The mind-boggling frenzy with which electronic and print media and so-called ‘social media’ dominated by the privileged sections reacted to the speech delivered by Congress President Rahul Gandhi at the meeting of the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), is in fact the culmination of the sustained campaign carried out by these self-proclaimed ‘Fourth Pillar’ of democracy for the past several months, which itself was cutting at the roots of Parliamentary democracy and the Constitutional order of Indian polity. The animated debates on the electronic media where the anchor and participants vie with each other in over-screaming and reams of newsprint disgorging trash in columns and analyses on the strengths and weaknesses of contenders for the Prime Minister’s post in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, penned by ‘reputed’ political analysts leaders of political parties and retired bureaucrats. The more confused noise made by number of panelists and ‘moderating’ anchors speaking together in the 9 pm debates in news channels, the more confused are the hapless listeners, who at the end of it are left like the bagasse out of the sugar mill. Are they opinion-makers or opinion-breakers?
The print, electronic and ‘social’ media together have reduced the 2014 Parliamentary elections to a knock-out bout between ‘wrestlers’ Na Mo and Ra Ga. If you are not familiar with these two terms you are out of touch with media reality- they stand for Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. No more political parties, their principles and ideologies, their past records in and out of power, their programmes through election manifestoes, their methods of functioning, the fitness or otherwise of the candidates they field etc., are relevant. All these have been reduced to two personalities and people ought to choose one of them and no other options, which are all ruled out by these 24x7 hullabaloo.
Strange turnaround! About forty years back, during the black days of Emergency, what an authoritarian regime tried to impose on this nation by ruthlessly silencing the democratic voice of the opposition and media, is being attempted to be imposed by the ‘liberal’ media on this nation and its people by shouting out and ruling out the democratic aspirations of the mass of under-privileged and unprivileged people. During those days of Emergency, it is the media and Opposition parties who fought against and defeated the designs of the authoritarian regime to impose Presidential form of government in this nation, which is a federation of various sub-nationalities, multi-lingual, multi-communal and multi-cultural. Now the same mainstream media and the two largest political parties are attempting the same in a different format (as if it is a direct election for an Executive Prime Minister) by overlapping Parliamentary democracy envisaged by our Constitution, in which the elected Members of Parliament of the party or alliance with the largest number of MPs, elect a leader, who is appointed by the President as Prime Minister, who in turn forms a Cabinet, which is collectively responsible to Parliament.
The mainstream media has already drawn the battle-lines between NaMo and RaGa. On the day Rahul Gandhi addressed leaders of industry in New Delhi, Narendra Modi held forth at a book release function in Gandhinagar. (Following Rahul’s interaction with India Inc at CII. Modi is set to address the FICCI Ladies Association. If Rahul tried to win over corporate leaders, Modi appears to be lobbying with their better halves. Perhaps this is Modi’s belated attempt at inclusive politics, for the lack of which his critics have long given him grief.) The coincidence offered an opportunity to assess the two men who are going to loom large on our political horizon, presented by the media, in the months leading up to the general elections. What stands out are the contrast in their style and substance, their narratives and visions. They are as different as chalk and cheese.
Both the men are aloof. While Modi’s aloofness has a touch of arrogance to it, that of Rahul reeks of shyness. The former’s demeanour signals overbearing self-confidence; that of the latter reveals shades of vulnerability. One is authoritative, stern, pugnacious and domineering; the other, modest, sober, hesitant and above all, eager to play the Good Samaritan. In their own ways, both are ‘outsiders’; over more than two decades, Modi has had to wage protracted battles with rivals in his extended political and ideological family even as Rahul has time and again railed against his own fraternity. But the rub is; Modi had to fight hard to win his place in the sun while Rahul inherited his- an inheritance he now wants to end.
Although some Congress leaders project him as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the party for the coming elections, Rahul Gandhi had so far desisted from making any claim and in fact seemed to be reluctant to be carried over by the media campaign. But Modi laid bare his ambition more often and has already positioned himself as the contender against the prospective Congress candidate. Though Rahul had never entered into slanging match with him, the Gujarat aspirant cannot control his loudmouth in joining issues with him. During the course of his speech, rather a soliloquy, in the CII meeting Rahul compared India to a beehive and the very next day, Modi took exception to ‘mother’ India compared to beehive, thus adding fodder for media’s engagement with it for a day or two.
How far the print and electronic media have helped to enlighten people may be difficult to assess; but they have more than succeeded in developing mood of total pessimism in the young and old minds of Indians as reflected in the columns of ‘Letters to the Editor’ in dailies and on social media. People have also developed strange but dangerous ideas for ‘ways’ out of the ‘mess’ in this country. The relentless campaign seems to have ‘modified’ the minds of readers and addicts of news channels.
One learned reader of ‘The Hindu’ writes; “What India needs today is a strong leader who can bring a transformation in all spheres of life. Our very liberal Constitution and free-for-all democracy-without-accountability has done irreparable damage to the system. India badly needs benevolent despotism today rather than a fragile and weak liberal democracy, the fruits of which are enjoyed by only a few. Mr. Modi, it is hoped, will take India to great heights with his strong administrative skills and honesty.” This is the resonance of the voices we heard during those dark days of Emergency in 1975-76. History has ample evidence to show that every despot and dictator only started mouthing ‘benevolent despotism’ and there is not a single instance, in any part of the world at any point of time, of the ‘benevolence’ continuing through the regime. ‘Benevolence’ was only a proxy for dictatorship or authoritarianism. Another reader wants people not to make too much of the post-Godhra massacre of Muslims just as they “did not find it difficult to put aside the ghastly massacre of Sikhs on the roads of Delhi”.
The next logical step in reducing the Parliament elections into a contest between two individuals is bipolar politics, which is of late openly advocated by both Congress and BJP leaders who also laugh away the idea of a third front. They assert that no government could be formed at the Centre without either one of them leading it. The corollary is that both the national parties could not form a government at the Centre without the support of regional parties.
The mainstream media and these two ‘national’ parties conveniently cover up the provisions of the Constitution of India, according to which the nation is a “Union of States” and not a Unitary State. Since the first election in 1952, immediately after Independence, no political party in India, including the Congress Party, had ever secured majority of votes polled (not even 50 percent) to stake claim for absolute majority in terms of population and people’s mandate. What result our electoral system of first-past-the post throws in terms of seats won throws is only apparent majority and this reality should weigh in the conscience of those assuming power to give equitable governance.
Even in the existing electoral system, the myth of single party rule at the Centre had been broken since 1989 where after no single party could get absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. Even in 1991, the Congress fared very badly in the 221 constituencies that went to polling on May 20, before the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and swept in the polling held after the tragedy. Still it could not secure absolute majority and the P.V.Narasimha Rao government subsisted by manoeuvred majority.
With coalition politics coming to stay at the Centre, it is premature to project anybody as Prime Ministerial candidate and after the elections also, the person elected by the leading party of a coalition has to have acceptability to coalition parties. The existing alliances at the Centre, the UPA and NDA do not seem to have discussed about naming a Prime Ministerial candidate even before the announcement of elections. Moreover, it was also uncertain whether the political parties in those alliances would stick together till and after the polling and whether more parties were likely to join either of them. When the situation of political alliances for the Lok Sabha elections next year itself is fluid, leave alone which of them is likely to emerge victorious also uncertain, these talks of prospective Prime Minister are like putting the cart before the horse.
If the BJP or the Congress believe that they can reap electoral advantage by projecting a candidate for the post of Prime Minister, it is for them to campaign on the suitability and strengths of their candidate and the unsuitability and weaknesses of their rival. But why should the media, the shouting brigades of ‘anchor-editors’ of TV news channels and tireless columnists and analysts of newspapers and magazines, plunge into the campaign for and against somebody in the fray? Why should they become campaign managers of some person or party? Is it without any reward? With only ‘The Hindu’ daily and its columnist P. Sainath exposing the scourge of ‘paid news’ and all other print and electronic media turning Nelson’s eye to it, the people of this country cannot be faulted if they conclude that the more vociferous one is, the more is the payment received! r
The print, electronic and ‘social’ media together have reduced the 2014 Parliamentary elections to a knock-out bout between ‘wrestlers’ Na Mo and Ra Ga. If you are not familiar with these two terms you are out of touch with media reality- they stand for Narendra Modi and Rahul Gandhi. No more political parties, their principles and ideologies, their past records in and out of power, their programmes through election manifestoes, their methods of functioning, the fitness or otherwise of the candidates they field etc., are relevant. All these have been reduced to two personalities and people ought to choose one of them and no other options, which are all ruled out by these 24x7 hullabaloo.
Strange turnaround! About forty years back, during the black days of Emergency, what an authoritarian regime tried to impose on this nation by ruthlessly silencing the democratic voice of the opposition and media, is being attempted to be imposed by the ‘liberal’ media on this nation and its people by shouting out and ruling out the democratic aspirations of the mass of under-privileged and unprivileged people. During those days of Emergency, it is the media and Opposition parties who fought against and defeated the designs of the authoritarian regime to impose Presidential form of government in this nation, which is a federation of various sub-nationalities, multi-lingual, multi-communal and multi-cultural. Now the same mainstream media and the two largest political parties are attempting the same in a different format (as if it is a direct election for an Executive Prime Minister) by overlapping Parliamentary democracy envisaged by our Constitution, in which the elected Members of Parliament of the party or alliance with the largest number of MPs, elect a leader, who is appointed by the President as Prime Minister, who in turn forms a Cabinet, which is collectively responsible to Parliament.
The mainstream media has already drawn the battle-lines between NaMo and RaGa. On the day Rahul Gandhi addressed leaders of industry in New Delhi, Narendra Modi held forth at a book release function in Gandhinagar. (Following Rahul’s interaction with India Inc at CII. Modi is set to address the FICCI Ladies Association. If Rahul tried to win over corporate leaders, Modi appears to be lobbying with their better halves. Perhaps this is Modi’s belated attempt at inclusive politics, for the lack of which his critics have long given him grief.) The coincidence offered an opportunity to assess the two men who are going to loom large on our political horizon, presented by the media, in the months leading up to the general elections. What stands out are the contrast in their style and substance, their narratives and visions. They are as different as chalk and cheese.
Both the men are aloof. While Modi’s aloofness has a touch of arrogance to it, that of Rahul reeks of shyness. The former’s demeanour signals overbearing self-confidence; that of the latter reveals shades of vulnerability. One is authoritative, stern, pugnacious and domineering; the other, modest, sober, hesitant and above all, eager to play the Good Samaritan. In their own ways, both are ‘outsiders’; over more than two decades, Modi has had to wage protracted battles with rivals in his extended political and ideological family even as Rahul has time and again railed against his own fraternity. But the rub is; Modi had to fight hard to win his place in the sun while Rahul inherited his- an inheritance he now wants to end.
Although some Congress leaders project him as the Prime Ministerial candidate of the party for the coming elections, Rahul Gandhi had so far desisted from making any claim and in fact seemed to be reluctant to be carried over by the media campaign. But Modi laid bare his ambition more often and has already positioned himself as the contender against the prospective Congress candidate. Though Rahul had never entered into slanging match with him, the Gujarat aspirant cannot control his loudmouth in joining issues with him. During the course of his speech, rather a soliloquy, in the CII meeting Rahul compared India to a beehive and the very next day, Modi took exception to ‘mother’ India compared to beehive, thus adding fodder for media’s engagement with it for a day or two.
How far the print and electronic media have helped to enlighten people may be difficult to assess; but they have more than succeeded in developing mood of total pessimism in the young and old minds of Indians as reflected in the columns of ‘Letters to the Editor’ in dailies and on social media. People have also developed strange but dangerous ideas for ‘ways’ out of the ‘mess’ in this country. The relentless campaign seems to have ‘modified’ the minds of readers and addicts of news channels.
One learned reader of ‘The Hindu’ writes; “What India needs today is a strong leader who can bring a transformation in all spheres of life. Our very liberal Constitution and free-for-all democracy-without-accountability has done irreparable damage to the system. India badly needs benevolent despotism today rather than a fragile and weak liberal democracy, the fruits of which are enjoyed by only a few. Mr. Modi, it is hoped, will take India to great heights with his strong administrative skills and honesty.” This is the resonance of the voices we heard during those dark days of Emergency in 1975-76. History has ample evidence to show that every despot and dictator only started mouthing ‘benevolent despotism’ and there is not a single instance, in any part of the world at any point of time, of the ‘benevolence’ continuing through the regime. ‘Benevolence’ was only a proxy for dictatorship or authoritarianism. Another reader wants people not to make too much of the post-Godhra massacre of Muslims just as they “did not find it difficult to put aside the ghastly massacre of Sikhs on the roads of Delhi”.
The next logical step in reducing the Parliament elections into a contest between two individuals is bipolar politics, which is of late openly advocated by both Congress and BJP leaders who also laugh away the idea of a third front. They assert that no government could be formed at the Centre without either one of them leading it. The corollary is that both the national parties could not form a government at the Centre without the support of regional parties.
The mainstream media and these two ‘national’ parties conveniently cover up the provisions of the Constitution of India, according to which the nation is a “Union of States” and not a Unitary State. Since the first election in 1952, immediately after Independence, no political party in India, including the Congress Party, had ever secured majority of votes polled (not even 50 percent) to stake claim for absolute majority in terms of population and people’s mandate. What result our electoral system of first-past-the post throws in terms of seats won throws is only apparent majority and this reality should weigh in the conscience of those assuming power to give equitable governance.
Even in the existing electoral system, the myth of single party rule at the Centre had been broken since 1989 where after no single party could get absolute majority in the Lok Sabha. Even in 1991, the Congress fared very badly in the 221 constituencies that went to polling on May 20, before the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi and swept in the polling held after the tragedy. Still it could not secure absolute majority and the P.V.Narasimha Rao government subsisted by manoeuvred majority.
With coalition politics coming to stay at the Centre, it is premature to project anybody as Prime Ministerial candidate and after the elections also, the person elected by the leading party of a coalition has to have acceptability to coalition parties. The existing alliances at the Centre, the UPA and NDA do not seem to have discussed about naming a Prime Ministerial candidate even before the announcement of elections. Moreover, it was also uncertain whether the political parties in those alliances would stick together till and after the polling and whether more parties were likely to join either of them. When the situation of political alliances for the Lok Sabha elections next year itself is fluid, leave alone which of them is likely to emerge victorious also uncertain, these talks of prospective Prime Minister are like putting the cart before the horse.
If the BJP or the Congress believe that they can reap electoral advantage by projecting a candidate for the post of Prime Minister, it is for them to campaign on the suitability and strengths of their candidate and the unsuitability and weaknesses of their rival. But why should the media, the shouting brigades of ‘anchor-editors’ of TV news channels and tireless columnists and analysts of newspapers and magazines, plunge into the campaign for and against somebody in the fray? Why should they become campaign managers of some person or party? Is it without any reward? With only ‘The Hindu’ daily and its columnist P. Sainath exposing the scourge of ‘paid news’ and all other print and electronic media turning Nelson’s eye to it, the people of this country cannot be faulted if they conclude that the more vociferous one is, the more is the payment received! r
No comments:
Post a Comment