[Reader-list] In the Shadow of Terror: Anti-politician or Anti-politics?

Tue Dec 16 18:52:20 IST 2008

*commentary*december 13, 2008 *EPW *Economic & Political Weekly
*In the Shadow of *T*error: *A*nti-politician or *A*nti-politics?*

Suhas Palshikar

Neoliberal economics, globalisation of aspirations and the hype about India
as a superpower have all led the Indian middle/elite classes to believe that
they now constitute the backbone of the country. They expect politics to
reflect their aspirations and respond to their anxieties. They want politics
to represent them since they assume that they represent India. This
disconnect leads to constant suspicion of and cynicism about the politician.
This is what underlies the tirade against politicians after the Mumbai
horrors.The new activism may be short-lived, but the danger is that the
"anti-politics" sentiment will seep across social classes and strengthen a
vocabulary of a worrisome kind.

As the ghastly attacks on Mumbai unfolded, a new and unanticipated response
surfaced. "Urban" India suddenly found its voice and chanted the slogan:
"Down with the politician!". Given the many faults of our "politicians", it
is no wonder that this slogan finds resonance in the sentiments of many a
citizen. Yet, it may not be off the mark to say that the anti-politician
campaign has its roots in Mumbai's elite circles and large urban centres
elsewhere in the country. The symbolic gatherings expressing sympathy for
the dead and injured and solidarity with the National Security Guard (NSG)
and police for their fight against the attackers turned into expressions of
severe criticism of not only the incumbent government but the entire tribe
of politicians. It is being argued that all politicians are *nikamma *and we
must do something drastic about our politics. While atrocious ideas like
appointing a chief executive officer for Mumbai have surfaced in glitterati
interviews, the old spectre of making Mumbai a separately governed
territory also constitute this elite and middle class discourse.

What happened in Mumbai on 26-28 November was unprecedented and indicates
the new strategy that would be adopted by terrorist groups in the near
future. Given the newness of the strategy, the surprise, the anger and the
confusion are all understandable. But when a tragedy becomes a spectacle, it
not only blurs the larger picture, it allows some sections to ride piggyback
on the public mood of anger and disappointment. Add to it the new-found
power of the electronic media and you have all the making of a
democracy-through-TV camera.

While the NSG was still fighting the battle with the terrorists, sections
of media went overboard and started the campaign "Enough Is Enough". One
could perhaps appreciate the sentiment behind this, but alas, soon, it
turned out that it was an attack on the "politician". Bashing the politician
is the easiest thing since the poor species depends so much on the media
that however you bash them, they will still flock to the studios and solicit
the "byte hunting" sentinels of democracy! For almost an equal number of
hours that the commandos were fighting the battle, the TV cameras were
asking anyone and everyone, "isn't enough is enough…?", as if there is a
certain amount of terrorism that we can accept. Quickly, this theme was
picked up by some non-governmental organisations and the upholders of
reformed democracy. Mumbai witnessed a flood of anti-politician expression
articulated mainly by the middle classes. It is possible that this outburst
could be seen as a reaction to the suddenness and the trauma – after all,
you need somebody to blame. But one suspects that behind this
anti-politician campaign, there is a much deeper anti-politics sentiment.
And unfortunately the media is instrumental in shaping and defining it.

The anti-politician campaign appears to have three dimensions: it represents
an overall disappointment with our politics felt mostly by the urban middle
class; it surreptitiously calls for withdrawal from or distancing from
competitive politics; it recommends "tough" measures to combat terrorism; it
seeks to "reform" politics. The force and appeal of these are evident.

If things are going wrong, is it not that the political process has failed
to throw up responsible leadership? Is it not true that our politics needs
to be reformed? Have we not dilly-dallied on strong measures to fight
terrorism?

While on the surface these issues seem to be valid, the questions are
defined wrongly and the answers are wrong too. That is what makes this
anti-politician platform not only faulty but dangerous to the democratic
enterprise. In the first question there is an impatience with the democratic
process and a naïve expectation that politics, like a magic wand, must
resolve all problems. It is typical of the middle class that rather than
negotiations and compromises, it believes that there are final solutions to
all problems. The issue contained in the second question, political reforms,
is undoubtedly important. But we must first define what we mean by reforms.
Democracy provides representatives and leaders from among society itself.
There is no such thing as a separate class of politicians to be bred and
brought up for the benefit of society. Besides, democracy is admittedly a
clumsy and complex activity. By seeking to sanitise it, are we trying to rob
it of its capacity to shape contestations, its potential to force
negotiations? Many supporters of the present demand for political reform
forget that institutional remedies have limitations and should not aim at
enslaving the struggles for power (Yadav 2000). Reforming politics should
not mean limiting politics; it must facilitate the expansion of politics.

This leaves us with the immediate issue of fighting terrorism. Is it
political naivety that those demanding tough measures are not aware that
this is exactly what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been asking for?
Would it not make more sense to ask for effective implementation of security
measures? As an op-ed piece in *Indian Express *by Nandan Nilekani (29
November 2008) rightly implied, why should we give up on democracy for
ensuring better governance? But one of the hallmarks of a typical middle
class response is "simplification". Complex issues are presented as simple
and straightforward in order to make them comprehensible. Its other
dimension is to seek a simplified solution to all problems. Another aspect
of the middle class response is to find someone concrete to blame.

After the tragic events in Mumbai, three dimensions were in abundant
evidence: simplification, simplified solutions and the need to blame
someone. Already, the media and sections of the political class had created
an atmosphere in which a simplistic understanding of the issue of terrorism
prevailed: that one religion encourages and justifies terrorism, that it is
a conspiracy against the emerging Indian superpower, etc. This
understanding also believes that terrorism can be stopped or ended by some
tough action: that India is a soft state and therefore we are facing such
attacks. If we become a hard state (read: a militarist state), we can
overcome terrorism.

But it is the anti-politics tendency more than the tendency towards
simplification that requires attention. Middle classes often exercise the
exit option instead of aligning with the larger universe called the public.
Most of our governance outcomes are a testimony to this exiting footprint
of the middle classes. But politics poses a peculiar problem for the exiting
classes. They can neither exit politics fully, nor can they control it
fully. In the post-independence period, there was a stage when middle
classes expressed disdain for politics by keeping away from it. But the
force of politics and the magnetism of democracy drew these sections to
politics around the mid-1970s at the juncture of post-Emergency politics,
and since then the middle classes have been trying to make sense of
politics. The advent of Rajeev Gandhi, the anti-Mandal agitation and later
the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation – all these helped the middle classes to align
with politics somewhat meaningfully. The rise of the BJP almost provided
them with a vehicle. The new economic policies gave them a purpose for
engaging in politics. But all these developments did not give the middle
classes decisive control over politics.

Democracy in India has thrown up a very complex tension as far as the
relationship between the political class and the middle classes is
concerned. The post-independence development of the middle classes has led
to the de-linking of these sections from the rest of society. The middle
class sections see themselves more as peripheral colonies of the elite
(Palshikar 2002). Soon after independence, the social contract that had
obtained during the national struggle faded: the leadership that came from
the urban middle class dominated national politics during the freedom
struggle, it was aware of the disconnect between itself and the masses and
sought to bridge that through ideology and symbolisms of universality.
Democratic politics since the 1930s, but more so after independence,
ruptured this social contract. At the state level to begin with, and later,
even at the national level, the new politician emerged. He (because it was
mostly the male species) was not very sophisticated, he did not speak good
English, he did not look like a typical middle class gentleman. Thus, since
around the mid-1960s, the patience of the middle classes began to wear out.
A new disconnect emerged: the politician would be less organically linked
to the middle classes, though s/he may not harm the middle class interests
much.

Even after the efforts by Rajeev Gandhi, the disjunction between the middle
classes and the politician continued. In spite of the growing numbers of the
middle classes in our country, the "public" still continues to be dominated
by the ordinary, poor, low-income families both in urban and rural India.
But in the meanwhile, the discourse of neoliberal economics, globalisation
of aspirations and the much hyped dream of becoming a superpower have all
led the middle classes to believe that they now constitute the backbone of
the future of this country. Therefore, they expect politics to reflect their
aspirations, respond to their anxieties; they want politics to represent
them since they assume that middle class represents India. This disconnect
leads to constant suspicion and cynicism of the politician.

The sporadic marches and electronic outcry against politicians alert us to
these larger issues. By nature, middle class activism is short-lived and
does not have the strength to sustain itself. It is possible that within a
few weeks time these marches may die down and yet, they would have done
enough harm. One, because of the vocal and strategic existence of these
sections, the discourse might creep into our body politic. Two, there is
the danger of anti-politics sentiment spreading across social sections,
mainly because of the power of the media and the vocabulary of security
adopted by the current discourse. It is for these reasons that we need to
take on board the implicit logic of the agitation against the nikamma
politician.

Suhas Palshikar (*suhas at unipune.ernet.in*) is at the Department of Politics
and Public Administration, University of Pune.

References

Nilekani, Nandan (2008): "We Can Keep Our Heads...", *Indian Express*, 29
November, p 9.

Palshikar, Suhas (2002): "Politics of India's Middle Classes" in Imtiaz
Ahmed and Helmut Reifeld (ed.), *Middle Class Values in India and Western
Europe *(New Delhi: Social Science Press), pp 171-93.

Yadav, Yogendra (2000): "Which Reforms? Whose Democracy? A Plea for a
Democratic Agenda of Electoral Reforms" in Subhash Kashyap, D D Khanna and
Gert W Queck (ed.), *Reviewing the Constitution? *(Delhi: Shipra), pp
296-317.

-- 
Prabhat Kumar
Ph.D. Student,
Department of History,
South Asia Institute, University of Heidelberg,
Im Neuenheimer Feld 330,
69120 Heidelberg, Germany.
Mobile: 00 49 17685050077
FAX: 00 49 06221 546381.