04-06-2004, 01:54 PM
Cross Posted on Lok Sabha Polls 2004 Thread :
<b>FIRST NORMAL ELECTION IN 40 YEARS - M.J. AKBAR</b>
One must never confuse elections with electioneering. Many journalists get elections wrong because they report electioneering, rather than elections. This is not their fault. Media is a hungry monster, and its appetite extends from chutney and achar to the daily sacrifice of a suitable victim. A report on the elections would be merely one day's story.
But electioneering is a constant source of fun: statements, replies, offence, counterattack, allegation, exaggeration, mistakes. It's a carnival. In India, it's a Russian circus, packed with trapeze artists swinging dangerously from party to party (a few reversing direction in mid-air); clowns chanting gibberish; and celebrities prancing on horses.
The knives are out: slow movers wield their weapons to stab in the back; the cleverer types puncture egos with concealed stilettos. The stakes could not be higher, and ethics are not a priority requirement in this game. It's nice if you have them, but not at the cost of defeat.
Why would reporting elections be minimalist? Because the essence of an election is not controlled by the din of the campaign, but the response to one or two questions that address dominant concerns. Such questions are often obvious.
<b>This is the first election since 1962 without a dramatic backdrop.</b> 1967 was a bitter and chaotic contest between main and fringe parties within a stark, sullen and despairing electorate.
There was famine across the north (Mother Teresa became a national figure thanks to Raghu Rai's superb photography of her work in the Bihar famine), and the government of India was begging for food from Washington, granted under a scheme called PL 480. Language riots had ripped through the fabric of unity.
Muslims were under assault in riots engineered by Congress governments in the states, after the Congress government in the centre had wounded them malevolently during the 1965 war with Pakistan. Prairie fires lit by the Naxalites had spread across the country. The young had no hope, the elders were eyeless. The Congress lost every state from Punjab to Bengal and would have lost Delhi as well if the South had not saved it.
1971, in complete contrast, was as startlingly optimistic as 1967 was dismal. Indira Gandhi merged hope with vision. The first breakthroughs of the Green Revolution promised an India that was self-sufficient in food. Food would eliminate poverty.
Indira Gandhi challenged the traditional elites, and taunted them with people's power. Her slogan was perfect for its moment: Woh kahte hain Indira hatao, main kahti hoon gharibi hatao. (They want to remove Indira, I want to remove poverty).
It is a message that still resonates in the hearts of those under the poverty line. It was perfect positioning: the popular champion as victim of the manipulators. (Those Congress leaders who have devised the silly slogan "Anyone But Vajpayee" obviously have no idea of history. To demonize a popular leader for no given reason is utterly counterproductive.) The 1971 results were an upheaval.
1977 was as dark as 1971 was light. And in that darkness, the Indian electorate proved its enchanting strength. If the Emergency of 1975 threatened the end of democracy, the 1977 elections confirmed that no dictator would ever rule India again.
A Janata government replaced Indira Gandhi, and after a year of promise began to defy common sense. The pendulum reversed. The 1980 elections were a sharp vote against irresponsibility and bad governance. Indira Gandhi returned to power. What no one realized at the moment of her second triumph was that she had become fundamentally flawed.
Hubris ran havoc; dynasty was established; and misjudgment bred secession in Punjab, arguably India's most patriotic state. The desecration of the Akal Takht led directly to the assassination of Indira Gandhi; anger and sympathy gave Rajiv Gandhi the largest mandate in Indian history, in an election whose consistent image was fire.
The fires of revolt were replaced by the fire of a gun, Bofors: Rajiv was painted in the lurid colours of corruption, and his image could never recover. The results of 1989 said it all. The nineties were consumed by different kinds of fire, of casteism and communalism. And the election of 1999 was held in the shadows of Kargil.
2004 then is the first "normal" election in nearly 40 years. Are you surprised that the voter should be relieved, and indeed feel good about the absence of hysteria? The young, instead of being urged to go to some war or the other, are being promised peace and development. They would be idiotic not to feel the difference. Atal Behari Vajpayee has not become an icon of the MTV generation by accident.
I hope though that he has written out a personal thank you note to the opposition. Sonia Gandhi's text was neatly trapped by context. The BJP created a sophisticated two-phase campaign that first established the central theme of the battleground, and then swivelled the battle into a presidential contest between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi. "India Shining" was attacked from the wrong end.
The Congress challenged the shine, but the slogan was about India far more than it was about India's economy. The difference might be subtle, but it is vital. It was less about the truth, and more about the promise.
The BJP used a partial fact (the statistics of its last phase in power) to promote a vision: Indians can turn India into a developed nation. The Congress had nothing in place when the campaign broke. The BJP literally walked into empty space in the popular imagination.
<b>The only message that the Congress had communicated in five years was that it wanted Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, but no one was told why, or how this would make India and Indians better off. It was cult worship of the flimsiest kind, because it was built around vulnerability.</b>
Having established the theme of positive nationalism, the BJP has switched the debate from the general to the specific. Any good marketing man will tell that macro has to be backed by micro; that the product is nothing without a credible delivery mechanism.
The switch occurred when both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani asked the country to examine the issue of foreign origin as a political question rather than a personal one, and in calm rather than accusatory tones.
<b>Nationalism is a very powerful impetus, and Sonia Gandhi does not understand that it takes more than a passport to make you a claimant for the job of prime minister of India. Moreover, that passport was taken only when Rajiv Gandhi became a candidate for prime minister.
Sonia Maino could have become a naturalized Indian when she married Rajiv and became a Gandhi in 1968. But she filed an application to remain a foreigner for five years, as she was permitted by Indian law to do. Even in 1973 she was not convinced that she wanted to be an Indian rather than an Italian. She applied for another five years as a foreign resident, as she did again in 1978.
It was only in the last week of her permit in 1983, when Rajiv Gandhi was heir apparent, that she asked for an Indian passport. These facts may mean very little to some of us, but they mean a great deal to a lot of us. In any case, they are fodder for the BJP propaganda machine, which is currently in very high gear. Other questions will be raised as well.
Most of this vulnerability would have been erased if Sonia Gandhi had shown the leadership needed to resurrect the Congress. Uniquely, the party has shrunk under her despite being out of power. Normally, a party grows when out of office.
The fact is that Sonia Gandhi lost the election two years ago when she could not take advantage of Gujarat. India was not shining then, as Vajpayee himself admitted in parliament. That was the weak moment of the government, and it was given a chance to reinvent itself.</b>
Every government promises prosperity. Vajpayee is the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to promise peace with Pakistan. Through SAARC he has linked this peace to economic growth as well, but the deeper focus is on the return of human relationships in our subcontinent.
This is slowly becoming a primal motivator for key sections of the electorate. Pakistani commentators have written on the surprise of visiting Indians at the warmth they received during the cricket games. They have pointed out Pakistanis stopped the game of demonizing Indians some time ago.
Something even more startling is happening in India. Since 1965, confrontation with Pakistan has been the bread and butter of political rhetoric. The BJP has been in the forefront of such politics. Even the most quiescent of doves would not have dared to dream in 1999 that peace could actually become a vote-winner. <b>The implicit question is: can Sonia Gandhi deliver peace with Pakistan, which, if it ever comes, can only emerge through a difficult and delicate process?
With so many shysters around, the credibility of opinion polls was bound to suffer. But there is one opinion that remains unwavering, no matter who measures it. In any comparison between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi the difference in favour of Vajpayee is either 70:30 or even greater. That indicates two things: the voter's comfort levels with a very Indian Vajpayee, and his unease with Sonia Gandhi.
For five years the government lulled the Congress by saying little and doing nothing about the foreign origins of Sonia Gandhi. They were waiting for April 2004</b>
Cheers
<b>FIRST NORMAL ELECTION IN 40 YEARS - M.J. AKBAR</b>
One must never confuse elections with electioneering. Many journalists get elections wrong because they report electioneering, rather than elections. This is not their fault. Media is a hungry monster, and its appetite extends from chutney and achar to the daily sacrifice of a suitable victim. A report on the elections would be merely one day's story.
But electioneering is a constant source of fun: statements, replies, offence, counterattack, allegation, exaggeration, mistakes. It's a carnival. In India, it's a Russian circus, packed with trapeze artists swinging dangerously from party to party (a few reversing direction in mid-air); clowns chanting gibberish; and celebrities prancing on horses.
The knives are out: slow movers wield their weapons to stab in the back; the cleverer types puncture egos with concealed stilettos. The stakes could not be higher, and ethics are not a priority requirement in this game. It's nice if you have them, but not at the cost of defeat.
Why would reporting elections be minimalist? Because the essence of an election is not controlled by the din of the campaign, but the response to one or two questions that address dominant concerns. Such questions are often obvious.
<b>This is the first election since 1962 without a dramatic backdrop.</b> 1967 was a bitter and chaotic contest between main and fringe parties within a stark, sullen and despairing electorate.
There was famine across the north (Mother Teresa became a national figure thanks to Raghu Rai's superb photography of her work in the Bihar famine), and the government of India was begging for food from Washington, granted under a scheme called PL 480. Language riots had ripped through the fabric of unity.
Muslims were under assault in riots engineered by Congress governments in the states, after the Congress government in the centre had wounded them malevolently during the 1965 war with Pakistan. Prairie fires lit by the Naxalites had spread across the country. The young had no hope, the elders were eyeless. The Congress lost every state from Punjab to Bengal and would have lost Delhi as well if the South had not saved it.
1971, in complete contrast, was as startlingly optimistic as 1967 was dismal. Indira Gandhi merged hope with vision. The first breakthroughs of the Green Revolution promised an India that was self-sufficient in food. Food would eliminate poverty.
Indira Gandhi challenged the traditional elites, and taunted them with people's power. Her slogan was perfect for its moment: Woh kahte hain Indira hatao, main kahti hoon gharibi hatao. (They want to remove Indira, I want to remove poverty).
It is a message that still resonates in the hearts of those under the poverty line. It was perfect positioning: the popular champion as victim of the manipulators. (Those Congress leaders who have devised the silly slogan "Anyone But Vajpayee" obviously have no idea of history. To demonize a popular leader for no given reason is utterly counterproductive.) The 1971 results were an upheaval.
1977 was as dark as 1971 was light. And in that darkness, the Indian electorate proved its enchanting strength. If the Emergency of 1975 threatened the end of democracy, the 1977 elections confirmed that no dictator would ever rule India again.
A Janata government replaced Indira Gandhi, and after a year of promise began to defy common sense. The pendulum reversed. The 1980 elections were a sharp vote against irresponsibility and bad governance. Indira Gandhi returned to power. What no one realized at the moment of her second triumph was that she had become fundamentally flawed.
Hubris ran havoc; dynasty was established; and misjudgment bred secession in Punjab, arguably India's most patriotic state. The desecration of the Akal Takht led directly to the assassination of Indira Gandhi; anger and sympathy gave Rajiv Gandhi the largest mandate in Indian history, in an election whose consistent image was fire.
The fires of revolt were replaced by the fire of a gun, Bofors: Rajiv was painted in the lurid colours of corruption, and his image could never recover. The results of 1989 said it all. The nineties were consumed by different kinds of fire, of casteism and communalism. And the election of 1999 was held in the shadows of Kargil.
2004 then is the first "normal" election in nearly 40 years. Are you surprised that the voter should be relieved, and indeed feel good about the absence of hysteria? The young, instead of being urged to go to some war or the other, are being promised peace and development. They would be idiotic not to feel the difference. Atal Behari Vajpayee has not become an icon of the MTV generation by accident.
I hope though that he has written out a personal thank you note to the opposition. Sonia Gandhi's text was neatly trapped by context. The BJP created a sophisticated two-phase campaign that first established the central theme of the battleground, and then swivelled the battle into a presidential contest between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi. "India Shining" was attacked from the wrong end.
The Congress challenged the shine, but the slogan was about India far more than it was about India's economy. The difference might be subtle, but it is vital. It was less about the truth, and more about the promise.
The BJP used a partial fact (the statistics of its last phase in power) to promote a vision: Indians can turn India into a developed nation. The Congress had nothing in place when the campaign broke. The BJP literally walked into empty space in the popular imagination.
<b>The only message that the Congress had communicated in five years was that it wanted Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, but no one was told why, or how this would make India and Indians better off. It was cult worship of the flimsiest kind, because it was built around vulnerability.</b>
Having established the theme of positive nationalism, the BJP has switched the debate from the general to the specific. Any good marketing man will tell that macro has to be backed by micro; that the product is nothing without a credible delivery mechanism.
The switch occurred when both Prime Minister Vajpayee and Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani asked the country to examine the issue of foreign origin as a political question rather than a personal one, and in calm rather than accusatory tones.
<b>Nationalism is a very powerful impetus, and Sonia Gandhi does not understand that it takes more than a passport to make you a claimant for the job of prime minister of India. Moreover, that passport was taken only when Rajiv Gandhi became a candidate for prime minister.
Sonia Maino could have become a naturalized Indian when she married Rajiv and became a Gandhi in 1968. But she filed an application to remain a foreigner for five years, as she was permitted by Indian law to do. Even in 1973 she was not convinced that she wanted to be an Indian rather than an Italian. She applied for another five years as a foreign resident, as she did again in 1978.
It was only in the last week of her permit in 1983, when Rajiv Gandhi was heir apparent, that she asked for an Indian passport. These facts may mean very little to some of us, but they mean a great deal to a lot of us. In any case, they are fodder for the BJP propaganda machine, which is currently in very high gear. Other questions will be raised as well.
Most of this vulnerability would have been erased if Sonia Gandhi had shown the leadership needed to resurrect the Congress. Uniquely, the party has shrunk under her despite being out of power. Normally, a party grows when out of office.
The fact is that Sonia Gandhi lost the election two years ago when she could not take advantage of Gujarat. India was not shining then, as Vajpayee himself admitted in parliament. That was the weak moment of the government, and it was given a chance to reinvent itself.</b>
Every government promises prosperity. Vajpayee is the first prime minister since Jawaharlal Nehru to promise peace with Pakistan. Through SAARC he has linked this peace to economic growth as well, but the deeper focus is on the return of human relationships in our subcontinent.
This is slowly becoming a primal motivator for key sections of the electorate. Pakistani commentators have written on the surprise of visiting Indians at the warmth they received during the cricket games. They have pointed out Pakistanis stopped the game of demonizing Indians some time ago.
Something even more startling is happening in India. Since 1965, confrontation with Pakistan has been the bread and butter of political rhetoric. The BJP has been in the forefront of such politics. Even the most quiescent of doves would not have dared to dream in 1999 that peace could actually become a vote-winner. <b>The implicit question is: can Sonia Gandhi deliver peace with Pakistan, which, if it ever comes, can only emerge through a difficult and delicate process?
With so many shysters around, the credibility of opinion polls was bound to suffer. But there is one opinion that remains unwavering, no matter who measures it. In any comparison between Vajpayee and Sonia Gandhi the difference in favour of Vajpayee is either 70:30 or even greater. That indicates two things: the voter's comfort levels with a very Indian Vajpayee, and his unease with Sonia Gandhi.
For five years the government lulled the Congress by saying little and doing nothing about the foreign origins of Sonia Gandhi. They were waiting for April 2004</b>
Cheers