Democratic politics is often predictable and routine. In contrast, various forms of sub-democratic politics are suffused with uncertainty and drama. As India continues to trudge along the sub-democratic path, it seems that a moment of drama might be on the horizon. That drama consists of a two-fold development: Doubt entering into the minds of a section of supporters of the regime and the strain of apprehension creeping into the leadership.
The current regime is predicated on three very solid bases. One is the lethal and active organisational muscle called the BJP. The second is the aura and larger-than-life self-image of the prime minister. The third is popular attraction and support for a majoritarian and authoritarian style of politics and governance. While the first of these continues to be more or less in place even after nearly two terms in office since 2014, the signs of ageing and fatigue seem to have begun to appear in the case of the top leadership and, concurrently among sections of supporters, making the BJP’s popularity somewhat “normal”.
To understand the normalisation of popular sentiment in favour of the BJP, we need to first separate the distinct groups that constitute the BJP’s “140 crores”. At one end of the spectrum of this mythical “140 crores” are those who oppose the ideas and practices adopted by the regime. In these days of name-calling, let us describe them as “pseudo-secular anti-nationalists”. They are not large in number and their voice is not seen as bearing much legitimacy. Intolerance born out of overconfidence leads to hounding and harassment of these sections but that is politically unnecessary. At the other end of the spectrum are what the current political lexicon calls the “Bhakts”, who constitute the committed foot soldiers of the BJP. These two groups more or less stand where they have been for the past decade. So, changes in the political weather do not depend much on them.
Between these two extremes, there is a section of those who are willing to suspend disbelief and expect miracles. They are not from the BJP’s core constituency socially or ideologically, but have been attracted by myth-making mechanisms and the hype about deliverance into a new millennium. They live in conditions of hardship and in exchange for suffering, are eager to fight villains and enemies. They are, simply, the hopefuls. Finally, there is a middle-class segment that is benumbed by its own dumbness and self-deceit and wants to believe that the coming decade and the remainder of the current century belong to India because of Modi. With their personal condition secure, they talk loudly about national pride and economic power. Let us call them the waylaid or “pseudo nationalists”. They are also opinion makers and have an immense influence on the way the suffering multitudes think.
As the ruling party keeps repeating dreams of a golden age or Amrit Kaal, the attractiveness of these dreams is bound to wane. The lived experience of many “hopefuls” contradicts the dreams of Amrit Kaal. Problematically for the ruling party, this contradiction dawns on many citizens just as the next election approaches and the only way available to wriggle out of this situation is to shout down all opposition and make the slogans of Amrit Kaal more shrill. This strategy, however, smacks of transparent desperation and might not induce confidence as it once did. More ominously, self-serving as they are, the waylaid nationalists are on the verge of losing their enthusiasm, if not exactly deserting the regime. Their support of the regime is as fickle and unpredictable as the stock market and indeed, if the economy fails to pick up and if there are signs of a climb down in the market, these sections will at the very least, stop singing paeans to the ruling party and its ever-wise leadership. If these two developments come to pass, we shall be at the cusp of a new political possibility.
Will that happen — and happen at a critical juncture? Here, the most suggestive factor is the apprehensions among those who steer the regime. When the hand that steers begins to waver, the cheerleaders and the crowds are bound to have second thoughts. The lonely roar of the leader that he alone is equal to many might seem brave but it also has a pathos of actually being alone in bearing the loss.
For the past few years, December used to be the month of possibilities followed by the new year of crackdowns. Curiously, that order is disrupted and the new year has actually begun by throwing up challenges at the regime and the response so far seems to be weak, apprehensive and tentative. Amid the din over the G20 presidentship, three developments took place and PM Modi does not seem to be well prepared to respond to them.
The first concerns domestic politics. The perseverance of Rahul Gandhi in not only completing the Bharat Jodo Yatra but in weaving a narrative around it rattled the BJP. Years of trolling and image-destruction had lulled the BJP into a sense of security. Rahul Gandhi shook that sense at the roots. The Yatra did not rejuvenate the Congress but it certainly posed the BJP with the challenge of responding to someone else’s agenda. PM Modi has failed to roundly respond to the tenacity and outcome of the Yatra. The second development, though originating in domestic politics from two decades ago, actually touched the raw nerve of global stature and repute — the BBC documentary. The government quickly slipped and chose to ban the documentary (followed up with suspicious and ubiquitous IT action later). Ironically, the documentary was going to be watched mainly by the “pseudo-secular anti-nationalists” who are anyway Modi’s opponents but by banning it, the government gave it more publicity and handed the Opposition multiple instruments to attack it with.
The third and more devastating development that is unfolding and more directly connects to PM Modi relates to the Hindenburg report on an Indian corporate house. Despite eloquent silence, Modi will be unable to shirk this away. The government cannot disown that corporate nor can it defend it. While the government may adopt subterfuge, abuse the judicial process to deflect the issues and might as well rescue itself for the time being, by not responding to criticisms and questions, by hiding behind the presiding officers and their decisions to expunge core questions on the Adani affair, the PM has for the first time allowed to be seen as vulnerable.
Empires built on othering, inflated images and propaganda are not easy to defend with repression and avoidance. Nor does political acumen insulate them from public scrutiny. In the PM’s desperation, one may read signs of a moment when the first cracks appear in the hegemonic empire Modi and his BJP have built.
The writer, based in Pune, taught political science and is chief editor of Studies in Indian Politics
