Triumph of the majority

This election is the victory of a socially conservative, small-town ethos — one that most of India lives in

Written by Pradeep Chhibber , Susan Ostermann | Updated: June 17, 2014 8:43 am
The newly assertive small town and rural India does not nod to institutional politics in the same way that the urban elite does. The idea of a muscular leader, a leader who takes quick and firm decisions and is not necessarily inclusive, plays well in this constituency. (Source: PTI) The newly assertive small town and rural India does not nod to institutional politics in the same way that the urban elite does. The idea of a muscular leader, a leader who takes quick and firm decisions and is not necessarily inclusive, plays well in this constituency. (Source: PTI)

BY: Pradeep K. Chhibber and Susan Ostermann

This election is the victory of a socially conservative, small-town ethos — one that most of India lives in.

Narendra Modi’s swearing-in certainly represents a vote for change by an aspirational India, but it is also more than that: his victory signals a turning of the tide in the ongoing struggle over the idea of India. With this election, the well-known notion of an enlightened India led by a Western-oriented urban elite has been overturned as Indians have voted to power politicians closer to their roots, politicians who represent small-town, socially conservative values.

This is not a new struggle. It has been ongoing since Independence, and before. The election of a government led by a cultural Hindu nationalist, Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), combined with the electoral success of regional parties — the leaders of which run their states like strongmen — is a direct challenge to the notion of India that is often associated with an elite that sees India as secular, liberal and discrete in its use of raw political power.

The secular challenge is most widely known. It stems from the history of the BJP, its and Modi’s ties to Hindu nationalist groups like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and the riots against Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 that occurred when Modi was the chief minister of that state. These facts lend some credence to claims that the rise of a Modi-led BJP will lead to the resurgence of a Hindu right that will marginalise religious minorities — Muslims, in particular — promote social conservatism and, sometimes literally, rewrite history.

The outcome of the 2014 general election in India also challenges the liberal idea of India. The parties that voters have elected into office — the BJP and the many regional parties that now have more seats collectively than the Congress party — represent a different vision of India, one that is socially conservative, business-friendly and unabashed in its use of political power. This social conservatism, coupled with more business-friendly government, has deep historical roots. It was a small but powerful part of the Congress party at Independence in 1947. Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, favoured a more liberal, plural, and socialist vision. This was challenged from within the Congress party by the more socially and economically conservative nationalist vision of Sardar Patel who, like Modi, hailed from the state of Gujarat and was responsible for merging the many princely states in British India into the Indian state, often through coercion and/ or force.

Sukhamoy Chakravarti, a doyen among Indian economists, has written that Nehru did not want economic development led by the private sector because it could have accrued greater power to Patel. This debate reappeared in the late 1960s when the “Syndicate,” in which Morarji Desai was a key player, lost to Indira Gandhi. Gujarati conservatism has a long lineage in Indian politics and not surprisingly Modi, in his recent campaign, has deliberately adopted the mantle of Sardar Patel. It is Patel’s brand of socially conservative and aggressive nationalism — not that of another Gujarati, M.K. Gandhi — that serves as Modi’s model.

But Patel’s social conservatism is not the only reason Modi has chosen him as his ideological guru. Patel also favoured the decisive use of political power and the fact that Modi presents himself as a strong leader challenges the tradition Indian politicians have adopted of being discrete in their use of political power. Modi’s speeches on the campaign trail have been noteworthy because of their aggressive tone, presenting him as a decisive leader who does not shy away from disparaging others, notably the Congress party’s Gandhi dynasty. The idea of a muscular leader, a leader who takes quick and firm decisions and is not necessarily inclusive, plays well in small-town and rural India, which is deeply socially conservative and values strong leadership, not least because this is what it is accustomed to. Violence in these areas  is an acceptable political currency.

Indeed, all of the regional parties that have done well in these elections are headed by local politicians (Mamata Banerjee, J. Jayalalithaa, Mulayam Singh Yadav, Lalu Prasad) who share important traits with Modi — they are socially conservative. All these regional politicians are associated with the unabashed use of power as the currency of politics. The newly assertive small town and rural India does not nod to institutional politics in the same way that the urban elite does. In turn, this suave urban elite, which has thus far dominated the intellectual discourse in India, often looks down upon the often less well-educated, seemingly less sophisticated small-town politicians. The Congress and the urban elite are deeply disturbed by the tone of Modi’s campaign, but the English language “chatterati” seems to forget that it is a tone that resonates in small town and rural India and has now met with indisputable electoral success.

In celebrating India’s democracy, those in Delhi often overlook the fact that at the local level politics remains violent. While national elections are, by and large, free of this type of coercion, local elections are certainly not.

Even the communists stayed in power in the Indian state of West Bengal by means of local-level manipulation and force. Thus, it is fair to say that this election marks the victory of an India that has persisted in the face of the accommodating and deliberative democracy purveyed by India’s liberal, Westernised elite. Though the elite would rather not acknowledge the bulk of the Indian population, a population, which is socially conservative and continues to dwell in small towns and rural areas where political power is exercised freely and often without constraint, a liberal democratic process has now forced them to do so.

This is a triumph of electoral democracy and not a failure, in that it has finally brought the majority to power, however rural and socially conservative they may be. For the first time in Indian history, a local politician, Narendra Modi, has successfully led a national campaign. However much the Indian urban intellectuals would like to disassociate the two, a liberal process and its conservative ends, India’s recent election serves  as yet another reminder that democracy does not necessarily privilege liberal ideas and can just as capably provide political openings for conservative ones.

The writers are at the Travers Department of Political Science at the University of California, Berkley, US

For all the latest India News, download Indian Express App now

  1. S
    Soumyakanti Chakraborty
    Dec 12, 2015 at 7:24 am
    Would like to read a similar analysis on the pority of Donald Trump and the nature of American society. That would never happen of course. Such analysis is reserved for the dark "natives" and "orientals".
    Reply
    1. A
      Anil Tandale
      Jun 17, 2014 at 7:26 am
      The authors show their prejudice very openly. They speak of the riots "against" Muslims in 2002 when Modi was the Chief Minister. They cover up genocide against Sikhs in 1984, exhorted by Rajiv hi when he was Prime Minister, by justifying them as the natural shaking of earth when "big tree" falls. Modi ensured hundreds of prosecutions and convictions. What about the Congress leadership? No Congress President apologized for genocide of Sikhs. People thought enough is enough, and voted for BJP with full majority. Every democracy postulates majority community rule and minority communities' protection. India has matured. Hindus are demanding rights on par with minorities.
      Reply
      1. T
        TIHARwale
        Jun 17, 2014 at 7:36 am
        Violence in interior areas of India is an acceptable way of life. The atrocities on ladies, poor and vulnerable are true in rural India. This is reflected in the fact that none of the educated girl from rural India ever returns to her rural roots because they would have seen the beastly instincts within their extended family in rural India.
        Reply
        1. B
          Birdie
          Jun 17, 2014 at 7:37 am
          By 'liberal' do you mean the peddlers of a fuedal dynastic crony socialism? And by 'small town conservatism' do you mean a people who are sick of all the above, poverty, filth, and a dismal vision of their future unless they chose to embrace the fuedal masters of their destiny, and on bended knees, grovelled for ss?Wonder what took you to California Mr. Chibber?
          Reply
          1. P
            Pankaj Pandey
            Jun 17, 2014 at 7:07 pm
            First things first, the le says Triumph of the Majority. Does the author mean to say it should be rule of the minority? Now moving to Liberalism, how liberal has been the so called liberals. When one fails to take into the concerns of the majority of a country can it be termed as liberal? Moreover liberalism is a social phenomena and not a political one, although the so called "liberals" have did build up a political currency with this fake liberalism. But things being as it were it had to end and so it has. The only point is that the so called liberals are yet to come to term with the loss and thus finding reasons to satisfy themselves rather than doing an introspection. They lost because they were not there!!!!! If still they find the reasons of defeat elsewhere they are dumber then everyone believes they are!!!!!
            Reply
            1. B
              bharat
              Jun 17, 2014 at 6:56 am
              Just aping the west - in speeches and in social circuit does not make one 'liberal'. And to call the Sonia Congress govt decade long rule as 'insutional politics' when one Italian-born woman and her family and coterie mis-ruled, destro insutions through nepotism, large gifting of Nations natural resources and mega corruption is being dishonest. And the less said about anti-Hindu policies to appease Christian 'soul harvesting' NGOs and Muslim votebanks, the better.
              Reply
              1. K
                kvk
                Jun 18, 2014 at 3:48 am
                excellent analysis. What the election has brought about is akin to conservative, authoritarian fathers like mine being handed full powers. The Mulayams and Lallus are a perfect example of those who use power as the most legitimate tool of politics. But indian democracy will survive these backward elements.
                Reply
                1. K
                  krishnan
                  Jun 17, 2014 at 12:54 am
                  Dear Sir, Your article seems to have a typographical error when it suggests that Modi had facilitated the joining of the princely States in the Indian union. It was actually Sardar Patel. When mentioning about regional leaders doing well, please note that Mulayam Singh yadav and Lalu yadav s parties did not do well but your article seems to suggest that they had indeed done well.
                  Reply
                  1. Y
                    Yogesh Jain
                    Jun 17, 2014 at 3:40 am
                    I do not feel this analysis right in painting Modi as coercive or rhetoric to attract rural folks. This is too simplistic. Columnists fail to understand that his election campaign has more to do with how Congress uttered and performed, how biased media worked for the Congress and how people aspirations were just ignored by the ruling regime. Modi could capitalise on follies of these people and parallely presented his positive side of looking at things.
                    Reply
                    1. A
                      Atul
                      Jun 17, 2014 at 5:57 am
                      Who is this who does not know history?What Sardar Patel did no one could have done.Nehru was an who wanted to remain in power with muslim votes.Secularism is nothing but anti hindu policyaji was real secular leader who believed in justice for all.hi was also like Nehru who supported muslims and that is why was killed by a patriot Hindu.If you don't know history come to me .
                      Reply
                      1. B
                        Bala kondur
                        Jun 17, 2014 at 2:51 pm
                        The author does not present any data to substantiate his views which is odd considering that he is an academic. The election voting patterns and results are a rich data set which if analyzed without prejudice may actually yield the real insights. This article seems more like a rant.
                        Reply
                        1. Load More Comments