Democracy at odds with cult of narcissism
EVEN though Prime Minister Narendra Modi is known for his oratorical skills, his two recent statements made an ordinary citizen like me somewhat perplexed. Well, despite my ordinariness, I love to value the spirit of democracy — democracy as a possibility, a project, or a continual process of becoming. And democracy requires our active agency, our alertness, our critical thinking and our ability to question our leaders, if necessary. In other words, even in our ordinariness, we can think, we can imagine, we can reflect, or we can refuse to be hypnotised by the ‘messiah’. In fact, democracy is the antithesis of the cult of narcissism. We all ought to be seen as active and equal participants in the process of shaping our collective destiny.
Yes, I feel sad, betrayed and perplexed when PM Modi’s recent statement in Himachal Pradesh negates this very spirit of democracy. While addressing a poll rally in Solan, he apparently devalued the importance of the aptitude and skills of the candidates contesting the Assembly elections. The voters, as he said, need not remember or bother about the qualities of any candidate because “every vote for kamal ka phool (lotus) will come directly to Modi’s account as a blessing.” In other words, the message conveyed is that Modi alone matters.
There are three dangers in this terribly ugly cult of narcissism. First, it indicates massive centralisation, or the monopoly of power. It is like using the ritual of periodic elections as a manipulative tool to promote some sort of ‘democratically elected’ authoritarianism. Second, it is an insult to even those BJP candidates who are contesting the elections in Himachal Pradesh. Modi is conveying a message to them: As individuals, they hardly matter, they are insignificant, they are destined to exist under his shadow, and they are just programmed dolls dancing to his tunes.
It is, however, a different story whether these candidates bother about their self-dignity. Or, is it that they seem to be happy with this humiliation, or what German social psychologist Erich Fromm would have characterised as ‘escape from freedom’ for some temporal material gains? And third, it is an insult to the voters. You and I need not be concerned about our local issues. You and I need not scrutinise the personal attributes or past records of the candidates we are voting for. We must take Modi as the all-pervading ‘supreme’ leader, and nothing should bother us. Be part of the crowd. Don’t try to be a thoughtful or reflexive citizen!
And now think of Modi’s yet another recent statement relating to what he regards as the ‘zero tolerance’ policy against terrorism. While virtually addressing the ‘Chintan Shivir’ organised by the Ministry of Home Affairs in Surajkund, Haryana, he said Maoists in all forms had to be eliminated to strengthen the internal security of the country. No wonder, as he said, “It is high time urban Naxals or the Maoists holding pens were destroyed to safeguard the younger generation from being misled.” Well, the history of Maoism — like any other form of extremist/reductionist doctrine — need not necessarily be peaceful. Yet, as an ordinary citizen, I believe that democracy is about the plurality of visions — diverse and even conflicting ideas of politics, economy and culture; and democracy is also about the art of debate, listening and peaceful mode of conflict resolution. Hence, it is possible that in a democracy you find Gandhians and Marxists, liberals and socialists, atheists and believers, ultra-nationalists and global humanists, or rightists and leftists. And they have the right to co-exist so long as they give their consent to the critical minimum: abhorring the practice of political violence, and retaining the spirit of dialogue and negotiation.
Hence, it has to be asked whether the ‘Maoists holding pens’ are necessarily always dangerous, and promoting violence? Possibly, some of them as academic scholars, researchers and public intellectuals are simply probing into the prevalent social order through the eyes of the subaltern — adivasis, Dalits, forest dwellers and landless peasants. Or, is it that as hyper-nationalists equate patriotism with the unconditional loyalty to their project of social engineering, every alternative voice is seen as potentially dangerous and ‘anti-national’? Is it that by criminalising the act of political and intellectual dissent, the ruling regime is remaining silent about, or even legitimising the all-pervading structural and cultural violence we experience everywhere — the violence of neoliberalism and heightened socio-economic inequality, the violence of militant Hindutva, the violence of hyper-nationalism, and the violence of the residue of a feudal/casteist/patriarchal social order? Or, is it that by demonising the ‘Maoists holding pens’, PM Modi is conveying a message that every form of intellectual voice that interrogates the prevalent state of affairs is under surveillance? It seems these days anyone can be called a ‘Maoist’ or ‘urban Naxal’ — be it Father Stan Swamy or Umar Khalid, a rights activist and a young student protesting against the Citizenship Amendment Act, or a Gandhian environmentalist reminding us of the humane and ecological cost of mega development projects or a university professor questioning the growing saffronisation of education.
Yet, Modi’s popularity, as it is said, is simply amazing. The doctrine that ‘there is no alternative’ seems to be the dominant common sense of the age. And, herein lies the danger — the fall of democracy as people’s critical thinking, alternative imagination and creative agency amid the rising cult of narcissism.
