When your diehard supporters become your liability

The 3 state set back to the BJP has kept the news channels alive with all sorts of analysis and dissection through their own sets of political pundits. Politics is not a platform where one admits one’s mistakes but I hope the closed-door ‘chintan baithaks’ will at least bring out the truth. For, acceptance of mistakes is the first step to success.  

Four years back, the BJP came in with a thumping majority and with lots of expectations. All these 4 years -  the common man, the so-called educated, urban, middle-class Indian has shown extreme patience with some irritants like high petrol price; high NPAs with the Banks that took away a major portion of the tax that he remitted in all honesty; some ugly social incidents that he discounted as more hype than truth; giving up on some subsidies as a contribution to a social cause; inconveniences of demonetization as a bold step in the right direction and many more.

This middle class Indian – primarily a working class group - has generally been apolitical but has supported a forward looking, honest party and has stood behind a hard-working, well-meaning Premier. This group has no permanent following and no hard biases.

He is not a ‘Bhakta’ but applauds good governance and is appreciative of fact that the path to good governance goes through some inconveniences and demands a few sacrifices. But he is very objective in his assessment.  He also maintains a stack of his expectations from the Government. Good governance, zero-corruption, stable economy, infra development, national pride and social equilibrium are all part of this stack. And above all, he seeks a safe living for himself and for his near and dear ones.

The results in Madhya Pradesh show that the BJP was just short of 36000 votes overall, as compared to the Congress. And the number of NOTA votes were about 1.5% - that would translate to somewhere in the range of 4 to 7.5 Lakh votes, depending on the percentage of voting.  As it appears, these fence sitters have made a big difference to the final results. Who are these fence sitters?  Is this a group of these apolitical common men? Who do not want to commit the past mistakes of bringing back a Congress government but are somewhat disappointed with the current dispensation.

This apolitical common man has immense patience. He doesn’t make noise but is not a mute spectator either. He is not a diehard ‘Bhakta’ but does not desist from giving a pat on the back.  He is not a zealot but his silent retreat from the polling booth will be deafening.  Today, he has only got on to the fence riding on NOTA and has rung the warning bell. Tomorrow, he might cross over to the other side and that would be a lethal blow. The ‘Bhakta’ is loud and is irrational - he can give a wrong impression of large scale approval. This objective, apolitical supporter might just whisper. The party should keep its ears on the ground to listen and to ensure the misleading cheers of the intransigent supporter do not drown these sane whispers.

The trait of being ‘disagreeable’

In the last couple of months, I have heard this term ‘Ajaatshatru’ to describe two tall leaders – Atal Ji and Ananth Kumar. They were described as the most affable leaders having no adversaries in their area of work – politics. And hence they were referred to and revered as ‘Ajaatshatru’ – the one having no enemies. Given today’s environment, it will be difficult to find a worthy successor to this particular legacy of these leaders.

Today, we are all well connected through the social media. We find different platforms to express our views on all and sundry topics of general interest. Be it a cricket match, a team selection, a political event, a celebrity marriage, a judicial decree or a simple nostalgic childhood picture – all of this gets discussed, debated and disputed in the closed-group whatsapp circles.  

In the recent weeks, in at least three whatsapp groups that I am a member of, I have witnessed political statements, positions, arguments and counter-arguments leading up to heightened tempers and near-disruptions to the otherwise congenial group dynamics. Politics and politicians who were always the butt of a joke in these ‘intellectual’ groups, have suddenly found unflinching followers from amongst these armchair experts. Positions are taken and daggers are drawn at the slightest provocation.

We as a society have had our own share of disagreements leading up to violence; impatience resulting in road raze and disparities resulting in crimes. However, the acquaintances and friendships were always above these conceited considerations. But the situation has changed now. There is little room left for disagreements. The much clichéd expression of ‘agree to disagree’ has lost its meaning now. Is it the mutated trait of a society, a nation or a generation? Or is it just the cognitive part of the Darwinian evolution that was never studied.

I am not sure when, where and how this mutation originated. How the otherwise indifferent living room analysts suddenly became die hard followers.  Was it the constant reference to someone’s foreign origins or the influencing of a prolonged embargo on someone’s US travel. Was it a crude jibe of ‘Maut ka Saudagar’ or a pun laced ‘Pappu’ - that started it.  The barrage of unsubstantiated information, popularly known as fake-news, has also added fuel to the fire. The dubious role of the media, that keeps ranting about ‘polarization’ despite being the most polarized itself, has not helped the cause either. And one thing that this neo-army of social-media activists fails to recognize is that very often their emotions are flared up based on information that is not received firsthand. A hearsay is not good enough and is not worthy enough to put your years’ of friendship and acquaintance at stake.

It is not that we should not have a viewpoint or not have a followership.  Just that these are often only vicarious connects. It is more important to preserve the real tangible connects and place them over these so as not to lose them for nothing.  As Dr. Pranab Mukherjee pointed out in a speech recently - the beauty of debate and dissent is that we can disagree without being disagreeable, we can ideologically oppose and still be friends. And therein lies a message for all. For the politicians, to refrain from personal attacks and for the followers, in adapting to the ideological pluralism rather than adopting someone else’s hatred. We can all strive to be “Ajaatshatru” in our own realms.