‘Dance of Democracy’: Sonia Gandhi’s ‘Renunciation’

BY chattarji| IN Media Practice | 12/06/2004

Subarno Chattarji

The Times of India on 19 May 2004 carried the banner headline ‘SONIA’S LAST TEMPTATION’. The masthead consisted of a collage of photographs showing Sonia wearing various kinds of ceremonial headgear presumably presented to her on the campaign trail. In one of them she has a crown of thorns which is obviously a computer generated photograph. The banner headline along with this photograph reinforces not too subtly a paradigm of renunciation, which relates to her foreign origin and links it to her Catholic upbringing. It is interesting that Narendra Modi not only harped on her foreign origin but also on her religion during the election campaign. This in turn can be related to the context of the persecution of Christians in Gujarat over the last few years. The Times perhaps did not have these contexts directly in mind as is evident from the laudatory editorial and other articles in the same issue, but the fact that it used this image and text reiterates a central issue of Election 2004. 

The Editorial on the same day was titled ‘Power of Sacrifice: Sonia teaches the parivar a lesson in Bharatiyata’ and the opening line sets the tone: ‘Whichever way you looked at Election 2004, it belonged to only one person: Sonia Gandhi’. This is not quite what the Times, or any other mainstream media product was writing/saying during the campaign because the media seemed totally sold on the India Shining campaign. It is significant that not a single pollster, newspaper, or newsmagazine predicted or even conceived the defeat of the NDA. In fact the media could be seen as a force multiplier for the NDA (just as it was during Kargil when it contributed to creating national cohesion and hysteria), reflecting the media desire that the NDA win. The coverage of the election indicates a synergy between political power on the one hand and media power on the other. Election 2004 can be seen as a defeat for the sultans of spin and this was evident in L K Advani’s post-defeat admission that the India Shining campaign failed. 

To return to the Times editorial, it says that ‘Sonia had a mandate way beyond anything the outgoing government enjoyed in its five years in office.’ It attributes her abdication to the politics of blackmail and also links it to an Indian tradition of renunciation. Dileep Padgaonkar in his op-ed piece, ‘Saffron Offensive: "Videshi" Bahu Stands Tall’ reiterates the idea that the likes of Uma Bharati and Govindacharya have no respect for the constitutional norms on which the Indian republic functions: ‘Once again the Sangh Parivar placed "public sentiment", derived from its spooky idea of India, beyond the pale of both democracy and the Constitution. This is cause for anxiety because well over 300 MPs endorsed Mrs Gandhi’s candidature to the post of Prime Minister.’ Padgaonkar concludes by praising Sonia’s renunciation: ‘More than any self-proclaimed guardian of Bharatiyata, Sonia Gandhi will have demonstrated her Indianness with dazzling aplomb.’ 

The renunciation debate particularly in its relation to Indian traditions is both interesting and off the mark. Some initial comparisons were made between the Mahatma’s spirit of renunciation and Sonia’s act. The irrelevance of the debate on Sonia’s origin (one would rather concentrate on her political skills, vision, and ideas) is sought to be countered by rooting her in India and who better than the Mahatma to do this. Both Padgaonkar and Rajdeep Sardesai (who made the comparison in one of his reports from the mayhem outside 10 Janpath) are guilty of overstatement, of media hyperbole that either demonises or sanctifies. Undoubtedly the likes of Uma Bharati (who has now declared that her protest had the support of Vajpayee, Advani, and Naidu) need to be resisted, but there is also a need to shy away from hagiography. A more rational analysis would perceive the combination of political shrewdness and strategy, of renunciation as a political ideal and weapon, and of personal fears and inadequacies that prompted Sonia’s decision. To compare Sonia with the Mahatma or with Chandragupta Maurya (as the Times did) is both banal and historically naïve.

The Edit Page of the Times of 19 May 2004 displays a stunning plurality of views, whether by design or coincidence I cannot hazard. From a letter criticizing the media’s role in election coverage, to the ‘Power of Sacrifice’ editorial, to Padgaonkar’s ‘All the world is one family’ liberal paean, we come to R K Laxman’s cartoon. The cartoon shows a bewildered Gandhi statue looking on as Sonia wheels her baggage (tagged ‘Rome’ and ‘Delhi’) to the ‘PM’ residence. Below Gandhi’s statue is inscribed ‘MAHATMA GANDHI WHO GOT RID OF FOREIGN RULE’. One wonders what happened to the renunciatory connections and plaudits. The message is clear and places in troublesome contexts the articles carried by the paper. Despite its humour the cartoon is strikingly similar to a BJP campaign promo that used Quit India footage to highlight Sonia’s foreign origin. Plurality of views is in itself unexceptionable but the Edit Page, indeed the shift in the Times tone and tenor since the election, could be seen as a case of media malleability, a desire not to offend the new powers that be. One is not arguing with the political sympathies expressed - although they too have their simplifications and problems - one is disturbed by the sudden change in emphasis. 

Paradoxically, the same issue of the Times indicates the possibility of a more balanced analysis. Siddharth Varadarajan’s ‘ Sonia soars in renunciation’ despite its title indicates other paradigms. He praises Sonia’s political instinct and refers to the ideal of renunciation in the Bhagvad Gita (no one can escape these references!). However, he goes on to write ‘Sonia’s decision to renounce the throne will almost certainly ensure that her children will inherit it.’ For the first time we have a direct statement of political motive which relates to the contemporary Congress culture of dynastic politics. This is a fact that cannot be ignored and it is also a telling commentary on the leadership of the party that led India to independence. That Sonia had no political knowledge or experience and that being the bahu of the Gandhi family is sufficient to ascend to party presidentship is a more valuable and valid criticism than carping about her foreign origin. Varadarajan is neither sentimental nor malleable (despite that unnecessary reference to Arjuna in the Gita). He writes that the ‘BJP, which fought and lost an essentially racist campaign and then thumbed its nose at Indian democracy by starting a xenophobic offensive against Sonia becoming PM even though she had the constitutional, political and moral mandate, will find it hard to recover from this coup de grace.’ 

Sections of the media too seem to be finding it difficult to come to terms with the new political equations. While every media house has its political bias/agenda, only more recently do we see editors and senior journalists happy to have themselves described as ‘BJP ideologue’ or ‘close to L K Advani’ on TV programmes. The reference is respectively to NDTV’s ‘The Big Fight’, which featured India Today’s Swapan Dasgupta and ‘The X Factor’ with Chandan Mitra of The Pioneer. At one level we may say that this identification makes transparent hitherto hidden agendas. At another level, however, it is indicative of the blatant partisanship of sections of mainstream media. Given these partisan positions it is not surprising that sections of the media have been willingly used for cynical purposes. One recent example is the report that claimed President Kalam had raised questions about Sonia’s origin/citizenship when she went to meet him. The report was not attributed to any definable source and was quashed by the President. 

The politics of post-election reportage reflects media nostalgia for the NDA government and this is reflected in broadsheets such as The Telegraph, Calcutta. The Telegraph projects the fall in the Sensex and the increased power/influence of the Left parties in apocalyptic terms. The text and subtext of post-election coverage is varied and includes the following: the good days of economic reform are over, reforms with a human face is an excuse for helping sectors such as agriculture which are of no relevance to the mall-hopping, jet setting middle class of India, the Congress led alliance victory is not really a victory at all (Swapan Dasgupta’s argument in an article in The Telegraph, repeated by Advani at his press conference), that there are two centers of power and this along with the pressures of allies will lead to non governance. The last argument does have some merit as shown by the arm-twisting tactics employed by the DMK. However, mainstream media seems to have already forgotten the fact that the NDA was a 22 party coalition frequently besieged by allies such as Mamata Banerjee and that the RSS played a significant role in setting and correcting the NDA agenda. 

While the connection between media and political power was not analysed by any media entity, the Times carried a letter from a Major (retired) Atul Dev in the same edition which pointed to the links. Major Dev wrote: ‘The TDP’s debacle in Andhra Pradesh highlights the increasingly questionable role being played by the media. Over the years, the media has allowed itself to be turned and twisted according to the whims and fancies of the powers that be. No wonder then that readers kept receiving glowing reports of the outstanding leadership of Chandrababu Naidu and his team, while the reality on the ground was quite different. The media has either become so subservient that it fails to report the warts on the political landscape or so superficial that it doesn’t care.’ The media is often unjustly blamed for all that is wrong with the Indian polity, but Major Dev is on target when he writes about the media’s subservience and/or callousness.  

The fact that the India Shining advertising pitch was bought by every major daily and newsmagazine, barring P Sainath’s scathing analysis in Frontline, proves this adherence to dominant media ideologies. Reportage, perhaps by its very emphasis on the present, concentrates on the immediately sensational - the Godhra train burning, the post-Godhra riots - or the eminently saleable - the Feel Good Factor. The former does need coverage but the event disappears after its immediacy is lost. There are exceptions such as Shikha Trivedi’s dispatches on post-riot Gujarat for NDTV, but they seem to prove the rule of sensationalism and saleability.  

One can only hope that mainstream English language media attempts to maintain standards of analysis and probity rather than blatantly plugging party lines.

 Subarno Chattarji teaches English at Delhi University and is a frequent contributor of media critiques to The Hoot. Contact: chattarji@rediffmail.com