By Rajdeep Sardesai
With an astute political communicator like prime minister Narendra Modi, the message often lies in deliberate wordplay. Which is why the use of the word ‘Parivarjan’ (family members) as many as 48 times in his Independence Day address this year is strategic: from ‘mitron’ (friends) to bhaiyon aur behno (brothers and sisters) to now ‘parivarjan’, the prime minister is setting himself up as a lead member of a ‘family’ of 140 crore Indians. The contrast with his political rivals who he accuses of parivarwaad or dynastical politics has been sharpened. But does the prime minister’s ‘trishul’ of ‘parivarwaad’, ‘brashtachar’ (corruption) and minority appeasement resonate as effectively as it did nine years ago when he first ascended to the top post?
Let’s start with the political ‘brahmastra’ of ‘parivarwad’. In 2014, Mr Modi was the archetypal ‘outsider’, an RSS pracharak turned chief minister who was a ‘chaiwallah’s son’ and not part of the privileged Lutyens elite. His principal rival, Rahul Gandhi was typecast as the ‘Shehzada’ (Prince) of the Delhi ‘Sultanat’, a legatee of his family surname. The symbolism worked perfectly. The campaign was later modified by 2019 into a ‘kaamdar’ (worker) versus naamdar (dynast) binary narrative, designed once again to showcase the prime minister’s humble origins and contrast it with the Congress challenger’s elite upbringing as a fifth generation dynast. With Rahul Gandhi doing little to repudiate the popular view that he was in the Congress president’s chair only because he was Sonia and Rajiv Gandhi’s son, Mr Modi scored with a key talking point.
In the last year though, the roles of the two principal players in the political fight have almost imperceptibly reversed. Mr Modi may still cast himself as a rooted OBC leader who is promising to build a ‘new’ India based on merit and not lineage but he is also now a two time prime minister who unhesitatingly flaunts the trappings of power. When, for example, a stadium in Ahmedabad is named after Mr Modi, or he is pictured feeding peacocks in his well-manicured prime ministerial garden or he poses in front of a grand new parliament building, the transformation into an imperious cult figure is unmistakable. Yesterday’s ‘son of a chaiwallah’ is today’s commanding figure with supreme authority.By contrast, Mr Gandhi has spent the last year criss-crossing the country on a Bharat Jodo Yatra, rushed to a Manipur to embrace a grieving family in a relief camp and is seen in the company of truck-drivers, mechanics, farmers and vegetable vendors. The well packaged videos of Mr Gandhi with the ‘aam aadmi’ are clever optics, designed to project the Congress leader as someone who listens to the voices of ordinary Indians. Yesterday’s entitled ‘shehzada’ is now being re-branded as today’s leader with a common man touch. The dynast tag may still haunt him but it is no longer his sole badge of identity amongst the wider public.
Moreover, while the opposition ‘India’ alliance is dominated by family-centric parties, can the BJP today claim to be entirely above nepotism in public life? More than 40 BJP MPs in both houses of parliament have dynastic links. In the recent Karnataka elections, at least two dozen BJP tickets went to candidates from just ten political families. And what of the BJP allies, old and new, from the Akalis in Punjab to a Dushyant Chautala in Haryana to a Chirag Paswan in Bihar to an Ajit Pawar in Maharashtra: aren’t they also part of the ‘parivarwaad’ syndrome?
Interestingly, in a speech he delivered in the Central Hall of parliament on the occasion of Constitution Day two years ago, the prime minister drew a distinction between ‘dynastic parties’ and ‘dynasts.’The former he said were against the spirit of democracy but the latter could be acceptable if they had talent and public support. In effect, Mr Modi was attempting to explain the BJP’s willingness to accommodate the kin of politicians if they could prove their electability.
Let’s now turn to ‘corruption’ as a campaign plank. In 2014, Mr Modi was a prime beneficiary of the India against Corruption movement that hobbled the Manmohan Singh government. Nine years later, there are serious question marks over the manner in which the enforcement agencies have been used to single out opposition politicians. When the Enforcement Directorate is hyper-active in opposition-ruled states but strangely missing in BJP-governed states, can the Modi government claim to be even-handed in its ‘na khaoonga na khane doonga’ stance? And what of numerous political defectors who seem to mysteriously escape the scrutiny of the investigative agencies the moment they switch sides? Greatly enriched by opaque electoral bonds, the BJP’s claim of being a party with a difference is now blighted by charges of cronyism.
The prime minister’s other familiar trope of ‘appeasement’ also needs a relook. If Congress is accused of pandering to minorities, the BJP can’t escape the more serious allegation of persecuting minority groups. When inter-faith marriages are demonised as ‘love jihad’, when food and dress habits lead to social discrimination, when there is little or no political representation for minorities, when hate speech isn’t called out, then questions will be raised over the rise of majoritarian politics. The recent targeted killing of Muslims in a train by a Railway Protection Force constable hardly evoked any outrage within the ruling establishment. The ‘normalisation’ of hate politics defies the constitutional promise of equal citizenry.
The BJP though is convinced that the three-pronged attack will ensure a Modi hat-trick. With the opposition still struggling to get its act together, Mr Modi remains in pole position to return to power in 2024. But after almost a decade in office, the Modi government’s strategy can’t revolve around opposition frailties alone. The ‘new’ BJP must define what it stands for, not just what the opposition is seen to represent. The ‘parivarjan’ deserves better.
Post-script: On the sidelines of an opposition ‘India’ alliance meeting, one senior politician offered an intriguing prospect in private conversation: what if Rahul Gandhi were to opt out of the prime ministerial race altogether and only become a star campaigner. “Imagine if we project a Mallikarjun Kharge, a Nitish Kumar, a Mamata Banerjee, an Arvind Kejriwal in our line up: a Dalit, an OBC, a woman, an IITian, can anyone call them beneficiaries of parivarwaad?” he asked pointedly.
(The writer is a senior journalist and author. mail: [email protected])