 |
||
|
||
|
||
Election not only galvanise politicians but also the members of
the ,secularist' intelligentsia. After a 18-mouth period of
inaction coinciding wit h the UF's rule during which they
focussed more on themes of globalisation, nuclear disarmament and
the depleting ozone layer, these intelligentsia have turned their
attention to the domestic political arena once again. And they
are back to 'doing what they are best known for: sermonising and
peddling their definitions and descriptions of 'communalism' and
'communalists' and offering their prescriptions for strengthening
secularism'.
The elite club is incensed that observers/reporters are reluctant
to cast themselves in adversarial roles versus the 'communal'
Bharatiya Janata Party. For them, the refusal of the
reporters/observers to take on the Bharatiya Janata Party is an
act of moral irresponsibility and is fraught with serious
consequences for the well-being of the secular polity and the
pluralistic society. No wonder, therefore, many of them have
resorted to charging the whole lot of pollsters, newspaper groups
and, of course, observers/reporters with being biased towards the
BJP or, worse, having been 'bought over' by the saffron outfit.
This, when they have a virtual monopoly over 'secular' discourse
in the columns of newspapers and magazines. Others have been
somewhat restrained and have taken to impressing upon us that not
treating the BJP as an enemy is tantamount to genuflection before
power and abdication of the role of the moral agent.
All this sounds quite familiar and is part of the ploy that has
been used time and again for defending blatant partisanship
towards a particular set of contenders for political power under
the garb of 'secularism'. This is not to say that the findings of
the opinion polls/surveys should be treated as gospel truth. Nor
is this to argue that reporters/observers are free of biases and
those who are predicting an outright victory for the BJP in the
coming elections are a prescient lot that has rightly read the
writing on the wall. Predicting the outcome of elections has
been a hazardous business the world over and even the brightest
of the psephological pundits have gone wrong. Newspapers and
reporters, too, are not only prone to committing errors they, in
many cases, do so because of their bias for or against political
parties.
But to say that all the pollsters and reporters who expect the
BJP to improve its showing are paid agents of that party and part
of larger 'communal conspiracy' smacks of arrogant self-
righteousness. It is common knowledge that the psephologists, for
all the handicaps that they suffer from, have been able to make
right predictions. Likewise, journalists do manage to gauge the
voters' mood correctly. And even on those occasions when they
went wrong, the failure was not necessarily because they chose to
hype up the prospects of party at great risk to their career and
reputation knowing very well that 'sponsored' reporting and
findings can make little difference to the final outcome.
Moreover, there is no evidence to show that the errors committed
by them, deliberately or otherwise, have favoured only one party.
For every journalist who exaggerated the BJP's poll prospects in
1991, there was one who failed to predict the increase in popular
support that the party managed at that time.
Members of the 'secularist' club are angry with the pollsters and
are clamouring for a ban on opinion polls because they point to a
better showing of the BJP. These champions of freedom of
expression would have certainly invoked the citizen's right to
information had a similar demand been raised in response to the
opinion polls predicting an edge for the United Front and its new-
found semi-'secular' ally, the Congress(I). This represents
blatant partisanship and the exhortations that are being made
that the observers/reporters should turn into 'secularist'
activists is just a camouflage to cover that up.
Communalism like any form of sectarianism is, no doubt, an evil.
But to fight it successfully, one ought to be both consistent and
neutral; committed to the cause rather than to parties and
individual politicians for whom swearing by it is little else but
a device for capturing votes. The problem with our 'secularists'
is that they are neither consistent nor neutral in their
proclaimed crusade against .communalism.' While they oppose the
BJP and its agenda, they minimise, rationalise and, when it comes
to the pinch, defend the actions of those operating at the other
end of the 'communal' spectrum. Those who are currently preaching
that fighting communalism should be the moral responsibility of
all have themselves never regarded communalists of all hues as
equally immoral.
And while they are aghast that middle classes and intelligentsia
should be passively observing the rise of the BJP instead of
checking it, they themselves had no qualm in abandoning their
roles as activists when it came to opposing the misdeeds of
politicians and parties they like. Those who are now advocating
that we should oppose the BJP for the sake of pluralistic values
kept mum when Mulayam Singh Yadav embarked on a blatantly anti-
dalit platform. In striking contrast to their professed concern
about probity in public life, they did not play the role of
activists when scandals involving corruption by Laloo Prasad
Yadav surfaced. Their commitment to democracy and Constitution
notwithstanding, they did not utter a word even when the
Constitution and democracy was sought to be suborned in Gujarat
and Uttar Pradesh just for getting rid of BJP governments.
Worse, those who claim to be liberals, in fact, even applauded
and lent intellectual inputs to those who tried to write fascist
majoritarian schemes seeking to mobilise the OBCs, minorities and
dalits against the upper castes. All this, when experience the
world over shows that the rise of the communal parties is
facilitated not so much by the appeal of their sectarian agenda
as by their success in capitalising on the failures of their
rivals to. handle secular concerns like non-governance,
corruption and inflation.
The 'secularists' are wrong in blaming the intelligentsia and
reporters/observers for the BJP's growth. Mulayam Singh Yaday and
Laloo Prasad Yadav remain formidable forces despite the hostility
of the media while the rave reviews that H D Deve Gowda got for
his parting address in the Lok Sabha have not made him any more
popular than before. The BJP itself has managed to carve out a
substantial constituency among the middle classes despite the
control of the 'secularists' over the English press. The rise of
the BJP has been facilitated by the failure of the 'secularists'
and the parties and politicians they support. Instead of
acknowledging that they are unnecessarily exaggerating the role
of the media and intelligentsia in determining electoral outcome.
|
||
|
||
|
||