Recent images of fire-spewing politicians from completely opposite sides of the partisan and ideological camps emerged joyously celebrating a pre-wedding event at a politician's home. Many lauded the ostensible civility and decency visible at the celebration, while many others remained bewildered with the happy optics.
The incredulity is triggered by the deep and dangerous polarisation created by these very politicians who poison the society to such an extent that it can lead to violence and the loss of lives. Many such politicians who party together (away from prying eyes) have been guilty of creating societal ‘divides’, hatemongering, and violent toxicity, owing to their unhinged and reckless rhetoric. Many ignorant citizens foolheartedly believe in the sincerity of their words and insinuations and act on the same, as if it were the gospel truth!
Perhaps, the reality is that after igniting these dangerous societal fires, they merrily cocoon themselves with each other, and pay public hosannas as they happily celebrate private occasions together.
There is a fine difference in being polite, civil and cordial (perhaps even extendable to social) amongst each other - but celebrations? Certainly, India and Indian politics would do well by reverting back to the more genteel, mature, and large-spirited ways, of yesteryears when the likes of Jawaharlal Nehru, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Somnath Chatterjee, Jaswant Singh, Inder Gupta or IK Gujral fought their political battles, yet upheld India’s civilisational decency and dignity.
None of these political and ideological giants incited violence or spread hate, even as they stuck to their ideological corners. They were undeniably civil outside (as indeed in the Assembly), but they certainly didn’t exhibit any schizophrenic swings from hatemongering against each other, to riotous celebrations with each other, as that would be considered insulting to their cadres, who assumed certain positions on account of their “words”.
But the politicians of today are clearly not cut of the same cloth, as their public behaviour is incitingly unrestrained, uncouth, and even provocative, to a degree of causing societal dissonance, unlike the giants of constitutional-civilisational restraints, earlier. They simply lack that honour, responsibility, and conscience, towards their expressed “words” – today, they can happily deflect, resort to whataboutery, and even jump ships, but never really stand firm on a “word” said.
Contextually, it must always be questioned if these politicians of today also expect the same “civility” and respect from their cadres by mixing them up with the cadres across the ideological fence? Or do they suggest a certain intransigence of a magnitude that implies shunning, alienating and even obliterating the proverbial “others”?
The inflammatory speeches made by some of these politicians have stooped to the use of the most vile, insulting, and threatening words against their opponent, canards and abuse that simply cannot allow the sort of duplicitously social behaviour that they resort to. So to suggest that the two-faced conduct (one in public and other in private) of the politicians of today is part of the necessary “civility”, is pure humbug and hogwash. You cannot claim reasonableness after lighting fires. Period.
Interestingly, many even pointed to the recent Donald Trump-Mamdani meeting in the Oval House to make the point of similar “civility” in a participative democracy. First things first, the Trump-Mamdani was an official and formal meeting, and not a song-and-dance sort of celebratory revelry. Also, it was done in full public view with the presence of the media who were allowed to ask the most uncomfortable questions about their respective positions and statements made earlier. None of which is typically afforded in Indian wedding jamborees with rival politicians falling over each other.
While the Trump-Mamdani meeting was definitely civil, their conduct and speech still insisted on measuring and upholding their respective positions of partisan difference (and agreeing only on matters of common convergence). If anything, it was about how a mature democracy ought to operate i.e., with opposing views but willingness to cooperate over shared concerns. In the Indian context, it is virtually impossible to agree on any shared concerns, without politicians slipping in an odd and loaded angle of sarcasm or one-upmanship.
Clearly, politicians are much better actors (some are actually so) than practicing movie actors – only with far better remuneration and far worse scripts. This sort of roleplay by politicians ensures that the masses think they are watching an honest ideological battle, whereas the politicians know it is only business as usual. The shriller their so-called public fights get, the quieter are their private agreements and gratifications.
This brings to question the sheer dishonesty of their traded insults and swearing that they can’t stand “others”, as, when it comes to enjoying the spoils of conviviality, they are all game. Sadly, the only ones who do not realise that this acting performance is only that, are the proverbial ticket-buyers in the “audience” who watch Prime Time News with equally sold-out anchors.
If only the people were able to realise how friendly their “rivals” were behind the scenes, there would be far more serious outrage in the streets, than in Parliament. That’s why this sham performance continues. The farcical spectacle of public-fighting is just a membership ritual.
John F Kennedy famously said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic”.
And that myth in Indian governance is all about the almost deified politicians and all that they supposedly stand for. When actually they don’t really stand for anything, but themselves.
Suchlike politicians who party, backslap and celebrate together with supposed rivals while the masses lynch each other owing to the misplaced convictions about such politicians, need to introspect deeply rather than take shelter under the completely untenable justification of “civility” – for where is that same “civility” in disagreeing and debating in public?
Lt Gen Bhopinder Singh (Retd) is former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.