which one gets to hear so frequently about, resonates and echoes, sometimes in media debates, sometimes in living rooms.
India ranks 130th out of 189 countries on the Human Development Index by the end of 2018. Welthungerhilfe and Concern Worldwide listed India among the 45 countries that have ‘serious levels of hunger’. The Reuters Thomson Foundation listed India as the most dangerous place in the world to live for women, after war-torn Syria and Afghanistan. These reports and indices are regularly rubbished by state agencies, and as many argue, apparently reflect the deep prejudice of the world towards India.
But what of the things we see every day? Growing underemployment makes headlines when thousands of graduates apply for 20 seats in low-paying clerical jobs, or even as cleaners and security guards. Deaths caused by malnutrition are first denied by governments, and when it becomes apparent that withdrawal of essential state functions, and widespread corruption in the targeting of beneficiaries is leading to precarious conditions of the citizenry, public frenzy tries to restore some order.
The country is inherently uncomfortable in recognising the various forms of exploitation faced by more than three-fourths of its population. When it comes to women, the outcry against the observation that India could be the most dangerous place for women seems unimaginable for many – who would then make comparisons with war-torn regions, or those dreaded Islamic regimes.
It stumps ordinary Indians when large crowds assemble to demand their due rights. When it comes to more than 700 tribal groups with a population of 10.4 million people, the national mainstream treats them as either subjects of study or celebrates their culture without understanding the deep symbiotic relationship indigenous populations have had with natural resources, wildlife and forests.
The same government agencies which celebrates them as ‘diversity’ puts their land and livelihoods at stake to bring huge investments pocketed by a few companies, in severe violations of laws and legal precedents. New found growth models have brought havoc to millions of people in this country, and the trend does not seem to stop. Do we really need fact-checks by large agencies to take this point home? Or is it an inconvenient truth that we would rather look away from – like the young child which sells you balloons, pens, flowers or the national flag at the traffic signal?
Vote, But Not For Your PM
A dominant discourse which has been built over this period is to provide a strong face, undeterred and seamless in the face of any trouble. Polemics have ensured that anything uttered by anyone is carried far and wide, made fun off, applauded, critiqued and condemned. Public discourse has conveniently ignored long questions faced by people and paraded half-lies in front of us.
The most common question of who the next Prime Minister is going to be, I believe, is a non-question really. India does not vote for a Prime Minister. It votes for members to be elected to their panchayats and urban local bodies, state legislatures, and the Parliament. The strength in the respective house decides the formation of the council of ministers, and among them a leader of the executive. It is fairly simple and well-illustrated in the Constitution.
But the voter has been obsessed with who their Prime Minister would be! S/he barely cares about the ideology or the performance record of the individuals contesting from their area. Polarisation, cut deep along lines of caste, religion and sects have determined the wins and losses in democratic setups. The incumbent government has cried foul about the coming together of the opposition – the Mahagathbandhan, saying it is afraid to face Modi all alone. The recent rally in Kolkata saw several leaders coming together on a common platform without announcing who their candidate for Prime Minister would be. While this really could be political compulsions to not project a face for the top post, it is a welcome move.
The experiences of a highly powerful central government have put additional pressure on the federal structure of the country. Ministry officials have regularly expressed displeasure at the insistence of following orders from the PMO in matters essentially under the purview of their departments.
A culture of questioning has given way to a culture of silence. Although tight lipped, the judiciary is as much in the line of fire, with the executive taking proactive measures to bring the appointment of judges under its control. Relationship of the states and the centre have taken a strong hit – and state governments are competing for fiscal support and policy diktats, even in the wake of looming disasters.
What Do We Make Of It?
India has claimed itself to be a land of diversity – of several languages, sects, practices, customs, and the amalgamation of these together through the binding document of the Constitution of India. How is it that this idea of India stands threatened today? Hyper-nationalism is not patriotism. What is it that leaders across the political spectrum have stopped short of saying? How is an ever growing country going to take care of its basic needs and address the questions of the lives of its citizens if they are not considered seriously? How is the youth going to respond to the questions looming over their identity, freedom and expression and the need for dignified lives?
So should we put our trust in one man or a group of men then? Perhaps put that trust in oneself, and in friends and comrades who walk together with us, untiringly, unequivocally.