By its own stormy standards, Indian political scene has been quite sedate since the later half of the 1990s, particularly as far as agitational movements are concerned. Sure, we had two regime changes; in the form of NDA assuming power followed by a more unexpected UPA victory in 2004. However, unlike regime changes of 1977 and 1989, the BJP’s advent to power was calmer and wasn’t an immediate result of masses taking to the streets. The case of Congress’s victory in 2004 was probably as close to a bloodless coup as it could be, with the party having been gifted power, without it practically having had had to lift a finger.
Some may disagree to the assertion that the last decade or so has been calm and point to numerous boycotts, parliament disruptions and petitions by the opposition and buttress their contention further by highlighting that the political faultlines were probably not as sharply drawn ever before. However, to equate parliamentary agitation and television studio debates with street level agitation would be to mistake the woods for the trees. Certainly, verbal volleys in a studio cannot be equated to masses screaming and demonstrating in public spaces!
One would wonder as to why has Indian politics, which has had a history of mass agitations for over a hundred years now, been slowly moving away from streets to studios. This movement becomes more inexplicable when one goes back to the genesis of Indian politics and realizes that other than serving as a mouthpiece to nascent Nationalist sentiments, the petition and prayer based approach of Gopal Krishna Gokhle and other notables did little to further India’s case for freedom. On the other hand, Tilak and Gandhi, whatever their success, did indeed transform our elitist struggle to a mass movement. Even post independence, be it the regional parties or the National level movements like the Navnirman and Ram Janmabhoomi, electoral success and impact greeted those who were willing to test themselves against police batons.
Then why have the political parties, particularly those in the opposition, moved away from agitationist politics? Why don’t we see an outpouring of public anger on streets rather than continuously viewing meaningless maudlin debates on televisions? Could the reason be something as simple as increasing costs of public mobilization? But then haven’t the ‘rewards’ of power multiplied many times over? Or could the reason be the general public’s disenchantment with political movements. Could be and can we blame them? All those who they had supported were found acting the way their hated predecessors did. What use then to get out, shout slogans and have more of the same! Some other reasons which could partially explain lower levels of public involvement with politics would center around greater prosperity of the general public or more so – shift towards a service economy where the same middle class of Navnirnam and Ayodhya is worried about its limited leave and sullying of its service record. Another could be a rising class consciousness where rallies would invariably mean some degree of shoulder rubbing with the unwashed masses. And the crowning glory would certainly be the oft repeated shrill media mantra – ‘No place for shrillness’ in public debate any longer. Without doubt, rallies of over a lakh of participants belong to a different era. Forget about lakhs, even a 5,000 strong crowd is sufficient to warm cockles of the heart of even the most weather beaten politicos today.
Has the world indeed changed and people do not care about processions or is there something more to it than what meets the eye? Is there something more selfish in the opposition’s obvious disinterest in running any sustained issue based campaign against the ruling party? Is it that there is some understanding between the rulers and the opposition wherein the opposition is a part of the ruling system, partaking a share of spoils of power? Indeed, there is little difference between the BJP and the Congress when in power, except for the hoary issue of ‘minority appeasement’. When both the parties have in their own ways, promoted crony capitalism and institutionalized Corporatocracy, how does it matter that much if one’s share of power is limited.
Looking at India, one might be forgiven to believe that the country is ripe for a ‘Lotus Revolution’ of its own kind. This is a country where less than 100 families control around a third of the country’s GDP, where a vast majority of its people live on the edge, criminals abound among the law makers and law enforcers and there is an open loot of whatever goods are still designated as ‘public’. However, a people, fatalistic by nature, now further opiated by the thought of their impending greatness do not make the best of revolutionaries. India is no Tunisia, no Egypt and certainly not a East European country where masses come on street to demand a positive change. The closest we ever had to a mass movement of this nature was probably the Navnirman movement which tamely petered out once emergency was declared. If a broad based people’s movement, led by a towering immaculate leader could not succeed then, there is little reason why people would be willing to be on streets today. Yet again, even during those days, the general unrest left the South and North East virtually unaffected. Perhaps the sheer size and diversity of Indians will ensure that any movement will always have a local or at most a para-National nature. So, while India may continue to have its million mutinies, there is never a danger to those who rule over more that a billion inhabitants of this land.
