The Politics of Smallness: A Masterclass in Insecurity
The Politics of Smallness: A
Masterclass in Insecurity
India has had many kinds of
leaders. Loud ones. Quiet ones. Arrogant ones. Visionaries. Those who lost
elections, faced hostile media, and still showed up the next morning to answer
questions. What India has never seen before is a prime minister this carefully
terrified of sharing a camera frame.
This year’s Republic Day
celebrations offered a revealing spectacle. Opposition leaders were politely
escorted into political obscurity, seated several rows back, far from wandering
lenses. The plan was elegant in its simplicity: if the cameras don’t see them,
maybe the country won’t either. Statecraft by seating arrangement.
The friendly television channels,
ever alert to national duty, complied. But power does not obey camera angles.
Presence is not a lighting problem.
No matter how the optics were
curated, the political weight of Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge stubbornly
refused to evaporate. Secure leaders do not fear proximity. Only those unsure
of their own relevance do.
As Prashant Kishor once observed,
had Narendra Modi lost even a single early election, he might have vanished
from memory as efficiently as the ₹1000 note he demonetized. Cruel? Perhaps.
Incorrect? Not really. Modi’s authority has always depended on never being
tested in open daylight.
The comparison that seems to
haunt him most is Rahul Gandhi. Not because of inherited legacy, but because
Rahul has done something far more unsettling: he has grown. He speaks to
people. He argues policy. He walks into press conferences without scripts, barricades,
or emotional support anchors. He treats journalists as citizens, not hazards.
This is an unbearable contrast
for a leader who has treated an unscripted press conference like an extreme
sport best avoided. Nearly a decade in office, and still not a single free-form
interaction. One almost admires the discipline. Or the fear.
Leaders with achievements invite
questions. Leaders with slogans avoid them.
Which explains the reliance on
costume drama. When senior Shankaracharyas declined to attend the incomplete
Ram Temple inauguration, reflection was an option. Instead, the Prime Minister
chose cosplay, draping himself in saintly attire, subtly suggesting that
religious authority was no longer required. Why need priests when you can be
the deity?
When political power dresses
itself as holiness and requests reverence, leadership quietly exits and
performance art takes over.
Now, the same insecurity has
escalated into open conflict with Sanatan religious leaders themselves. Having
borrowed legitimacy from faith, the government now attempts to discipline it.
This is less a show of strength than a confession of anxiety. Even borrowed
authority must eventually be returned.
Meanwhile, behind the smoke
machines, real governance has been quietly outsourced. Public wealth shifted
upward. Strategic assets transferred to favored friends. Infrastructure
unveiled with fanfare, then revisited by tragedy. Some of the chosen champions
now face uncomfortable questions abroad. “Nation-building,” it turns out, is a
fragile concept when the bridges collapse.
And when policy failures become
too visible, distraction becomes patriotic duty. A sports issue. Bangladesh. An
athlete. An IPL controversy. Stir, season with religious sentiment, and serve
hot. Institutions like the BCCI and the ICC may survive the balance sheet
impact, but neutrality, once lost, does not grow back.
None of this suggests confidence.
It suggests a leader governing from the rearview mirror.
There is an old saying many
Indians grew up with: empty vessels make the most noise. In modern India, it
appears the vessel has also hired a sound engineer, lighting crew, costume
designer, and media consultant.
A confident leader does not hide
opponents. A strong leader does not fear unscripted questions.
A secure leader does not need religion, nationalism, and sport to fill the gaps
where governance should be.
India does not suffer from a lack
of noise. It suffers from a shortage of courage at the top.
History, unfortunately for some,
has excellent hearing and very little patience for insecurity masquerading as
strength.
One expects a prime minister to understand the elementary civics of democracy. Consultation, inclusion, and restraint are not advanced concepts. When these ideas seem alien, it suggests not strength or decisiveness, but a shallow political education shaped by grievance rather than governance.
ReplyDeleteNarendra Modi was never a leader any serious democracy would proudly claim; his rise was driven by resentment against Congress, not respect for institutions. What was sold as “disruption” has revealed itself as decay, powered by division, spectacle, and institutional erosion. He has stayed in power not by achievement, but by controlling narratives and weakening scrutiny. Strip away the office, and very little remains that can withstand constitutional judgment. His constant hostility and petty conduct are not signs of strength, but the telltale behavior of a man who knows he does not deserve the position he occupies.
DeleteRahul Gandhi was seated in 3rd row, good enough. His party Congress is very small in parliament and he has not earned anything except speaking against the country in foreign countries and is there as opposition leader because of family name.
ReplyDeleteRahul Gandhi was not seated there as an individual from Congress alone. He represents the INDIA bloc, which has over 240 elected MPs. That is the opposition in Parliament, whether you like it or not. The Leader of the Opposition is chosen by the opposition, not by the ruling party, and the position comes with constitutional recognition and protocol. Even if Congress had fewer MPs, once the opposition alliance selects him, he is the LOP and is entitled to a seat at the table. This is basic parliamentary democracy, not a favor granted by the Prime Minister.
DeleteAs for the claim that he has “not earned anything,” he has earned his position through electoral politics and parliamentary process, not by being handed power without accountability. Disagreeing with the government at home or abroad is not “speaking against the country.” In a democracy, the government is not the nation, and criticism of those in power is not anti-nationalism.
Reducing everything to “family name” while defending a leadership that thrives on personality cults, media control, and silencing dissent only exposes your own bias. If you are comfortable with institutions being bent to suit one leader’s ego, then the problem isn’t Rahul Gandhi, it’s the erosion of democratic norms you’re willing to justify.
You don’t have to like him. But you do have to respect the Constitution.