By Vivek Kalikotay
It is a fundamental right of every citizen to ask, enquire and discontent against any ruling or opposition by their reflexivity. It is not becoming any political camp but inculcating and sustaining positive behaviour of democracy.
From Rise and fall to caricature-
In a democracy, the rise and fall of political parties is a cycle of systemic process. It is decided through a people’s mandate every five years through democratic election. The election for MP’s and MLA’s forming majority from the competing parties declares which band of political parties win or lose the election. Meanwhile the ideological, ethical, religious and cultural dimensions besides accountability are some of the overpowering aspects of election mandate in India. Overall, the election in India is the biggest socio-cultural event for political rise and fall. Interestingly, in this event the dialogue, debate and discussion are upheld as elements of strengthening democracy for without this, it will end up becoming merely a tool of autocracy.
However, in recent times, India is seen to be undergoing a change: from political to individual fight; from fighting on the issues of justice, development and progress to envy and revenge; from ideological to idiot-logy; from rise and fall to caricature. Around this gamut of change, one significant aspect that has witnessed not only in politics but pervaded in social landscape is the emergence of non-rational and non-reflective caricatures i.e. Andh-Bhakt and Anti-National. A division solely based upon propaganda for only votes and the throne invented by the political parties, their stalwarts and their party members every now and then. It is also often used for igniting communalism and hatred between the respective voters for manipulating and engaging them in never ending conflict. With this manufacturing of caricatures, the political parties although didn’t harm each other’s existence, yet propagated the false consciousness among the common masses of the country overwhelming their reflective possibilities to question any governance. Yes, the common, sensible people were derailed into unthinking creatures of the circus where the ring masters drove them accordingly. Therefore, in these changes of political dynamism, the stimulating force called thinking citizens is obscure and vanishes somewhere in caricatures.
Building caricature –
The political environment of present India has formed a rigid identity of labels. Almost all the parties are accused of limiting their affiliation extremely and explicitly with religious identification. It has become a vogue for parties affiliating with sectarian ideology. However, in the national level of politics, the so called two great parties who are identified with sectarian politics were, one is Indian National Congress and another Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Historically, both of them are the principal ideological and political rivals in Indian Politics. Since inception, they have fought against each other mobilizing voters in the name of development, ideologies and emotions (political gimmick). And still the two camps are able to keep that spirit of non-negotiability. Consequently, they are socio-politically identified being of two extreme poles divided into religions. The congress has been accused of appeasing minority and minority religions, particularly Muslims and Islam, whereas the BJP are accused of being a party of orthodox Hinduism broadly now invoked to be Sanatan Dharma. In the passage of time, these parties engineered a new medium to keep intact their old spirit and hostility for the sake of thrones. That is the new avatar of political caricature as Andh-Bhakt and Anti-National assassinating each other’s characters and nature while propagating by various platforms (Social media) and communication possibility.
Despite working in a governing or non-governing situation, their main foci are about building narratives; a narrative that sustains or overthrows the regimes at the cost of many times constitutional democracy. For instance, whether BJP or Congress, the people who don’t endorse their way of perspectives having a third view point are either sabotaged or labeled as Separatist. There were many cases of labeling and detaining any critical voices in both parties’ regimes. Interestingly, in the current scenario, the format of sabotaging the critical reflective questions is divided as given Andh-Bhakt or Anti-National label of identity. Hardly, the process of Accountability, Transparency and Fairness matters to the political parties in democracy.
How caricatures have been evolved-
Politics and rule is not untouched by religious ideas since times immemorial. If one travels back through historical analyses of the events of rise and fall of the regimes, there was always a persistence of religious ideas, philosophy and elements of contradictory traits that generated the conflict and battle into two camps. For example, the Holy wars in Europe and Middle Eastern countries formed extreme groups in the name of religion or sect. Unfortunately, Medieval and Modern India is also not an exception to religious and colonial expansion but unlike them diversity resists radicalization.
It is in the medieval and modern phases, when the Mughal and British colonial forces develop the new religious discursive narratives: Islam and Christianity known to be monotheism and believing in one God. For a land already worshipping infinite entities of supernatural forces, the introduction of these belief systems was not a problem. It is normally an acceptance of two more creeds just like others.
Since living side by side over a period, politicization is an inevitable factor and it is also evident in numerous historical accounts. Following, there emerges a religious organisation that preaches and protects the existence and welfare of respective religious institutions. For now the wildest practices enter the nerve of democracy and that is the representation of religious ideologies by the respective political parties.
One important thing needs to be understood here that religion is a private affair. Our preamble of the constitution although enshrined “Secular” for respecting every religion or sect of the peoples, it is not a religious constitution or religious democracy. A political party (ies) elected through democracy is a government “for the people, by the people and of the people” but not a religious government unlike many democratic and republican governments of the world.
Unfortunately, political parties have evolved by explicitly endorsing religion for various political benefits. Accordingly, this religious endorsement has paved the path for what now evolved in popular fashion as “Andh- Bhakt and Anti-National” accusing on unfounded grounds.
For a majority of people, it is now a common understanding that BJP supporters and protectors are labeled as Andh-Bhakt whereas those who do the same with Indian National congress as Anti-National. Maybe, this is a way of constructing and manufacturing voters in the present political dynamism and harvesting the fruits for their existence overwhelming the issues of education, unemployment, poverty, health and population -resource relation.
Deconstructing the caricature and the way for-
Dualism is one of the extreme levels of reality; it never ever wanted its space beyond one perspective. It looks like a phenomenon with only dichotomous lenses. It is a one-dimensional reality. For example, a group interested in political happenings around the countries believe that a majority of youth are apolitical and therefore turn into fact that all youth are apolitical. Likewise, if Political parties and their members believe that the masses who support BJP are “Andh-Bhakt” and supporters of Congress are “Anti-National” then this belief turns as actual perspectives and facts of political parties towards masses who don’t support but criticizes either camps. Consequently, this dualism is propagated beyond parties to social spaces of common masses in everyday interaction. It is this dualism that is actually a problem in present political evolution. It never wanted the individual to exist in giving the constructive multidimensional possibility. Why an individual has to be labeled as BJP or Congress in narratives for criticizing or supporting either of them. Why cannot an individual be labelled as a solely conscious aware citizen, who can criticize or support by their actions or reflexivity if found any flaws or good respectively. Why there has to be Black or White/ Day or Night if one supports or criticizes particular initiatives or policies of any political party. These are some of the deconstructing questions for an individual to interrogate for overcoming from the narratives of “Andh-Bhakt or Anti-National”.
Socio-politically one may become supporters of any of the two camps but critically an individual can be in them. I think human beings by birth are shaped by two forces: one is social structure (Family, Kinship, Religion, Education, Polity, Economy etc.) and another is their animal behaviour (interest oriented). But, within these forces, the majority of the people forgets the Critical Attributes that they carry, which makes themselves not only superior to the rest of the living beings but of course the exceptional creatures so far. “Critical Attributes”, I mean to say, that human beings are blessed in mind and body to act in the following way:
- Meaningfully seeking without being a static consumer.
- Overcoming from any ultimate reality
It is these attributes that human race has been able to evolve and civilize themselves. It is this virtue that human beings are able to discover, invent and advance even in the impossible path. So why are we not critical about the narrative that prefixes oneself only in the structural and rational boundaries of life? Why are we not advancing beyond these confined barricades? It’s the time now in the Indian political landscape that we as the citizens of India should cultivate our derailed critical attributes more than the aforementioned forces for deconstructing those mean narratives and swaying ourselves out of the cage of political conundrum.
(The writer is a research scholar at the Department of Sociology North-Eastern Hill University)
