Politic | Modi and His Desire to Control the Minds of Citizens

What’s the worth of democracy if it can’t protect personal liberties? If the state controls citizen’s political consciousness, compelling them to do only what suits the ruler’s interests, what’s the purpose of individual freedom and rights? Liberty isn’t an ornament to embellish the individual; it empowers people to decide their choices, question the government’s unconscionable acts and dissent against injustice. British historian Lord Acton whose timeless dictum – power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely – reverberates across the world, also said, “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end; it is itself the highest political end.”

Liberty bleeds when the police hunt down citizens who participated in protests against Narendra Modi. Reports suggest that the government identified protesters through sophisticated surveillance techniques and started chasing them across cities. Young boys and girls, who wrote placards, shouted slogans and, in some cases, crossed the line by heaping abuses on the prime minister are now treated like the enemy of the state.

Their homes have been raided, parents threatened and even FIRs registered against a good few. This happened despite a formal deal between the organisers of the protest and the government that no coercive action would follow.

No government can dream of constructing a citizen of its own liking. Citizens are not toys running on batteries gifted by governments. They have a mind and a heart of their own. Politicians win elections with the limited mandate to govern; electoral victory doesn’t make them the authorised arbitrator of morality and righteousness. Giving free ration to the poor doesn’t mean the government has earned the right to ration their freedoms.

People who think differently, whose vision doesn’t align with the philosophy of the incumbent rulers will differ and dissent. A confident nation and a genuine leader allow citizens to freely express themselves. Ideas emerge through this social churning, challenging status quo and triggering political renewal.

Modi occasionally pays lip service to democratic ideals and invites citizens to criticise his policies but such a performative flair is meant only to steal some personal legitimacy against the ill-effects of his undemocratic deeds. He revels in sycophancy. If he were truly democratic, he would have faced questions from independent media instead of fooling the world with orchestrated conversations. Even a rickshaw-puller knows the little girls who shouted slogans at Jantar Mantar are hounded by the police as well as the Sangh Parivar goons.

If Modi created a constitutional culture in governance, the police would never indulge in surveillance and persecution of children. True to his character, Modi slipped into the slumber of silence and apathy for several days before waking up to declare that he was willing to forgive and move ahead.

The troll army threatening and abusing Modi's opponents

He condemned the abusive trait among the younger generation, without acknowledging that the troll army threatening and abusing his opponents and critics on social media functioned under his government’s patronage. He follows some of the most abhorrent X handles. The gang that runs the campaign to vilify the Nehru-Gandhi family is dominated by his followers.

Modi must have received the feedback that suppression of children is proving counterproductive. If the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the prime minister demand total obedience, India’s democratic mass will rebel. Citizens who are committed to constitutional principles will rise against the designs to crush equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. People who are humane and conscientious will oppose divisive politics.

Students, farmers, women or workers will revolt if policies and performance harm their interests. Hannah Arendt, whose work on such toxic politics has earned international acclaim, wrote, “For the totalitarian, the territory to be taken is the mind. In achieving this objective, truth becomes irrelevant and propaganda reigns.” Isn’t it scary to be in a situation where truth becomes irrelevant? Poet Ummeed Fazli warned, “Aasmanon se farishtey jo utaare jayen/ wo bhi iss daur mein sach bolen toe maare jayen (Even if angels are sent down from the skies, they too will be killed if they speak the truth in this era)."

Abusive language

Protesters do abuse. The state has force – mild or lethal. They can warn, threaten, use water cannons, resort to lathicharge and, in exceptional cases of madness, fire pellet guns and AK-47 rifles. Protesters can taunt, scream, cry and abuse. Filthy abuses, at times. That’s how they give vent to their frustration and helplessness. It’s undesirable. But that’s how democracy lives.

We have heard contemptuous yells of – F**k Trump – from the high podium of Oscar awards. All kinds of mischievous elements join mass protests. At the Anna Hazare-Arvind Kejriwal protest, pamphlets carrying wildest allegations and abuses against Sonia Gandhi were distributed by some people. A few went so far as to abuse Mahatma Gandhi, declaring that he was solely responsible for all the ills Indian polity was afflicted with. Manmohan Singh government never chased down anybody.

Language of revolution is not defined. Even in normal times, people abuse the prime minister and the chief ministers at parks, petrol pumps, grocery shops and vegetable markets when prices soar savagely. Nothing is recorded; no facial recognition, no witch-hunt. Prime ministers or ministers are not emperors. Nobody expects special immunity from criticism in a democracy. Modi said he is a chowkidar; a servant. Pradhan Sevak, in his own words. Society knows how chowkidars are treated when they are suspected of conniving with thieves. Filthiest abuses rain from all sides. Abuses are undesirable but it’s a social reality.

Anybody familiar with literature, in any language, knows conversations aren’t devoid of profanities. Normal conversations contain expletives. When public opinion turns hostile, language often acquires a tempestuous tenor. In protests, particularly after such sacred means like fast-unto-death fails to draw governmental response, it becomes a weapon to hurt. In case of extreme anger and cynicism, when unbridled youth energy is flowing, criminalizing expletives is uncivil. After all, their primary method and intent of the protest were peaceful.

India has suffered outfits which rejected the Tricolour and the Constitution for decades. India saw intellectuals describing freedom as fake and meaningless. India tolerated the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. India, under Modi, saw a minister in Parliament describe the political contest as a battle between Ram-zaade and Haram-zaade. India, after such a vast and painful experience, should show tolerance for dissent and anger.

The state will firmly deal with criminals but the tendency to criminalise dissent has to be opposed. After all, students crossed the line in communication. They didn’t fire pellet guns and AK-47. They were not fighting for power. They just demanded a just system of examination after a series of devastating paper-leaks. The Government is wrong to presume that striking fear into protesters will snuff out the possibility of another revolt. Shahir Ludhyanvi rightly said, “Hazaar barq gire lakh aandhiyan utthe/ wo phool khil ke rahenge jo khilne wale hain (Thousands of rains may fall, lakhs of storms may rise/ Those flowers that are meant to bloom will bloom).”

Unfit for home

Only the politically naïve would have thought the crisis for the Modi government will end with the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan as the education minister. The unprecedented police violence against students had created legitimate reasons for the opposition parties to shift focus on Union home minister Amit Shah. Which opposition would have spared the home minister after the shocking use of AK-47 and pellet guns at protesting students? Hounding of protesters despite the deal with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) deepened Shah’s culpability.    

What’s surprising is that the raging controversy hasn’t compelled the mainstream media to dispassionately examine Shah’s performance and suitability as home minister. The horrors of Manipur were enough to bring the home minister under scrutiny but the sycophantic media was obsessed with Shah’s magic in election management.

Frequent judicial admonition of central agencies for framing people in false cases, constantly rising social discord because of toxic communal narratives, Delhi riots and Pulwama terror attack showed Shah had a poor track record as the home minister. But he was judged for electoral victories in Bihar and Bengal, as if he sat in the Home Ministry for the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP’s) political management, not as the ultimate custodian of internal security.

Shah has never been known for commitment to constitutional morality and political propriety. The police crackdown on children only reinforced his popular image. Have the police been so hyperactive in cases of lynching, against incendiary slogans on Muslims and divisive campaigns by fringe groups? There are umpteen examples of Shah’s irresponsible utterances that could incite communal passions but how many times he spoke on social harmony and peaceful coexistence?

Should the home minister of India trigger fear and suspicion among large sections of the population, instead of inspiring confidence and a sense of security? Shouldn’t the most deprived sections of society, the weakest and the helpless, feel reassured by the presence and pronouncements of the home minister?

Shah needs to seriously introspect whether only the violence against children instigated the opposition parties to demand his ouster, or the pent-up feelings against his domineering and belligerent attitude have finally erupted? Shah, much like Modi, started politics in the national arena by burning the bridges with opposition parties, making even systemic engagement with opponents impossible. His name cropped up whenever parties were broken, legislators or parliamentarians were stolen or central agencies indulged in coercive action. Nobody hawked the Congress-mukt Bharat agenda more fiercely than him. Such a profile is incompatible with the demands of democratic politics. Even if Shah survives this crisis, he can’t go a long way without a drastic overhaul of his negative image.