Chanakya's View; Modi and his jiggery-pokery

The elections are now underway, and the citizens of the world’s largest democracy will finally get a chance to exercise their choice. Democracy implies the freedom to elect from multiple options a candidate from a party that is best equipped to work for the benefit of the people. It is, therefore, not a mechanical exercise, observed purely for ritualistic reasons every five years or so. It requires application of mind, an ability to analyse the pros and cons of each candidate and the merits of each party. This application of mind is the mark of a mature democracy, where citizens decide with due deliberation and reflection, and not only emotionally, or on the spur of the moment, or impulsively, or as part of a herd mentality.

It is true that making the correct choice becomes more difficult in the face of the veritable media blitz by certain political parties. The Congress and the Bharatiya Janta Party are the leaders in this area. Obviously, funds are not one of their problems. The newspapers are flooded with pictures of Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. It is impossible to hear the radio without an ad from one of these parties. The great leaders stare at you from every possible hoarding. Lengthy ads on TV punctuate programs throughout the day. But, in this election, even the Congress has been left behind by the BJP in publicity spend. No media stone has been left unturned to project the supreme leader of the BJP. He is ubiquitous, omnipresent, pervasive.

The purpose of such unprecedented publicity is, naturally, to seduce the voter. In elections, this is a legitimate endeavour. But “good” publicity also depends critically on simplifying and shortening the message. An ad or a jingle does not have space to discuss issues. It merely hammers in a message. The appeal is made in black and white colours: Vote for us, Reject the other. Brevity is the key here; there is no room for elaboration. In the current election, when the anti-Congress mood is palpable, and certain failures of the ruling United Progressive Alliance coalition, such as price rise, sub-optimal governance and corruption, are stark, the structuring of the publicity campaign by the principal opposing party becomes far easier: condemn the Congress and invoke the BJP and its supreme leader as the only alternative.

It is for the voter to ask questions beyond the oversimplified message of an advertisement. The critique of the Congress may be valid, but what is the basis for your claiming that your party is the only alternative? What are your policies? How will they be different from those pursued thus far? Is the so-called Gujarat model your only proof of good governance, and if so, are you willing to debate what its achievements are on the ground? How do you explain that Gujarat has done poorly in areas of health and education, and that 42 per cent of all investments in the state have come only in the petro-chemical sector disproportionately benefitting only a few large corporate houses? Why are farmers committing suicide in Gujarat and why have land owners been given such low rates of compensation for land taken away from them to benefit large industrial houses?

Given the diversity of our country, what policies do you have for least developed states, as against those which are already relatively developed? How will you bring an end to corruption when you readily ally with leaders like B.S. Yeddyurappa in Karnataka who face grievous charges of corruption? Do you believe that social and religious harmony is vitally important in a country like India, and if so, why do you felicitate those legislators in Muzaffarnagar who are charged with inciting communal violence? What will be the tenets of your foreign policy, and how will these be different from those pursued thus far?

These are legitimate questions, but they are not answered by hoardings or jingles or TV commercials or full page ads in newspapers. The BJP’s supreme leader refuses to hold a press conference or answer questions or explain his policies or participate in a dialogue except rarely with an “extra friendly” TV anchor.

What is the thinking behind this evasion? Could it be that he believes that the voter can be mesmerised into pledging his or her support if the simplified, one-sided and partisan message is repeated over and over again from every conceivable media platform? Or do the media strategists believe that the voter is just too dumb to have any questions and will, like a puppet in the hands of a master puppeteer, just dance to the message of the jingle and the ad line? A very fine line separates a so-called decisive leader from an authoritarian one. The middle class in India confuses the two most easily, as we saw in its initial welcoming of the declaration of Emergency by Indira Gandhi. Is it on the verge of unthinkingly doing so again?

Somewhere, it is a grievous insult to the intelligence of a voter to fight an election merely on the strength of a successful media and advertisement campaign. All political parties need to invest in publicity, but that cannot be their only communication avenue. All political players need to understand this, and if they don’t, the pressure to do so must come from the voter. He or she must ask the direct question, and compel candidates and political parties to answer.

India needs change, but every voter has the right to know what the substance of that change will be and what direction it will take. Otherwise, all Indians, and especially the educated, will become canon-fodder in the hands of any ambitious demagogue who uses limitless amounts of unaccounted money to devise a cleaver and omnipresent advertisement campaign. If he succeeds, he will believe that the voter deserves no better.

For a country that claims to be the world’s largest democracy, there could be no bigger tragedy.

Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma’s latest book is Chanakya’s New Manifesto: To Resolve the Crisis Within India