While the real issues of governance have been pushed aside in the general election campaign, populism, personalization of politics and political rhetoric have taken centre stage in the world’s largest democratic exercise. One major issue which had been dramatically distorted in the hyper-jingoistic election discourse is national security.
Prime Minister Modi who is seeking re-election has been vocal about national security. In fact, his election rallies and campaigns were punctuated with speeches on the subject. Modi cast himself as the saviour who alone can protect the country from any adversary.
Amidst such a narrative, two interconnected aspects are at the forefront – firstly, national security has been reduced to fighting terrorism emanating from Pakistan. And, secondly, it has become more about punishing the enemy rather than protecting citizens and preventing such incidents.
It is evident that national security became a major election plank only after the Balakot air strike which was dubbed in the media and elsewhere as surgical strike 2.0.
Throughout his election rallies, Modi, as well as his party leaders, have invariably brought up the surgical strike. Constantly reminding the people of how he dealt with terrorism with vivid reference to the Balakot strike, Modi said, "The perpetrators ought to be finished the way we did, by chasing them to their hideouts (ghar mein ghuskar mara)."
Further, during a rally in Maharashtra, Modi even went to the extent of seeking votes in the names of the soldiers who lost their lives in the Pulwama attack as well as those who conducted the Balakot strike.
By stoking the emotions of people with his populist rhetoric, Modi seemed confident of bypassing other major developmental issues like unemployment, agrarian distress and corruption.
There is a common trend in the recent cross-border terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and Maoist attacks in Chhattisgarh and Maharashtra. First has come grief followed by a public thirst for retaliation against the perpetrators. While this is not unusual, two important aspects expected of the world’s largest electorate are conspicuously missing - firstly, making the government accountable for its failure on the security front and secondly demanding long-term measures for ensuring national security.
The Pulwama attack is illustrative. While the ghastly attack on the CRPF jawans exposed the shallowness and shaky foundation of the national security policy and apparatus, it was the counter-strike conducted in retaliation that received more attention.
Unfortunately, the Pulwama attack failed to evoke serious introspection. As a matter of fact, there was little effective discussion on the security concerns raised by the attack. Even media debates and policy discussions were filled with hyper-jingoistic nationalistic rhetoric and the advocacy of a hawkish stance from India.
It is striking how a terrorist attack of this nature failed to generate distrust and resentment among the public against the government. Instead, the public found satisfaction in the counterattack against terrorists across the border.
The Balakot counterattack turned the general mood of the country from grief to awe and even enhanced the image as well as the popularity of the government, especially that of Modi. It played a significant role in the election campaign of the PM and he seems to have reaped political profit out of it if the exit polls are a reliable indicator.
The incident demonstrates how easily populist rage can transform the real issue of security failure into a powerful campaign plank to seek votes. The bottom line is that it is a failure on the part of the public to see their leader as responsible for protecting their lives. This has to change and the people must act as rational and vigilant citizens who can make the government accountable.
(The writer is a PhD scholar at the Department of Political Science, University of Hyderabad)
* The views expressed in the column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The New Indian Express.