It has been nearly a month since the Indian election results were announced and were followed by a flurry of analytical activity. Statistical, economic and political reasons for the Bharatiya Janata Party falling well short of 272 seats, drastically below its own expectations, are being examined. The performances of the Congress and many of its allies have surprised everyone. A lot of this post-poll surprise comes from the fact that the results were so different from what the pollsters had predicted. Nevertheless, even the most optimistic supporter of the INDIA bloc and the ultra-pessimist among Narendra Modi’s cheerleaders did not expect the results that materialised. It is also evident that the BJP itself did not expect to be where it is today. Even if BJP spokespersons are trying their best to hide their disappointment, Modi’s body language and speeches say it all. In Modi’s mind, the result seems to be equal to a loss. The Congress and its allies are euphoric and have been energised. Under normal circumstances, anyone watching the scale of their celebrations and sudden change in tonality would assume they, indeed, snatched the elections from the incumbent.
There are many ways in which one can explain this inversion of reaction. When expectations are overstated or understated, it is but natural that celebrations and disappointments would be exaggerated. For many of us, this result provided hope. Even if temporarily, we felt we could breathe a little easily. The BJP has been checked in its tracks; its attempt on a war footing to convert India into a quasi-Hindu State stalled. For the BJP bhakt, the result was akin to the appearance of a sudden steep hurdle, an impediment to its known goal. Modi has now been declared vulnerable and vincible. But beyond all these rationales, the result makes me think about victory and loss.
From the time we are born, life, we are told, presents a series of multivarious opportunities. The choices we make and the cut-throat drive with which we head towards each ‘end’ determine whether we are a success story or not. Marginal or just about making it is okay but not something to write home about. But a loss of any degree is a closed case of failure. This is drilled so deeply in our minds that every relationship is weighed on this basis. Even love is subservient to success and will be given the short end of the stick if it limits or hinders victory.
When the prime minister is not ecstatic, even after occupying the seat for the third time, it is a commentary on our culture. Victory, for him, was not just about coming back to power. Its objective was to vanquish the Opposition and erase it from the political landscape. It is not only Modi who thinks this way but also many of his followers. The very idea that they seek an Opposition that doesn’t oppose or is toothless means that they do not believe in a democracy. Those who ask questions are irritants who need to be done away with. This greed is not limited to just political parties; it also includes citizens. None of these participants wants an electoral process and will be happy with a dictatorial set-up. Therefore, it is utterly hypocritical when they bring back tales of the ‘dark days of the Emergency’ whenever it suites them.
The Emergency was a perfect example of what a single-person, single-party State looked and felt like. If that is condemnable, then so is this predatoriness.
In a feudal society, democratic processes are conveniences used to climb the socio-political ladder. Every class and caste group has an ingrained crab-like tendency, pushing the rest behind as it attempts to climb over the edge. Once a person or a party gets hold of power, processes become disturbances and possible threats to those on top. Therefore, the sensibility that victory generates by its very nature can never be an ethical ground. This achievement will always leave behind debris of destruction. I am not referring to the cliché, ‘power corrupts’; rather, I am questioning the very need to frame victory as a target.
Elections, of course, have to be fought; it is a competition. But what is it for? Beyond the hackneyed phrase of being a way to give back to society, it is a participatory exercise of representation. I would argue that placing service as its goal is also misleading. This generates fake altruism. Candidates are prospective representatives who hope to spend their time listening to the people they represent. Once elected, every post that they may occupy is a listening post. Ideas and action will follow, but they are not the goals. It has to be as simple as this. Once every candidate stops seeing his/her role in an idealistic or opportunistic manner, the elections themselves may not be so violent or false. When victory is not an individual or a collective attainment of control, rather an opportunity to listen with care, loss is not a failure of any sort. More than anything else, the loser retains respect and continues to have a role in society. There is then no difference between just about winning or winning substantially and their respective opposites. And listening is not limited to just those who a person represents. It includes others who are elected, even those who did not make it.
We keep talking about the need for conversations in our Parliament irrespective of ideological differences. This is impossible as long as parliamentarians view one another as competitors and occupiers. There are those who believe things were better in the past. There is some truth in that argument, but it is stunted. More often than not, the tempering of contentious behaviour was a result of other histories and necessities. At times, it was the compulsion of coalition politics. It did not come from the humility of being elected to be a listener. Elections need to be treated as endless relay races where each elected candidate is ready to pass on the ‘listening baton’ to the next person.
All that I say here sounds utopian. Maybe it is. But why run away from speaking of such a possibility? Unfortunately, even those who are interested in philosophies that propose cohesive living remain in silos. All that they learn from their readings are kept aside for their everyday life. Heartless ideas and actions are casually justified. This dichotomy is excused using the term, ‘practicality’. What it actually means is that we do not want to imagine a better version of ourselves because that requires concerted psychological transformation, something that can come only from listening without barriers.
Through this article, I am urging every member of Parliament to rethink his/her role, even more so his/her ‘victory’. The prime minister is also a member of Parliament. I hope this ‘victorious-loss’ makes him pause for a moment and actually listen to everyone.
T.M. Krishna is a leading Indian musician and a prominent public intellectual
