A Tale of Two Leaders | Narendra Modi & Indira Gandhi

It is true that the two leaders are similar in various ways but there are also dissimilarities. These factors are not just limited to the Emergency; it’s about the Indira wave and the Modi wave.

Source: India.com

Popular, charismatic and a mass leader. These terms bring into memory two of India’s formidable Prime Ministers- Narendra Modi and the late Indira Gandhi. As the narrative around PM Modi’s rule being an “undeclared emergency” gains ground, it becomes imperative to compare the two leaders.

The present discourse around it is quite polarising, thanks to the media and politicians who project the Emergency as the handiwork of Mrs.Gandhi or the Congress alone. What happened was undemocratic and definitely an abuse of power. But is what’s happening any different?

It’s true that the two leaders are similar in various ways but there are also dissimilarities. These factors are not just limited to the Emergency; it’s about the Indira wave and the Modi wave both.

POPULARITY

Once termed as ‘Gungi Gudiya’ (dumb doll) by Ram Manohar Lohia turned out to be the Iron Lady of India. Much of Indira Gandhi’s leanings and political ideologies were unknown when she assumed office. However, in the attempt to emerge as separate from the Syndicate, she made public her apparent political leaning that also happened to resonate with the majority of people in India- the poor. This leftward lurch followed pro-poor policies, campaigns, slogans and speeches. 1971 elections is a case in point as Congress won a landslide victory by securing 43% of the total seats, thanks to the very famous slogan “Garibi Hatao”.

30 years later came the Modi wave, which resonated with another majority; this time religious. Hindutva is one of Bharatiya Janata Party’s founding principles. The outcome was evident as NDA received 45% of the total vote in 2019 general elections, with BJP alone securing 37.4% of the votes.

It takes strategic effort to build this charisma. And charisma invites blind followers. Indira Gandhi had become the face of Congress, as a leader who apparently despises big money men and is a leader of the poor and vulnerable. The faith was so unwavering that even after the government’s slum rehabilitation program, helmed by Sanjay Gandhi in Delhi during the Emergency, the habitants were forgiving of her. Anthropologist Emma Tarlo conducted an interview where she found that none of the interviewees “associated their sufferings with Indira Gandhi” [Source: The Indian Express]. And the proof of that was the 1980 general elections when she was voted back to power, just 3 years after the Emergency.

A similar charm is held by Modi. He was elected in 2019 for his second term despite the deplorable state of the Indian economy and the demonetization fiasco. But the Gandhian austerity that he maintains added to his projection as the only fitting candidate ( cue: The “if not Modi then who?” narrative) makes people turn a blind eye to a lot of things. Ramchandra Guha rightly says, “He embodies… the party, the government and the nation is all him,” much like what Indira Gandhi was back in the day.

USE OF MEDIA

The strongest tool at the disposal of politicians today has to be the media. So was the case in the days of Mrs.Gandhi as well. Both the leaders have extensively used it to their benefit and popularity. But the use came parallel with control.

The most overt evidence of this is the Emergency, when the press was censored for the first time. On the night of June 25-26, electricity supply was cut to all newspaper offices in Delhi. Following this, strict censorship laws were imposed such as disallowing journalists to report on parliamentary affairs and government reviewed news printing. The Films Division was hyper active during her tenure as a string of films promoting the Emergency, and the government in general, were produced. She even went on to ban the film Aandhi by Gulzar. Rumour has it that the plot was based on her life. The uncanny similarities of the lead actress with the Prime Minister only added to the controversy. Mrs. Gandhi is also infamous for exploiting traditional broadcast systems, especially the radio, for propaganda. She replaced the Information & Broadcast Minister IK Gujral with VC Shukla, as the latter was more compliant. Under him, the All India Radio came to be known as the ‘All Indira Radio’ mockingly. [Source: Economic and Political Weekly- Engage]

Since AIR and television were already under state ownership, the acquired control over print media provided her with practically the ownership of all forms of public communication. This control was also exercised in less public ways like :

• Allocation of government advertising;

• Shotgun merger of the news agencies

• Use of fear-arousal techniques on newspaper publishers, journalists and individual shareholders

[Source: The Indian Mass Media System: Before, During and After the National Emergency]

It would be wrong to associate India’s press freedom issues to Mrs. Gandhi alone. These are attempts all governments make in some way, shape or form, directly or indirectly, in order to avoid bad publicity. A plethora of fallacies lie in the constitutional provisions of press freedom as well, but that’s for another day.

Over 40 years later, things are of course different in terms of the technological advancements we’ve made. So is the case with the use of media as the scope of persuasion through it is now manifold and is constantly shaping politics at the regional and national levels alike. Social media, private news houses and an increased number of print mediums make publicity very easy if used strategically. And that is what political parties now do.

Regardless of which party has been at the centre, BJP’s expenditure on advertising and publicity has been more than the Congress. What amounted to about Rs. 13 crore in 2002-2004 ballooned to a whooping 470 crore in 2014-2015. BJP’s electoral performance is proof of how effectively these tactics work and here’s how. Majority of the ads (mostly on the front page) be it about a government scheme or achievement or promotion, have Modi’s photograph on it. It’s not only strategic placement that involves ‘greater visibility’ but also the formidable body language and expression that invites more eyeballs. [Source: The Print]

But these ads come with strings. A general trend followed by the BJP to issue a whip is pulling out advertisements from newspapers or organisations that criticise the government. Because print media relies heavily on government ads for funding, there remains no choice but to comply as the consequences of dissent is well known today. In July 2019, the government had stopped advertisements to three of India’s leading English language dailies- The Hindu, The Times of India and The Telegraph. Incidentally, this decision came after all three of them published pieces that were critical of the central government.

Apart from this, there is a huge social media network that involves platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Whatsapp etc. to disseminate information and misinformation about the government’s work and engage with a slightly younger audience. Initiatives like Mann Ki Baat, which is a radio show where Modi talks about various topics, helps connect with people at the grassroot level in rural areas. In all his speeches, language is wisely used. He addresses his citizens as “Mere pyare deshwasiyon” or “bhai, beheno”, an intentional use of personal phases.

A lot has changed. A lot hasn’t. India has witnessed two of the most charismatic personas as its Prime Ministers, among many others. No tenure is perfect and matters especially complicate when it comes to PR and bad publicity. While Modi and Mrs.Gandhi have been different in their approach to using media, the veiled and unveiled control over it gives them common ground. Similarly, their charm is alike. But the difference lies in the followers, method of luring them and of course, ideology. No government has been perfect, but accountability is important, for good and bad work alike. It’s a tough job to be so, considering the diversity that forms India. They are right when they say- “India is a republic in the making.”