The BJP’s declining map and the facelessness of the Opposition, the Congress in particular, defined the larger political trend of 2019

Rarely has a year been so tumultuous where democracy has been upended, unsettled, challenged and feudalised as it has been in India. But perhaps we needed the chaos and confusion rather than status quo and complacence to wake up to the idea of our roles as citizens. May be even take charge now. It would be easy enough to attribute the rise of Narendra Modi to a global spiral of absolutism and protectionism across nation states but the muscle of his leadership has simply grown because we have allowed it. First, it has to be the traditional politics of votebank, castes and quotas, which engendered a policy paralysis of sorts in compromised governments for years, that spooked people about entrusting their lives to the same parties. The little noise about development that the ruling BJP made in its first stint was enough to cover its larger non-performance, which it conveniently dismissed as a legacy of wasted years by predecessors. Besides, the Opposition’s facelessness of purpose made Modi, not the BJP as much, more attractive as he went out to seek a second term in office. Despite the desolateness of a top-down, handout prescription of governance, Modi could humanise it as emanating from the people themselves through some smart PR campaigns, populist schemes and chaupal conversations through Mann Ki Baat. The Opposition just could not answer the question “Modi versus who?” despite a pan-India movement and public angst against economic policies and crony capitalism. That vacuum dispiritedly created by an Opposition — mainly the Congress which was egoistic about its role rather than making common cause with regional leaders — was quickly filled in by Modi as the only functioning alternative, making him even taller than he intended to be. Hypernationalism, post the Pulwama terrorist attacks, in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed, and communal polarisation, the result of BJP’s otherisation politics of lynching and cow vigilantism, did the rest. Everybody wilfully signed up for the identity politics of the times because overnight they were given a new enemy to think about, one that was eating into their majoritarian bloodstream like a “virus” and bigger than any national crisis before it. He crafted a world of post-truths where people believed whatever absurdity they were told simply because dissent was quashed ruthlessly as a lie and a by-product of the poison spread by the “virus.” The Hindu sense of self-esteem was never lowered to such an extent that it needed to fear a mere 14 per cent of “others.” Nor was Hindu tolerance so derided that it needed to proclaim its insecurities. Never was Hindu politics so virulent, giving the BJP a mammoth Lok Sabha majority in May and altering civil discourse forever. The vocabulary of public life plunged to new lows of barbarism but was still legitimised, even as institutions, be it the Election Commission or the Supreme Court, chose to flow with the “emotion” of the times. The May verdict was, therefore, like a temblor that challenged the fundamental tenets of our Constitution. The “born-again” Hindu purification, be it through politics or culture, is a miraculous strategy, simply because it absolves the ruling dispensation from accounting for its past and focusses the gaze from this moment on as a regenerative attempt.

But the problem with becoming an enabler of hate politics is that you become its victim when it acquires monstrous proportions. A majoritarian votebank can be just as troubling as a minority one. This happened in the last quarter where reset and default settings kicked in. First, the regional parties, which were too shell-shocked by their Lok Sabha performance, went back to working their home turfs. By sticking to core issues like livelihood, jobs, climate disasters, land and farmers’ rights, they have individually generated a federal swell of a counter-movement. This despite the BJP’s persistent Hindu narrative and implanting its key poll promises, the abrogation of Article 370, the Ayodhya temple, rehabilitating persecuted Hindus elsewhere and a compilation of a reformed dossier of citizens as a National Register of Citizens (NRC), in our minds. But the polls in Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand have shown that these do not matter as governance imperatives. They also showed that the Opposition, when organised and bound by a strong leadership, could defeat the BJP at its own game, its local leaders as doers and sons of the soil than a distant and centrist Modi, their rootedness of more consequence than a nationalist vision.  And if the protests over the NRC compilation are any indication, then the pushback from States via non-cooperation could trouble even a majoritarian Government greatly. The Congress needs to realise that it either has to cede ground or humbly create a new identity with new leaders; familiarity only breeds contempt for it in the mind of the voter. It can be a catalysing force provided it doesn’t repackage tired talent but new energies. Internationally, for all the diplomatic strides the Modi regime made in terms of curating stronger ground with the US, France, Russia and China, intensifying ties with neighbours on a one-to-one basis, and blitzing opinion makers with events like Howdy Modi, its police excesses during protests have cost us our image. Loyalists would dismiss it saying how does it matter when authoritarian regimes like to go on with their ways despite getting lambasted. But much of India’s respect is dependent on how we uphold our civilisational ethos, not how we erode it. Can we really afford that loss and be bracketed as a nation with a dubious record at world fora? The impassioned students’ movement has given us hope at the end of the year as they have reclaimed ownership of the idea of India as it should be, rushing in where politicians failed. Do not misunderstand their position, they just want to do away with structures that privilege exclusion over inclusion and remind us of a Rashtra dharma. And give power to what “I” can do, here and now, with “others” rather than running away by speaking in the third person.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)

The BJP’s declining map and the facelessness of the Opposition, the Congress in particular, defined the larger political trend of 2019

Rarely has a year been so tumultuous where democracy has been upended, unsettled, challenged and feudalised as it has been in India. But perhaps we needed the chaos and confusion rather than status quo and complacence to wake up to the idea of our roles as citizens. May be even take charge now. It would be easy enough to attribute the rise of Narendra Modi to a global spiral of absolutism and protectionism across nation states but the muscle of his leadership has simply grown because we have allowed it. First, it has to be the traditional politics of votebank, castes and quotas, which engendered a policy paralysis of sorts in compromised governments for years, that spooked people about entrusting their lives to the same parties. The little noise about development that the ruling BJP made in its first stint was enough to cover its larger non-performance, which it conveniently dismissed as a legacy of wasted years by predecessors. Besides, the Opposition’s facelessness of purpose made Modi, not the BJP as much, more attractive as he went out to seek a second term in office. Despite the desolateness of a top-down, handout prescription of governance, Modi could humanise it as emanating from the people themselves through some smart PR campaigns, populist schemes and chaupal conversations through Mann Ki Baat. The Opposition just could not answer the question “Modi versus who?” despite a pan-India movement and public angst against economic policies and crony capitalism. That vacuum dispiritedly created by an Opposition — mainly the Congress which was egoistic about its role rather than making common cause with regional leaders — was quickly filled in by Modi as the only functioning alternative, making him even taller than he intended to be. Hypernationalism, post the Pulwama terrorist attacks, in which 40 CRPF jawans were killed, and communal polarisation, the result of BJP’s otherisation politics of lynching and cow vigilantism, did the rest. Everybody wilfully signed up for the identity politics of the times because overnight they were given a new enemy to think about, one that was eating into their majoritarian bloodstream like a “virus” and bigger than any national crisis before it. He crafted a world of post-truths where people believed whatever absurdity they were told simply because dissent was quashed ruthlessly as a lie and a by-product of the poison spread by the “virus.” The Hindu sense of self-esteem was never lowered to such an extent that it needed to fear a mere 14 per cent of “others.” Nor was Hindu tolerance so derided that it needed to proclaim its insecurities. Never was Hindu politics so virulent, giving the BJP a mammoth Lok Sabha majority in May and altering civil discourse forever. The vocabulary of public life plunged to new lows of barbarism but was still legitimised, even as institutions, be it the Election Commission or the Supreme Court, chose to flow with the “emotion” of the times. The May verdict was, therefore, like a temblor that challenged the fundamental tenets of our Constitution. The “born-again” Hindu purification, be it through politics or culture, is a miraculous strategy, simply because it absolves the ruling dispensation from accounting for its past and focusses the gaze from this moment on as a regenerative attempt.

But the problem with becoming an enabler of hate politics is that you become its victim when it acquires monstrous proportions. A majoritarian votebank can be just as troubling as a minority one. This happened in the last quarter where reset and default settings kicked in. First, the regional parties, which were too shell-shocked by their Lok Sabha performance, went back to working their home turfs. By sticking to core issues like livelihood, jobs, climate disasters, land and farmers’ rights, they have individually generated a federal swell of a counter-movement. This despite the BJP’s persistent Hindu narrative and implanting its key poll promises, the abrogation of Article 370, the Ayodhya temple, rehabilitating persecuted Hindus elsewhere and a compilation of a reformed dossier of citizens as a National Register of Citizens (NRC), in our minds. But the polls in Haryana, Maharashtra and Jharkhand have shown that these do not matter as governance imperatives. They also showed that the Opposition, when organised and bound by a strong leadership, could defeat the BJP at its own game, its local leaders as doers and sons of the soil than a distant and centrist Modi, their rootedness of more consequence than a nationalist vision.  And if the protests over the NRC compilation are any indication, then the pushback from States via non-cooperation could trouble even a majoritarian Government greatly. The Congress needs to realise that it either has to cede ground or humbly create a new identity with new leaders; familiarity only breeds contempt for it in the mind of the voter. It can be a catalysing force provided it doesn’t repackage tired talent but new energies. Internationally, for all the diplomatic strides the Modi regime made in terms of curating stronger ground with the US, France, Russia and China, intensifying ties with neighbours on a one-to-one basis, and blitzing opinion makers with events like Howdy Modi, its police excesses during protests have cost us our image. Loyalists would dismiss it saying how does it matter when authoritarian regimes like to go on with their ways despite getting lambasted. But much of India’s respect is dependent on how we uphold our civilisational ethos, not how we erode it. Can we really afford that loss and be bracketed as a nation with a dubious record at world fora? The impassioned students’ movement has given us hope at the end of the year as they have reclaimed ownership of the idea of India as it should be, rushing in where politicians failed. Do not misunderstand their position, they just want to do away with structures that privilege exclusion over inclusion and remind us of a Rashtra dharma. And give power to what “I” can do, here and now, with “others” rather than running away by speaking in the third person.

(Courtesy: The Pioneer)