Deteriorating civility in the Indian elections

Indians can feel proud that they have been able to nurture democracy since the inception of their independence. Today after the nation has practiced democracy practically unbroken for seven decades, the democratic institutions remain entrenched and people's commitment quite firm. In every election season, people, regardless of their social and economic standing, suddenly become empowered.

This year's high-spirited Lok Sabha election makes it absolutely clear with what desperate urgency politicians supplicate voters. The amount of toil, sweat and tactical spin that is invested by political parties and leaders to win their support is quite fascinating.

In my three decades long diplomatic career, I have had the opportunity of serving in five countries practicing genuine democracy. Two of them were western industrialised nations—USA and Australia. The third was Japan, an Asian nation that firmly embraced parliamentary democracy following the Westminster model after it was forced to adopt a new constitution in the wake of its defeat in the Second World War. The two others were in our region, India (where I served twice) and Sri Lanka. I can say with total conviction that the zeal, excitement and suspense that mark Indian elections are not surpassed by electoral enthusiasm in any other country.

Yes, there is a sharp asymmetry of literacy, awareness of complex issues, levels of political insight between the urban and rural communities. But even among the least advanced rural segments of the population, they will carefully, and jealously, weigh what the ruling party gave them, where it fell short of or neglected their electoral promises. They will ponder how justified it is to give a chance to other parties. I was recently amazed to observe with what prudent common sense even very humble rural folks were responding to an NDTV reporter's questions about which party they will support in this election and why.

If one carefully examines the ruling BJP's campaign strategy this year, it becomes obvious that Mr Modi's government knows where it failed. Its shift of focus from jobs, economy, farmer's miseries, etc., where it has been lacklustre, to artificially inflated security concerns is a device to hide its failures.

Unfortunately, one feature of this election is how Mr Modi, driven by desperation, has resorted to a style of rhetoric that has degraded the level of civility. His abrasiveness, hubris, and trampling of very rudimentary decencies have constituted a potent factor in uniting his opponents around one object: that Modi must be removed from power.

One gets an impression that the political leaders are putting the goal of ejecting BJP from power above their personal ambitions. The Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu is talking with Rahul Gandhi and Mamata Banerjee to meet in Delhi on May 21, two days before results are known, to unite 21 parties to configure a path to power.

The Trinamool Congress leader Mamata Banerjee and Congress Party President Rahul Gandhi both have disavowed any ambition to become prime minister. In UP, the largest and most coveted of states, regional parties have formed alliance with the sole object of defeating BJP.

Some of Modi's egregious examples of arrogance need to be discussed. Reacting to Rahul Gandhi's criticism of the Rafale issue surrounding the purchase of aircrafts from France, he breached the universally honoured rule not to abuse a dead person. He needlessly dragged the deceased Rajiv Gandhi into political discourse: "Your father was termed 'Mr Clean' by his courtiers, but his life ended as Bhrashtachari No 1." Modi said Rahul was trying to tarnish his image. Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram responded that Modi's remark showed his "desperation" and "fear of defeat". "Does any religion allow anyone to speak ill of the dead?" he asked.

For the sake of argument, one might think that the criticism of an adversarial figure like Chidambaram may be partisan. But can one take issue with LK Advani, a BJP veteran with stellar legacy? Reacting sharply to Mr Modi's characterisation of those who disagree with him as "enemies" and "anti state", Advani expressed deep unease. "BJP never regarded those who disagree with us as our enemies...or as anti-national," Advani said.

Another contentious remark Modi made was his jibe that Rahul was contesting in a state (Kerala) where most of the community is made up of minority groups. This was in effect a contention that to be regarded as a legitimate winner, you must have the preponderant support of the majority community. The minority communities are trashed to a lower status by Mr Modi. This is an extension of Mr Modi's political ideology that India is essentially a state for the Hindus, and other communities may seek their own devices for survival or perhaps take refuge out of India.

It is pertinent here to recapitulate a central tenet of India's avowedly secular constitution. The term socialist and secular were added by the 42nd amendment of the constitution. The basic aim was to assure unity and integrity of the multi-religious society.

Those who take politics as a profession—let alone act as a country's head of government—are supposed to have read the constitution. Nay, a prime minister is expected to have a solid understanding of the core spirit of the constitution and its guiding principles. Has Mr Modi read and pored carefully over the constitution of his country?

It is a historical fact that a fundamental argument of India's top leaders—such as Gandhi, Nehru, Azad—against partition was that India would be a secular state where followers of all religious faiths would have equal rights and treatment. Indeed, the father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi gave his life for his fight against communal hatred and violence!

Is Mr Modi contriving to upend the very character of the country's constitution in which so much constructive thinking and ideas were invested by so many of India's wise founding figures? The political philosophy that Mr Modi is promoting has dark implications for India as much as for the subcontinent's peace and stability.

A special point that needs to be made is that when there is such urgency to address terrorism both by ideas and security related intelligence and actions, the brand that Mr Modi is preaching fuels the motivation of the terror outfits. Has he abandoned every iota of idealism and embraced a purely cynical political opportunism?

It seems that the interest of peace and harmony in the sub-continent will be best served if a coalition government comes to power in this election in India. Indeed, India's own traditional inclusive orientation, defined by such vast diversities, will also benefit by such an outcome.

Ziaus Shams Chowdhury is a former ambassador.