How the electoral agenda has been hijacked in the run up to 2019
India is rapidly moving towards state and then parliamentary elections. The tempo has increased. But it is all blame game. The Congress, led by the now fortified and aggressive Rahul Gandhi, is unable to point to the future. The BJP, led by Narendra Modi, engineered by Amit Shah, reverse the gaze. After the usual denial, they attack Congress's past, going with a historic ease to 1950 even earlier as if the Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Sonia era were the same.
Destroy Congress
The general aim is that the Congress must be destroyed as namdar (name), not kamdar (work). Its destruction is primary as the only national party with national credentials. Just as Roman leaders said Carthago delendam est (Carthage must be destroyed), the cry is Congress delendam est. In power, Modi took care of destroying Congress government through President's Rule (Arunachal, Uttaranchal) and governors (Nagaland, Manipur Goa and almost Karnataka). Pressure is on to destroy liberal activists so that their voice becomes suspect. This is the outcome of the Pune First Information Reports. To liberal activists, this seems a gamble. But Modi's cohorts are not speaking to the liberals, but to destroy their image in mass politics.
Side by side runs the campaign Modi versus Rahul. The Opposition is drawn into this helplessly. It is an unequal battle.
This is not how our Constitution visualised elections. Under the Constitution, elections were supposed to be constituency based around whom the sagacious Krishna Iyer called that "little man" (and woman) who summons the courage to cast his vote amidst money, muscle, booth capturing and EVM machines. Panchayats were supposed to decentralised electoral choice. But the "little man" is now being forced to surrender to "mass politics", no longer a benevolent target, except as part of the 'mass'.
Between 2004 and 2014, Sonia's Congress targeted the marginals and offered socioeconomic alternatives but it suffered entropic decay. Modi's BJP has no such claim. With Vajpayee's India Shining of 2004 in the past, it concentrates on the "leader". The gauntlet is: Who can challenge Modi? In this presidential set up, we are no longer looking at electoral constituent-based democracy but the 'leader' and the 'mass'. Taking up this challenge in the style of Rahul Gandhi is a mistake. Behind Modi is the army of the Sangh, behind his opponent, the challenge of charisma falters. The answer lies in (i) returning to the constituency where the little person votes, and (ii) acceptance of multi-leadership which has to come together.
The real mobilisation is of nationalism portrayed by Hindu nationalism. Even Vajpayee adopted the Ram temple, Article 370 and the Uniform Civil Code openly and sub silentio. During the Khehar-Misra regime, the Supreme Court was made the situs of triple talaq and Chief Justice Misra allowed the bigamy issues to go to a Constitution Bench to make a statement and defer it beyond his time. In the Babri Masjid appeal, I asked why some issues on Muslim worship were not being sent to a larger bench if bigamy was.
Hindutva card
But the mandir is one part of the campaign to show Muslims unworthy. This is accompanied by ghar wapsi, cow lynchings, expulsion policies, violence, and intolerance. Before the electoral period, all this is impermissible for which the foundation is being laid now. Somewhat disastrously, the Supreme Court says that Hindutva can still be an election appeal even if a recent decision by a majority appeals to the religion of others or one's own cannot be made but only by candidates and their agents.
The BJP-led NDA relies on a macho image in its military and economic exploits. This macho image, clearly masculine, is contrasted with earlier regimes. We get the 'strategic strike' with Pakistan, subdued with China. Behind this macho portrayal, it seeks solace in Trump's America but is on its knees on the issue of tariffs. America's denigrations of Pakistan is seen as a plus point. Economic policy is also part of this macho image expressing itself through demonetisation presented as a 'bold' step when others faltered. The attack of its lack of success bows to the boldness of the image.
Polls fought like wars
Kashmir is another such projection. The combined imagery is of Indian nationalism so ably supported by the Supreme Court in its directions to play the national anthem. Modi's hunger for foreign trips does not make him an internationalist. Abroad he is conciliatory, abandoning the national interest, succumbing to trade deals including Rafael. Replying to the confidence motion after acerbic oratory, his litany was on domestic policies but his nationalism combined with Sangh Parivar's perspective underlies the upcoming elections.
These elections are high risk. The stake is our constitutional ethos. India is the greatest experiment in multi-cultural living the world has ever seen. It has greater diversity than all nations to the East, all the nations and cultures of Africa, all of Europe and North America or its South counterpart. India has an unparalleled linguistic and religious diversity. It is the second or third largest Muslim country with other faiths, followers more than in many countries. The Constitution was designed to preserve this unique constellation, not to tear it apart because Hindus are more than others. These elections are about India's soul.
Yet the incoming elections threaten the very concept of India. Whatever it was in 1947, it is not an imagined community. Elections are not like battles but wars. The little person who votes has to withstand the mass.
(Courtesy of Mail Today)