Looking beyond the glitz and glory of electoral success

IT is always easy and tempting to get carried away by success stories. And hence, it is not surprising that many of our television anchors, political analysts and ‘election experts’ are speaking of ‘Modi magic’. What else can they do, particularly when Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with his boundless energy, power of rhetoric and mass appeal, has proved once again that he alone can ensure the BJP’s electoral success even in ‘difficult’ states such as Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where, as many political pundits thought, the Congress was a serious contender? Yet, amid this euphoria of success and subsequent demoralisation of those who have failed, a question haunts me: Can everything about the politico-cultural worldview the BJP represents be justified, even if it is sanctified and legitimised by the logic of electoral success and associated mathematics of numbers? Or, for that matter, can the political opponents of PM Modi ever succeed without a sustained cultural struggle? Seldom do I notice our political commentators reflecting on these serious issues and seeing beyond the mere winning strategy.

Advertisement

Think of, for instance, three central features of the dominant political discourse which has severely affected the cultural domain: (a) Hindutva — not the religiosity of love and compassion — as an identity-marker for proving one’s loyalty to the nation; (b) the cult of narcissism that tends to reduce us to a captive audience to be hypnotised by the supreme leader’s ‘superhuman’ qualities; and (c) the normalisation of the psychology of hatred and associated toxic vocabulary disseminated through the troll army and the speeches made by politicians. This wound in the cultural and psychic domain is so deep that it is impossible to imagine an alternative/liberating politics without a cultural renaissance, even if the BJP’s opponents somehow manage to win the elections through appropriate ‘strategies’ or ‘social engineering’.

It is pretty clear that the discourse of hyper-nationalism implicit in the ideology of militant Hindutva cannot be fought through the kind of soft Hindutva envisioned by figures like Kamal Nath visualised in Madhya Pradesh. Likewise, the logic of a caste census, which the Opposition saw as a master strategy to minimise the appeal of Hindutva, didn’t work. It is not surprising because the BJP, far from existing merely as a party of forward-caste elites, has expanded its base. In fact, it is not difficult to find a significant section of the power-seeking OBCs and other marginalised castes or even adivasis trying to have a close affinity with the ‘unifying’ appeal of Hindutva through which the RSS, with its widely spread network of shakhas, seeks to create a new kind of hegemony. It is time to accept that the militancy of Hindu nationalism cannot be fought without redefining religion as the spirit of love, compassion and social justice which our great saints and mystics such as Kabir Das and Narayana Guru embodied.

Likewise, we need to draw meaningful insights from Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, Jyotirao Phule and BR Ambedkar, and Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in order to popularise the idea of a spiritually enriched secular and egalitarian state comfortable with religious pluralism, cultural heterogeneity and compassionate nationalism. Beyond Machiavellian ‘strategies’, this requires a positive and constructive work in the domain of culture.

The carefully crafted ‘larger-than-life’ image of the Prime Minister, the marginalisation of all other voices within the ruling party, and the cacophony of ‘Modi, Modi’ as he entered Parliament after the massive victory in the recent Assembly elections — all these practices symbolise the deteriorating health of our democracy. Democracy is about collective leadership; it is about dialogue, humility and compassionate listening. However, we are witnessing the erosion of the dialogic spirit of democracy. And when, as ordinary citizens, we allow ourselves to be hypnotised by this culture of narcissism, we fail to play our roles as awakened and informed citizens. If Modi’s political opponents wish to resist this sort of narcissistic politics — the politics that reduces the state’s welfare policies such as free vaccines or free ration into charity or a gift from the ‘messiah’ — they have to work in the realm of culture and political education. They need to converse with people with patience and compassion, and make them see that democracy is their right; it is for their collective emancipation; and it is, therefore, important to demand structural transformation for generating education and employment opportunities rather than competitive freebie policies in an otherwise neoliberal regime that favours the rich and unites cultural nationalism with crony capitalism. Once again, it is a long cultural battle.

Moreover, with the normalisation of toxic vocabulary in the prevalent political culture, it is becoming exceedingly difficult to create an environment conducive to civilised debate and dialogue in the public sphere. PM Modi ridiculed Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi by calling him ‘Murkhon ka sardar’. And Rahul, despite his ‘Mohabbat ki dukaan’ slogan, failed to resist the temptation of calling the Prime Minister panauti (ill omen) while referring to India’s loss to Australia in the cricket World Cup final. Think of this collective degeneration.

Will it be possible to create another kind of political culture free from this sort of hatred and psychic violence? Or will we continue to accept that everything is justified so long as it helps you win the elections?