Narendra Modi in an operational military camouflage, a hat on the head and a camera in hand, moving in an open jeep in the Gir National Park in Gujarat – makes a fascinating visual. Why should anybody cry down his pleasures?
But what flits through a sensible mind is this critical question born out of a democratic consciousness: What about an image of a disheveled Modi wiping the tears of a grieving woman in Manipur that has been bleeding for months? Or, an anxious Modi sitting on a flooded road with farmers who were in protest against legislations that imperiled their survival? Or, perhaps an anguished Modi consoling the female wrestlers being dragged by the police for seeking justice against the harassment by one of his party leaders? Modi, who should know something about politics of imagery, need to introspect if such images would have been more prime-ministerial than his shining jungle safari visuals.
The freedom movement bequeathed to India a glorious legacy. If Mahatma Gandhi’s frail frame in the Dandi march showcased the power of Satyagraha to the world, his decision to wander in the riot-torn Noakhali in Bengal when the rest of India prepared for Independence defined the political morality of the nascent nation. This legacy entails a commitment to a value-system that is based on compassion and justice; an egalitarian, open-minded, accommodative society that prioritises service to the most vulnerable.
Also read: In Trump’s Uncertain World, India Needs Internal Harmony but Modi Govt Is Threatening It
Political culture has degenerated over the decades but erosion of the core is unacceptable. Like visuals, even pretensions play a valuable role in politics and India’s prime ministers always remained conscious of this inviolable socio-political reality. Why has Modi violated this noble tradition?
Can you imagine any other prime minister – from Jawaharlal Nehru to Manmohan Singh – not visiting Manipur for over a year despite such disturbing collapse of constitutional machinery and mindless violence? Can you visualise lakhs of farmers sitting on the outskirts of the national capital for around a year, dying in hundreds because of extreme weather, and the prime minister who boasts of immeasurable popularity not dropping in to offer a word of sympathy?
The freedom struggle didn’t only extract political independence from the British, it defined the code of conduct for future politics. Is it ethical for a prime minister to speak on the injured finger of a cricketer but remain silent if the son of a Union minister mows down innocent farmers by his speeding vehicle? These questions are not disconnected from the politics of visuals that Modi has presumably mastered.
What is the political message Modi intends to send by visiting Vantara, a zoo owned by tycoon Mukesh Ambani’s son Anant Ambani? Is he deliberately deepening the perception of his association with a few corporate houses or is he telling critics that he cares a damn? Is he promoting this new culture in which wildlife is nurtured by the rich and powerful, not the State? Does he realise solving problems of the poor is more important a task than spending time with the rich and powerful?
What message did he manage to send to the world by attending a private function of American tycoon Elon Musk, where his children were playing with their attendant? Why did he ensure the presence of India’s national security adviser, external affairs minister and other officials at that apolitical event? Does Modi want to play with the dignity and majesty of the Indian State? Why did he attend the function of a controversial young baba – Dhirendra Shashtri – who speaks vulgar language and openly advocates Hindu rashtra? Has he learnt any lessons from his associations with discredited babas like Asaram and Ram Rahim? Does he know he accords prime-ministerial credibility upon anybody he sits with – a baba or a businessman?
Aesthetics in a poor country, the world’s largest democracy at that, has unique dimensions. The supreme leader wearing a suit worth a million rupees, changing dress several times a day, flaunting costliest goggles and pen, and ensuring that he is ceaselessly photographed and video-graphed without any obstacle, is an oddity in a country where the vast majority is grappling with a wretched existence.
Modi has not only demonstrated his fetish for good clothes, he appears in costumes that apparently suit the occasion without realising that his real political persona is submerged by the mixed messaging. He loves to wear military gear when he goes to the border to meet the soldiers. If he is not a military commander, and is a full-time politician, why create false impressions? He wears a sadhu’s saffron robe to sit in a cave. He presents himself in a priest’s make-up to perform puja at temples. Is that essential; an imperative to convince his supporters that he is sincere and genuine in whatever he does?
Does he have to behave like a “shikari” to highlight a message on wildlife? His supporters are presumably rational, having reasonable analytical powers and the capability to assess his intellectual prowess and true character. Why then, Modi is so desperate to reinvent himself, constantly refurbishing his own image instead of being who he is? Will his supporters judge the difference between the good and the evil on the basis of his costumes? If Modi personally thinks so, he needs a better sense of judgement. If his PR team compels him to traverse this path, they should be worried about wariness of emotions and tactical ennui.
A strong leader has to behave like a strong leader. Merely dressing up like a strong leader will only evoke ridicule. Showing up in military gear is fancy dress, not any evidence of robust leadership. A robust leadership means pushing the intruder China back; a strong leadership demands standing up to illegitimate pressures of a hostile competitor. Modi would have won a billion hearts by publicly expressing his displeasure in front of Donald Trump over the humiliating deportation of Indians by the United States. A hundred photographs in military uniform can’t achieve that.
Also read: Unemployment and Price Rise Biggest Failures of the Modi Government: Survey
Indira Gandhi was accused of going to America with a begging bowl. India was weak and badly needed foodgrains. But Americans ditched her because of her independent thinking and courageous posturing. She worked on a plan and triggered the green revolution. Modi should have spent his energies furiously discussing ways to counter Trump’s tariff threats.
Markets are tumbling; over Rs 90 lakh crore have been wiped out in one year. Modi should have taken corrective measures; worked to strengthen the economy. A strong leader means being transparent and accountable. A strong leader means allowing strong, autonomous institutions to function freely. A strong leader means being always ready to answer questions. Modi hasn’t addressed one press conference and only given orchestrated interviews to friendly journalists. People know he needs teleprompters to sustain the myth of his oratory. If he talks about making cooking gas from nullah, his sermons on science and technology will sound phony. Propaganda has power. But it evaporates before the truth.
Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator.
