This morning, let me share some thoughts on the manner in which the elections are being covered on television. After watching a leading news channel for a few weeks between 8 and 10 pm, my conclusion is that Indian democracy does not hold any appeal on screen, unlike the US elections, which glues the world to their televisions.
There, it is candidate versus candidate, debate on policies – basic elements of “politics” – and this makes for good television.
On the other hand, television here presents the same tired picture of “party spokesmen,” one after another, and since they are not candidates, we cannot be too interested in what they say. The overall impression is that each defends to his utmost a “party line,” no matter how foolish he may appear as a result. These party spokesmen, who hog prime time tv, are not “politicians” in any sense of the term. They are best called “loyalists” – and in every case their loyalty is to a “political organization,” headed by their Supreme Leader. This supreme leader is, of course, never featured. The much talked about Manmohan-Advani tv debate never happened.
For this reason, which is a part of India’s political culture, there is little “politics” on tv. There are no great big rallies that are telecast, there are no thrilling debates. There are just “soundbites”; there are some “talking heads.” For the viewer, it is all quite dull. The same tired faces day after day, each trying to score minor debating points over the other. This is not “politics.” It is a theatre of the absurd.
Yet, I have been noticing a little bit of cynicism creeping into the proceedings. This is noticeable especially after it has become quite apparent that it is anyone’s guess where the next government will emerge from. To the “psephologists” and other election pundits, the realization seems to have finally dawned that what will happen after May 16 is a mad, unprincipled scramble for power as a “market” emerges for the 550-odd votes in the Lok Sabha.
I stress the word “unprincipled,” for time and time again the psephologists and their pundits stress the fact that the “coalitions” that people are talking about to rule the country will be formed on the basis of factors other than ideology or philosophy. We can only conclude they will be formed on the basis of spoils.
The word “democracy” is not an Indian word. Nor indeed, is “politics.” These words have their origins in ancient Greece, particularly Athens. These words were then unearthed by the philosophers of Europe during their “enlightenment,” and acquired a huge halo. Yet, something seems amiss when we try and use these words in India nowadays. This is because there must be a moral-intellectual dimension to politics. There must be the profession of a particular political philosophy. It cannot just be loyal spokespersons, venal allies and the lust for power.
Anyway, it was great to read SV Raju today talking of Minoo Masani and his gang fighting the 1957 elections as independents. That was politics based on the philosophy of classical liberalism. The story should inspire us in these otherwise bleak and uninspiring times. I was born in 1957, and it was heartening to note that we have some real old-timers around, on our side. Keep it up, Mr. Raju.
Somebody made this observation about the difference between Indian politicians and their British counterparts- in the UK two debating politicians will act friendly , and formal with each other in public while hating the person in private- in India it’s the exact opposite- they may go hammer and tongs at each other in the public arena while sharing a lot of friendship and laughter backstage- at the end of the day politicians are a cartel
ReplyDelete