These are strange times in many ways. At no other point in history has the entire world been focused on only one problem: finding a drug, ideally a vaccine, for a raging pandemic that has affected millions, throwing out of gear what all of us believed was normal life. In the Indian context, though, there appears to be a dire need for more than one vaccine to deal with the social, political and economic orders that have come to dictate our lives. This is needed if the electoral democracy and the institutions we have built in the post-Independence era—having already developed comorbidities owing to assaults at different times—are not to succumb to the varied viruses sweeping across the nation.
Suppression of labour power (what UP and other states are doing using Covid as an excuse), disdain for intellectuals and using fear as a tool against the masses and selected individuals—the signs are all there.But let’s make no mistake. Such knocks have been delivered even before, crudely during the time of Indira Gandhi, more subtly during UPA rule, and perhaps belligerently now. Some of the vaccines that are needed have existed for long in the form of protections under the Indian Constitution. It’s just that they are out of stock now or those who are required to vaccinate themselves are unwilling to do so.
Vaccine I: So what’s vaccine
No. 1 that is now in short supply? Former Supreme Court judge Madan Lokur lamented in a recent piece that even extremely important remedies such as writ of habeas corpus, anticipatory bail and bail are being denied. This, despite the SC laying down on many occasions that criticism of the government or even sowing bad feelings about it cannot be a justifiable ground for restrictions on freedom of expression, because a very important aspect of democracy is that citizens shall have no fear of the government.
Justice Lokur was among the four judges who held the famous or infamous press conference in January 2018, when they pointed at the “procedural failings” affecting the functioning of the highest court, apparently under the influence of the executive. But such interferences happened in the past, too, and we need not go too much into history. At a dinner meeting some years ago, one of the sitting judges of the SC revealed to his colleagues, in a hushed tone, that a particular HC judge cannot be considered for elevation to the apex court because ‘such a message’ had come from 10, Janpath. This is as abhorrent as the procedural failings raised by the honourable judges.
Vaccine II: One bewildering aspect is why leaders think the media can change their fortunes. Yes, it holds up the mirror and helps those in power make course corrections, but to believe that people will get carried away by the ‘feel-good factor’ created in the media is, perhaps, giving it more credit than is due. For all the support he enjoyed from large sections of media throughout his political career, Chandrababu Naidu has the dubious distinction of having led the Telugu Desam to its two worst-ever electoral defeats. Public perception about his governance kept changing, despite all the window dressing.
Even on this count, described as media management, the BJP alone is not to be blamed. If the Gujarat government has registered a case of sedition against an online portal editor for writing that the state chief minister is likely to be replaced, the track record of state governments ruled by non-BJP leaders is no different. Haven’t we heard of the West Bengal government slapping a case against a professor for sharing a cartoon on Mamata Banerjee and similar absurdities elsewhere as well? At varying periods in history, institutions preferred self-censorship, much like the self-isolation we are being advised if affected by the coronavirus. There may be no vaccine yet for corona but we have one in the form of Article 19 (right to freedom of speech/expression), if only we want to fight the other disease.
Vaccine III: An oft-repeated observation by critics of Narendra Modi is that his success has more to do with the lack of an alternative leader. Let’s accept the country now has only one political icon—Modi. During Emergency and after, the nation needed another icon and found one in Jayaprakash Narayan, despite his failing health, even as activists of the non-Congress coalition took to the streets with his recorded speech played out on loudspeakers.
Experience has shown us that for any political party, there cannot be an alternative to mass contact, similar to what the RSS does for the BJP. Dozens of political parties abound in this country but the more pertinent question to ponder is why Modi still finds favour with the people. Back in the 1970s, JP not only proved to be an alternative icon but also came up with an alternative narrative. All that his disciples did later—the Mulayam Singhs of UP and Lalu Yadavs of Bihar—was to foist family on people. Modi critics, too, concede that a precondition for a credible alternative to emerge is for the Congress, in its current avatar with the Gandhis at the helm, to be consigned to the dustbin because the family provides the most effective vaccine for the BJP to stave off any crisis. What this country needs is a genuine opposition, which could be the preventive shot against the failings/excesses of those in power, and if this has to happen, the Congress should reinvent itself.
On the flip side, the risks of what we are currently witnessing are actually greater for the parties in power, whether in the Centre or in the states, because the latent anger/discontent will be invisible until it’s too late. Late Atal Bihari Vajpayee, among the respected prime ministers of this country, recalled an anecdote in one of his speeches in Parliament. “I was a young MP, sitting on the back benches, but I had my fair share of arguments/disagreements with Pandit Nehru. I once told him that he is a split personality, reflecting both Churchill and Chamberlain, the UK prime minister accused of adopting an appeasement policy towards Adolf Hitler’s Germany before the Second World War.” All that Nehru did was to compliment Vajpayee for a good speech. “If I were to indulge in similar criticism today, it would amount to fostering enmity,” Vajpayee quipped in 1996, wondering whether or not Nehru’s spirit merited respect. We are now in 2020.
G S Vasu
Editor,The New Indian Express
(vasu@newindianexpress.com)