Jaws of oligarchy

Most of the critiques levelled at the current regime’s style of functioning draw intellectually from the Left’s notions of state power and liberal notions of authoritarianism – both of these are in the light of experiences with Right-wing authoritarian regimes. It would be interesting to look into the Right’s notions of and objections to authoritarianism and the misuse of state power – when the administration in place was one other than their own.

Since the idea of autocratic power is not an invention of the Right-wing, but comes from ancient notions of divine mandate and religious sanction to social hierarchy – the Right indeed had to learn from its encounters with and endeavours against an incumbent government.

Some of the insights are indeed startling. When one comes across RSS propaganda against Indira Gandhi’s rule, one begins to see the symptoms of a story that is all too familiar in the present context

An editorial note in the RSS mouthpiece Organiser titled “A Fascist State?” published in the Deepawali issue of 1984 enlightens us on some interesting historical parallels:
“While close media watchers and political stargazers may wrangle over the question whether the Doordarshan is being used as Mrs. (Indira) Gandhi’s monopoly or Mrs. Gandhi is being used as Doordarshan’s monopoly to beautify the rather dreary TV screen umpteen times a day, there is no doubt that she is consciously emerging as the TV superstar.”

The accusation in the Organiser regarding subversion of public communications machinery for propaganda purposes reminds one of the pre-packaged Mann Ki Baat addresses. It is not simply that an address is broadcast by the public media – it is amplified by gushing coverage from the private media of a speech that involves more of what the Prime Minister wants to talk about, and less of the issues the country faces today.

One must also mention the huge expenditure involved in its promotion – in the form of newspaper and TV ads, billboards and more – often outweighing the social or infrastructural benefits. One would not be wrong to argue that the private media houses were never half as loyal to Indira Gandhi – a single look at the newspapers from the 1970s would be clarification enough, as would the tone of the Organiser excerpt itself – because Gandhi was prepared to be a threat to the interests of the biggest business houses when needed (the Goenkas owned The Indian Express, for example).

Developments in mass media were viewed suspiciously by the RSS:
“And Mr. HKL Bhagat’s crash programme to cover 70 percent of the Indian populace by installing 139 new transmitters in 120 days, is patently designed to facilitate that process (of making Gandhi a TV superstar). But as everybody knows, it is all for the purpose of an election windfall, apart from the incidental windfalls for party and private coffers.”

Regarding expansion of public communications infrastructure for political propaganda purposes, the Digital India campaign is of a similar breed – a hyped PR stunt which provides an infrastructure expansion partly through public money, for the profit of private groups, ultimately serving as a way for the government to use taxpaye- funded advertising to celebrate itself on your devices for taking your data using your taxpayer money.

The excerpt that follows is a depiction of how the public sphere is ultimately manipulated:

“The whole thing is admirably planned to project an Atlas-like image for the PM – a sort of demigoddess carrying the backbreaking burden of the problems of India on her slender shoulders or a Hercules fighting external and internal dragons and demons, including those of the opposition, with supernatural force and finesse.”

The misogynistic “slender shoulders” comment aside, the similarities are uncanny. PM Modi routinely upstages his ministers to grab the spotlight – for example, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj’s tenure has been entirely overshadowed by the Prime Minister’s interventions. The Prime Minister has also spent more days abroad than she has, in their respective capacities. The common perception among the general public is that the current government is run by a small coterie and not through ministerial autonomy.

The deification of Prime Minister Modi is constantly underway – from Modi temples in Gujarat, to prematurely deterministic books on “Modinomics” published a couple of months before PM Modi even laid down a coherent economic policy. Apparently, the PM alone can tackle the crises India is facing today – whether the persistence of caste discrimination, or the skyrocketing inflation, or even the communal problem – whether or not he is interested in solving them in the first place.

The discourse of the 56-inch chest and the “Modi masks” are also rather telling. Like a petty dynastic regional party, the BJP is now claiming that each vote for any of its candidates since 2014 was a vote for PM Modi – as if each vote given to the NDA in 1999 was a personal vote for Atal Behari Vajpayee. The constant refrain is that the Prime Minister is making a colossal effort to protect and improve the country and that any iota of dissent would be unpatriotic. Indira Gandhi did not label her opponents “anti-national”, however much the latter used that very label against her.

The achievements and merits of the Make In India, Swachh Bharat, and Digital India initiatives have been grossly exaggerated – and form rather odd, empty successes to tout. Not a single election promise has been upheld. Indian business tycoons are still investing abroad, while FDI has opened up crucial sectors to the vulture multinational firms. Manual scavenging has not been eradicated, municipal garbage collection and forms of waste disposal have not been improved, renewable energy has not been promoted. Key economic issues such as employment, self-sufficiency and expansion welfare have not been adequately addressed. A short list of what the Prime Minster did not speak about in his Mann Ki Baat-ein would suffice to prove the point: Dadri, the Rohith Vemula suicide, the Jat agitation, the JNU controversy, the Patel agitation, caste atrocities, and the Vyapam scam.

The mapping of enemies is also at work. Kashmiri civilians (not to mention the 150 or so militants), “love jihadis”, inept Opposition MPs, central university students and the spectre of the Islamic State are the main shadows that the current regime wants be seen boxing with.

confuzzled dude wrote:
The excerpt that follows is a depiction of how the public sphere is ultimately manipulated:

“The whole thing is admirably planned to project an Atlas-like image for the PM – a sort of demigoddess carrying the backbreaking burden of the problems of India on her slender shoulders or a Hercules fighting external and internal dragons and demons, including those of the opposition, with supernatural force and finesse.”

Seva Lamberdar wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:
The excerpt that follows is a depiction of how the public sphere is ultimately manipulated:

“The whole thing is admirably planned to project an Atlas-like image for the PM – a sort of demigoddess carrying the backbreaking burden of the problems of India on her slender shoulders or a Hercules fighting external and internal dragons and demons, including those of the opposition, with supernatural force and finesse.”

In what way are Modi's "man ki baats" with Indians different from FDR's "fire side chats" with Americans?

As for Modi's image by some media sources currently as the savior of India and Indians, the same thing the Life magazine said about Indira Gandhi, as the eagerly awaited leader and savior of India and Indians, when she became Indian P.M.