Moral undertones in Mandate 2014 – Time for some ‘moral’ politics?

Since, in the month of May our discussion themes were centered around Education, Economy and Politics ... I have decided to share two articles of mine published on Canary Trap ... based on Elections 2014. Till around 20th May, Indian Elections were the buzzword all over and I hope these articles will offer some insights into the ways in which Indian Politics operates.

The most prominent reinforcement about politics is that it is a dirty, corrupt, shrewd and notorious game of power. All possible negative connotations are attached to politics and rightly so. Thinking about politics, we obviously understand it to be negative and undesirable - all about selfish interests of those occupying power positions. Politics is something we are all taught to detest - not just politics practiced in the form of "5 yearly" elections, but politics at the workplace, in the family (yes the personal is political too!) or politics of any kind, anywhere. We do not identify ourselves as 'political' despite the fact that all of us strive for some kind of interests or goals to be achieved. We desire to be seen as 'apolitical', and thereby 'moral'. Thus, you cannot be moral if you are into politics. The evident dichotomy between 'politics' and 'morality' is what makes politics a despicable object. Morality is not supposed to be a part of politics - because politics is a far cry from the moral, the good, the valuable, the just. In fact, what politics and morality represent are binaries; the two cannot co-exist, nor reconcile. That is why the 'good' are never into politics and those who are in politics can never be 'good'.

Despite this glaring dichotomy, India’s Mandate 2014 has infused morality into the political discourse. While Machiavelli and Chanakya prescribed to realpolitik, our netas seem to be taking the moral high ground in this election campaign. So, is politics devoid of any kind of morality or does infusing morality into politics signify a highly 'political' act? The answer lies in the way morality has been invoked (or rather manipulated) in the election discourse of 2014. Each and every campaign has attempted to address the moral aspirations of people. Indians, anyhow have always lamented the lack of morality in politics (If only netas were honest and upright, where would we find someone like Gandhiji and Sardar Patel today? Or these netas have no morals to claim of - such statements are common parlance). 

Take Rahul Gandhi for example. He seeks votes in the name of 'sacrifice' (moral undertone) by his 'papa' and 'dadi' for the sake of the country. The other plank employed for votes is a pro-poor one (borrowing from Indira Gandhi's famous"Garibi hatao" pitch). So you should vote for Rahul because he is pro-poor, pro-women empowerment and hence moral. He forgets that his party lacks any kind of vision in terms of policy and governance and is riddled with accusations of scams. According to Rahul, an immoral, corrupt and divisive BJP led by Narendra Modi is a moral threat to the unity, integrity and progress of India. So a vote for Rahul should be propelled by one’s sense of morality (backed by the morality of brand Gandhi - so what if the brand itself is a falsely created one!!!). In this context, the moral undertones of the Congress party’s election campaign are for all to notice – the use of children as the face of the campaign advertisements, with an appeal directed to safeguard the future of the country and a vote for the interests of the next generation - reeks of a heavy and unmissable moral appeal.

On the other hand, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has been projected and his image built as a moral saviour of sorts for Indian politics. Modi has repeatedly attacked the Congress on the basis of their immorality in public life (namely corruption) and a mute Prime Minister remote controlled by a lady of Italian origin (how immoral to be governed by a lady of foreign origin - who still cannot speak proper Hindi!!!). He is also seen claiming a moral copyright over the Gujarat model of development (in his interviews he repeatedly emphasizes on "Mera Gujarat", he also addresses fellow Indians as “Mere sava sau crore Bharatvasi”). He claims to morally redeem the electorate from the tyranny of the ‘family’ (Maa and Beta). Congress, however questions these moral claims and calls Modi a 'feku' (i.e. someone who exaggerates too much) and even questions his ability to take care of the country when he deserted his own wife (another moral undertone - in tune with the women empowerment theme). The Congress campaign portrayed Modi as a demon; instilling fear among the minority community with its prediction about riots, communal violence and a second partition if Modi gains power (supposedly moral because the unity of the country is at stake and only the Congress can save it from communal forces). To counter this, Modi uses the Maa-Beta jibe to reiterate the moral degradation that Congress has imposed upon the country. So, while ‘maa’ Sonia is only bothered about ‘beta’ Rahul and would happily sacrifice the country for him, Modi claims that he is here to work for the country minus the extra baggage of family responsibilities. (“Acche din aane wale hain” – This tagline of the BJP’s campaign speaks for the moral redemption that it aims to achieve or at least has promised it will achieve for the people of this country). 

The third player in this game (if at all it is considered as a contender) - the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) cannot survive without claiming moral superiority. The punch line for the AAP's campaign is - We are the best, the rest are bad/immoral. AAP has successfully projected itself as the torchbearer of morality based politics and this has attracted young first-time voters to the party who have pinned their moral hopes on it. Without the morality plank being invoked (both in Delhi and now), the AAP campaign would lose its sheen. The pitch on which AAP has based its campaign is that people are fed up of the two morally corrupt and bankrupt parties and AAP offers a way in which morality and goodness can be brought back to Indian politics. The last player in this game, the so called third front with as many leaders as fronts, claims moral high-ground by portraying itself as the only non-Congress (non-corrupt), non-BJP (secular) option available to people at this point of time. Disregarding the infighting and divisive claims to leadership the third front presents itself as a moral and credible option to an electorate disillusioned with mainstream politics.

All said and done, this has left the junta perpetually and morally confused as to who is the best ‘moral’ choice available to them, with each claiming moral superiority over the 'other'. Are such moral claims of any use when it is quite a brazen practice to abandon morality after elections and resort to a full play of power politics? Why then deceive people by making unnecessary and exaggerated moral claims? Moral one-upmanship will definitely be abandoned once the claim to power is manifested on May 16. The moral undertones employed in this campaign come out as utterly farcical because morality is a relative concept and there is no yardstick for judging the same. Also every definition of morality is dependent on that of the 'other'. There are no independent claims to 'morality'. For instance mudslinging, character assignation and digging into each other's personal life for the benefit of political gains is surely not moral. So, while moral claims do appear to be good on the surface, all they do is divert attention from people's issues that an election discourse is supposed to address. 

We are certainly not going to see a return of morality into politics, not anytime in the near future ... till then we can wonder as to where did all the moral overdose come from; how and where did morality disappear from the political discourse/action of the day? Or was it never meant for politics? I remain morally and politically disillusioned by all accounts as Indian politics hits an all-time ‘moral’ low!

Published on Canary Trap http://www.canarytrap.in/2014/05/10/moral-undertones-in-mandate-2014-time-for-some-moral-politics/ (May 10, 2014). 

Des mera rangrez ye babu ...

This is not a movie review. It was not meant to be one. On Wednesday, 2nd April students from The Dept. of Political Science got together to watch Aamir Khan's critically acclaimed movie Peepli Live (2010) as a part of the activities conducted in The Open Society - a student forum of the department. The Open Society as the name suggests is an initiative to harbour open and free discussions on relevant socio-political issues. The forum is meant to engage students into meaningful discussions on issues of current importance, help them put forth their own perspectives and appreciate those of others. 

Peepli Live is an engaging take on the despicable conditions suffered by farmers in rural India. It would not be fair at this point to time to give out the story details, but a gist of the film would be helpful. The film narrates the trials and tribulations of Natha and his elder brother (both farmers in central India) and their desperate situation. In dire need of money, since they have a bank loan to repay, which otherwise would lead to mortgaging of their land, Natha and his 'bhaiya' come to know of a government scheme that offers a lakh rupees to farmers who have suicide. In desperate need of money (in order to save their family), Natha decides to go ahead and announce his plans about suicide. The local stringer of a newspaper catches on to this bit of news doing the rounds of the village and suddenly Natha's intention of 'live suicide' catches the attention of an entire nation through a media and political circus in his village. What follows is a satire about the conditions of Natha and his family and their exploitation by both the state and the media for altogether different purposes. 

What the movie very tellingly conveyed was the poor situation of farmers in India and the utter neglect of the state towards their conditions. Whenever elections are around the corner, we see political representatives making tall claims of schemes committed to farmer welfare. But once in power, all promises towards the farmer are forgotten and he/she is left to fend for himself/herself. In the last decade in Indian, scores of farmers have committed suicide owing to lack of state help, extreme conditions of drought and lack of any kind of financial assistance. The movie is a clever satire on such subtle issues. More number of suicides have been committed by farmers of the Vidarbha region in Maharashtra and I recall watching a Marathi movie on the same theme, a serious one albeit - Gabhricha Paus (2009).

After the movie we engaged in a discussion of sorts trying to think over the various issues that the movie tried to highlight. I for that matter kept noting down terms like 'politics of poverty', 'politics of suicide', 'politics of desperation'. These issues struck me when I saw the movie for the first time around (this was a second viewing). The use of satire as a tool in cinema was also an interesting point to note since movie makers have attempted to convey their take on serious issues such as poverty, education, communalism, corruption etc through the use of humour. I believe sometimes it becomes imperative to use humour and lightheartedness to comment on serious issues and raise awareness about them. But as Aparna, one of our students pointed out - not everybody is comfortable with the use of satire and in the end satire may end up reinforcing the status quo or induce some kind of arm-chair activism and niceties of ideology - where all we gloat about is taking and discussing the state of affairs in the cosy comfort zones that we are so used to. She also pointed out to the need for discussing more about solutions than about problems - since we are all aware of the problems that the country faces - but what is the solution that should be worked out ought to be a point of discussion.

I also repeatedly kept pondering upon the media's role. Once a media student, today I stand completely disillusioned about the media's role in the society. What the movie very prominently reflected upon was the media-state nexus, a collusion between two powerful entities in the society for two very different purposes - the state trying to save its skin by indulging in dirty politics over a farmer's bid to suicide by offering him completely irrelevant policy options (which clearly shows how poorly informed and shaped our policies are!) and the media using the same incident to encash on a tragedy to be for its own commercial motives. The depiction of the real media scenario in the movie turned out to be truly hilarious. One of our students Jay at the end of the movie wondered if the media was that bad. May be as an audience what we tend to do is either repose our complete faith in the media and idolize it or show our utter contempt and disregard for it. These extremities are where the problem lies. What I also found was an utter contempt on part of both the state and the media for the poor of the country. The farmer is actually reduced to a butt of jokes - a helpless creature being manipulated at the hands of both agencies - expecting some kind of assistance - but getting none. 

The movie centered around a tragedy - namely Natha's declaration of suicide - and the political and media circus that follows. Each and everyone, be it the chief minister, the opposition leader, the agriculture minister, the local politician wanted to encash the tragedy for their own benefit. For them it ceased to be a tragedy and turned out to be an opportunity to gain brownie points over the other. Surprisingly, in the whole process Natha, the central character is made a scapegoat and we ended up sympathizing with him. We felt he does not deserve death, he is being forced into it, being made an unnecessary martyr - one who sacrifices for the sake of selfish interests of those in power - or rather one who is made to sacrifice. Our discussion then further moved to the commodification of death - of how in present times death which is meant to be tragic can turn into a celebration of sorts if it benefits those in power and those in command and control of resources. Aparna pointed out that it all boils down to power - for vested interest make people in power position behave the way they do. During the course of the discussion, one of the students Imtiyaz pointed out to the lack of policy planning as well as the lack of effective policy implementation in the country. It was as if policies are churned out for the poor and they have no choice or say in the same. Policies are merely thrust upon them irrespective of any rationality or need for the same. In what sense will these policies benefit them is a question that should concern the political and bureaucratic class of the country. In a hilarious scene in the movie whereas Natha is in need of money to save his land/house he is offered a hand pump under a scheme named after a prominent leader. Later on, the chief minister of the state instructs his officials to devise a new policy in order to curb criticism from media and opposition parties. Towards the end of the movie we see Natha being honored by the way of a 'Natha card' being issued in his name - meant to be given to those farmers who intend to commit suicide!!! Though it would not be fair to reveal the movie's end here - what happens to Natha's family in the end is a reiteration of the abject state of policy planning and implementation in the country.

Towards the end of the discussion, Himmat brought out to relevant pointers - the reality of crony capitalism (how the state and the corporates work in tandem and the impact of globalization on the rural masses). He being from Haryana cited examples of farmers in his own village who became rich overnight as they got huge money by selling their land - but have now turned to anti-social ways of earning money since they squandered money recklessly once it was in their hands. What he also found problematic in the movie was the portrayal of the politician-bureaucrat relationship in which the politician bosses over the bureaucrat and the former has to abide by his diktats. He said that real scenario in India was quite the opposite with the bureaucracy wielding more power. 

At the end we came to the question of women - there were three distinct personalities of women depicted in the movie. First Natha's mother - bedridden but always cribbing about her daughter-in-law, the second being Natha's wife who though a rural woman seems to be in total control of the house - with a power to even abuse her husband and brother-in-law for messing the entire situation. The third woman in the story is Nandita, a TV news reporter - seemingly empowered and independent to take her own decisions but at the mercy of her editor. We were stuck with the question of who was the most empowered of the three and there was no concluding answer for the same since all of us had different answers - we decided to leave it at that and not reach to any pointed conclusion. Conclusion and definiteness were certainly not what we were looking for! 

In the end I still stayed stuck to the image of the farmer who keeps lingering onto the background - his lean and frail frame reminding us of the fact that there are many Nathas' in this country and Peepli Live was about just one of them!