EYE ON LOK SABHA 2014
Perhaps, a mask to hide means? “I don’t need the political process to solve my problems of daily life. I have the means, I have the influence, and I have the capacity to get a problem resolved in more ways than one. I do not need your elected representative and your governmental processes to solve it. So why should I take part?” More of a costbenefit analysis. Would you say the discourse on politics and leaders in media or in the public sphere encourages this mindset? Yes, and also the fact that the last three decades has witnessed a change in the language, context and content of politics; I mean the political process is seeping downwards, it’s becoming more inclusive, more participatory. So what happens is that the privileged middle class who, in a way dominated the process in the years after independence, see an element of alienation today now that this process is not under their exclusive control. New social groups have come up which are now educated and they bring their own language to politics - a very valid, a very authentic language. This is seen as another interesting trend. How do you explain this contradiction - in a way, politics has become more inclusive, more participatory, and at the same time it has ended up alienating a significant section of people? As I said, it is because those who were seen as dictating the system, those who were seen as opinion makers in the system, are
today having to share that space with other groups. You look into the politics of the 90s and 2000’s. Take Karnataka’s case. Karnataka in the post 90s has seen the rise of new leaders in all parties. Be it a Kumaraswamy, be it a
In 2009, when the UPA returned to power, a lot of people believed that its pro-poor policies, especially NREGA influenced the result in many states. But it is important to know that a lot of these propoor policies were implemented right from the time that the UPA-I took over. They all came about in 2004, 2005, 2006. So that when elections were held in 2009, we had already seen the impact of that policy. Yeddyurappa, or a Siddaramaiah. These leaders represent a new social group, a non-English speaking, non-elite culture. They are not very conversant in English, they are excellent to 30 |www.indiatogether.org| 03 Mar 2013
dialogue with in Kannada, and you see how the urban middle class views these leaders. They are even seen by some as enacting a kind of theatre of the absurd rather than as the real voice of many. If you ask a typical Kannada-speaking middle class youth today at the state level, he is able to sync with Kumaraswamy very well as the latter speaks a language that he understands. By language, I don’t mean Kannada, but the the idiom of politics which is often very different from what the urban middle class can connect to. And you think this, by extension, applies to the national scenario too? Yes, absolutely. At the national level you have leaders like, Mulayam, Lalu. Today if I go to a typical city, and if I am lecturing at a college or a public programme, the very mention of Lalu’s name brings smiles to the faces of those in the audience. A lot of these people, who are smiling in the auditorium, do not understand that Lalu represents a very authentic foil of politics in this country today. It may not be to your liking, but it’s a reality. This social change is what I mean when I say politics is seeping downwards. These are leaders who are all products of a silent, but visible social revolution that is happening in this country. Mandal was an early step in that process... Now, going back to the original point, somewhere I feel the urban middle class sees itself as lost in this process. More so, because things are not going in the direction they would have wanted it to go in terms of who leads. Globalization has