• Home
• /
• Opinion

Indian PM must build a bridge over troubled waters

One of the problems that deters the current government from ending this uncertainty of where the nation is going in terms of communal divisiveness is that the media, as in the US has been marked as a menace, a nuisance and an evil entity bent upon destruction of the common good.

It is all over now, the seven stages of the world's largest ever electoral spectacle have folded up in India. The decision is sealed and signed, and the fate of 6,400 candidates in little wooden boxes is waiting to be counted so that 543 of them can be seated in the House of Parliament and lead 1.3 billion people to a tryst with destiny, whether sweet or sour only time will tell.
It does not matter a whit what you think of the incumbent or his challenger or any of the other aspirants to power now. If you have any profound misgivings and would wish to change your vote and stop Mamata Banerjee's ambitions in her tracks that train has left the station.
And with the exit polls showing a veritable landslide with plus-300 in favour of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi even a flawed polling of 20 per cent sees him home free. With a brute majority his sense of responsibility becomes that much more vital. The next five years put Indian democracy on trial.
But this piece is not just about Modi or the Gandhi dynasty or the great divide in love and hate but how the latter has now turned liquid and become a driving force.
This worldwide tendency to employ hatred as a weapon in politics is predicated to a simple equation that is insidious in its intent.
This reminds me of a scene in the famous US series Madam Secretary where Téa Leoni plays Elizabeth McCord, Secretary of State. She says most succinctly that hatred polarises but more importantly assumes that support for a person is a display of patriotism and being critical of that person is tantamount to being anti-national.
Perhaps it would be fair to say that when Time magazine rather cruelly projected Narendra Modi as the great divider it failed to say that its own leader might well have set the pace and the route.
When US President Donald Trump says 'make America great again' he is actually saying, 'well, come on catch up because I am already there.' You do notice the same sort of shift from the use of the collective 'we' to the singular 'I' as if the benediction of intellect and hubris was in equal measure. This 'I' factor intensified in Modi the last few weeks and again it underscores the sentiment of the saviour at work. Ergo, if you are not with me in entirety then you are against me and if you are against me then you are against the country. Therefore, you are anti-national.
The trend gets murky when there is no stoppage. In all fairness unlike in the case of Donald Trump who writes and speaks out from his own script, Modi is often pre-empted by his henchmen and so-called blind supporters. He has to pay the price. As a result of propelling these 'you plus me is good, you minus me is treachery' equations what happens is, that like with Caesar, the good is often interred with his bones. And there has been a lot of good.
The primary sensation becomes one of fear that is then intensified by rumour, half-truth and isolated incident, creating not just a bonfire of the vanities but generating a conflagration fed by mistrust and suspicion.
One can only hope that this mandate is used to address the growing concern that critiquing those in power is not an act of anti-nationalism or elitist self-indulgence but a right enshrined in any democratic constitution.
Patriots and politicians are not interchangeable nor are they the only tribe entitled to waving the flag. The man on the street has the same right and must be allowed to exercise it with similar vigour and free from retribution.
One of the problems that deters the current government from ending this uncertainty of where the nation is going in terms of communal divisiveness is that the media, as in the US has been marked as a menace, a nuisance and an evil entity bent upon destruction of the common good. While one could make a case for some of the organs of the fourth estate being cancerous and in need of therapy, to discard the one avenue for the message and roadblock it makes no sense. When a prime minister is so disenchanted with the Press that he picks and chooses his interaction there is cause for tangible worry.
This is the second gap that must be bridged. Again, it is a Trump initiative that finds its echo in New Delhi.
The third gap which exists is one of credibility that is spawned through imposing a steady control and discipline on the team. Modi's frontline is running free and gets away with so much nonsense that regrettably he has to pay for it. So whether it is Pragya Thakur, a Bharatiya Janata Party candidate, speaking out of line or Modi's party chief Amit Shah making communal pronouncements or the migrant issue being used as a target (hello, Mexico) the fact that Modi allows time to deflect it by employing an enigmatic silence and saying nothing creates more outrage and sharpens the lines of the divide.
One can only hope that the future prime minister - be it Modi or someone else - ends the slanging match that has now drenched the Indian politics and created bridges over troubled waters, not churns them further.
There is a fourth elephant in the Indian room, too. That of the government entering homes and dictating what to eat, what to wear, what to think, and these are not the business of elected governance.