Foam Without Substance

Over the past weeks, election-related discussions have become increasingly passionate, but lacking in substance. One might fault the media for this as it allows so much fluff and spittle to dominate talk shows, but that might be a trifle unfair. The media can justifiably argue that it is constrained by what is on the ground.
Such a defence could be legitimised by taking a look at the manifestos of the two major parties, the Congress and the BJP. Interestingly, both documents have a similar structure. What they propose to do once in power comes much later. Their opening salvos, their best lines, are about their very own telling of past glories to score points against each other.
The BJP’s strength is its long-term memory and it accordingly begins its manifesto with a luxurious rendition of the glory that was ancient India. It argues that if we go back to tradition we will get a measure of how we had mastered practically every aspect of what is modern science. This section is bolstered by a quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay’s 1835 speech to the British Parliament where he supposedly said that he had never seen such prosperity as in India. So if India is underdeveloped today, modern history is at fault.
The Congress, which functions on shortterm memory, predictably begins its manifesto with modern history and the freedom movement. It tells us about the sterling role its ancestors played in it and brings us up to speed through the years of Nehru, Indira, Rajiv and, reluctantly, Manmohan Singh. It, therefore, warns readers not to be swayed by temptations as they walk through the forest to the election booth. There are evils lurking there in the shape of the BJP and the Third Front.
Interestingly, both the Congress and the BJP pay the greatest, and most urgent, attention to security threats in their respective manifestos. In the case of the Congress, it is not that detailed or obsessive. It figures, nevertheless, as the first three points in the section entitled “Work Programme”. The BJP shows little restraint on this matter and it is clear what it will do immediately on assuming power. In the first “100 days” the BJP promises, again and again, that it will set up designated courts and intelligence facilities to combat threats from external terrorists and internal insurgents.
So passion not only takes the front page but runs through large sections of it. History-telling and terrorist threats are a good way of getting temperatures up. When it comes to the humdrum, everyday world, the BJP and the Congress make
the usual promises, but in different words. Both parties pledge rural prosperity, food security, medical insurance and pride of place to the girl child. Just give us a chance! No admission from either quarter as to why they failed to accomplish such urgent tasks when they were in power.
Each party blames the other for ignoring these important parameters of growth, but the truth is that they both had turns in running the government in recent decades. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan was an NDA initiative that the UPA took over, but both sides claim it as their own. Likewise, our infrastructural failures run across both NDA and UPA rule, but the BJP manifesto makes it out as if only the UPA should bear the cross for this. Farmers were committing suicide between 1999-2004, yet the BJP does not admit to that. Our country’s sex ratio has been a national shame for decades. Nor did our health status begin its fall in the past five years. It had hit rock bottom years ago.
Yet another common feature in both manifestos is the absence of numbers. We have absolutely no idea how human and financial resources will be mobilised to bring relief to farmers, encourage basic research or develop infrastructure. Each of these tasks is huge in terms of monetary outlay and human deployment. How will all this be done? Where is the money going to come from?
Waiving loans is expensive. It can be a relief measure but not national policy. Or, to promise, as the BJP does, that it will establish 15 world-class cities in five years flat, is absolutely astounding, but it is there in print. So far nobody has asked how they propose to do this. And if it was so easy, why was it not done earlier? Remember, in the US presidential elections numbers were all-important, and specialists repeatedly quizzed candidates on their arithmetic.
At the end of the day, therefore, one is forced to cast one’s vote depending upon which party strikes the most agreeable tone in its manifesto. The BJP is clearly bristling with righteous rage at what terrorists have done to us. The Congress, on the other hand, advocates balance and the middle path. As neither manifesto provides us with enough meat on how policies will actually be implemented, we can only debate the “mood” that these parties generate.
Mayawati skirts the issue of manifestos altogether. She has just a printed appeal, largely about how reservations are the magic mantra, and poor upper castes can also apply. In fact, many were surprised that the BSP came out with anything at all. After all, Mayawati won UP in 2007 without a manifesto.
No wonder our election debates are so vacuous.
The writer is a professor of sociology at JNU, New Delhi.