Why India Follows Modi's Call For Thali-Banging, Diyas

Even his biggest detractors will grudgingly admit that Narendra Modi is a master tactician. So when he asks people to individually, yet collectively, bang thalis, clap and switch off their lights, it is prudent to assume there's a well-thought-out political strategy behind it. You could dismiss it as mere symbolism at a time when the country needs the PM to be proactive in tackling COVID-19, but that would be a 'liberal' error. Mr. Modi is ensuring that even during the lockdown, the political practices of populism continue to be reproduced periodically.

After all, we all know that the 'Congress system', which began to disintegrate from the mid-1990s, has collapsed completely. Yet, we are still inventing a political edifice to replace it. That old system was ruled by a small, largely English-speaking elite. It was arranged in a series of concentric circles like Bohr's model of the atom that we studied in middle-school physics. Each circle had its own level of power, weakening as it extended outwards. One's place in these 'power-shells' was determined by pedigree, degree, and facility with the English language.

Last night, millions switched off lights and lit diyas and candles following PM Modi's call to "challenge the darkness spread by the coronavirus crisis"

Outside this sphere of the Nehruvian elite - politicians with foreign degrees, babus, professionals, academics, lawyers - there existed myriad fragmented sets of malcontents, each feeling wronged by the state in their own specific ways. At the top were the vernacular elite, scattered in state capitals and cities, most with ties to big landlords. They often held power in the states but appeared as supplicants to the centre. This relationship was mirrored in the Congress party itself in its 'High Command' culture.

Right next to them were India's traditional trading and entrepreneurial caste-communities - they had money, but were kept out of power by the post-colonial state. Nehruvian 'socialism' painted them as parasites. Hindi movies of the period equated businessmen with smugglers. Heroes often led workers' strikes and sometimes even invaded the mansions of the factory-owners. As late as 1983, Amitabh Bachchan would appear on the poster of Coolie with a hammer and sickle in his hand. 

Finally, there were the 'people' - heterogeneous groups of workers, peasants, artisans, the destitute - who the state saw as so many different classes of the 'population'. They had to be enumerated, using modern tools of the census, employment and agricultural surveys, and then 'welfare' policies had to be designed for their uplift. Most of them lived a life of mere subsistence, found it difficult to exercise their rights as citizens, and negotiated contingent claims from the government through local agitations. 

At around 9.30 pm, Prime Minister Modi tweeted a photo of him lighting a lamp at his official residence in Delhi

The 'Nehruvian' state produced and fostered its own post-colonial culture, borrowing liberalism, secularism, rationality and welfarism from the developed world and rooting it in a carefully curated 'Indian' modernity. It promoted and controlled Indian classical arts, history-writing, and scientific research. By its very design, it had a disdain for the popular, which is why 'Nehruvian' culture remained restricted within a small part of the ruling elite.

However, what the state promoted crowded out everything else. Schools and colleges - those institutions that most efficiently spread ruling doctrines - taught us that India's 'natural essence' was secular and syncretic. Religious practices were fine when they were within the bounds of the home, but science and reason had to rule public life. Spiritualism was acceptable but religious rituals were equated with superstition. 

While the practices of the 'people' were condoned because, after all, they were the 'ignorant masses', everyday rituals of the vernacular elite and the merchant caste-communities were treated with supercilious ridicule. This had a profound impact on such cultural practices and they got pushed into the private domain or, at best, in enclosed public spaces like temples and satsangs, mostly outside the gaze of the state. 

The entire event led to #9MinutesForIndia emerging as one of the top trends on Twitter

The 1990s changed this radically. Making money suddenly became a social virtue. Politicians, babus, professionals, academics, who had hitherto treated commerce with disdain began sending their children to business schools. As finance and trade became central to the state's economic policies, traditional merchant caste-communities acquired a new sense of prestige. By the mid-2000s, traders and entrepreneurs became firmly entrenched as the ruling elite and the netas and babus became their clients. 

The trouble was that in the first four decades after independence, the state had saturated the public domain with secular, modern, 'syncretic' cultural artefacts and practices. So, a tradition had to be invented. The various K-serials, Karan Johar films, provided the key elements of this new tradition. Karwa Chauth, Navratra fasts, 5-day weddings, matching kundalis went hand-in-hand with MBA degrees from top American B-Schools and stints at Goldman Sachs. In the movies, the angry young working-class Vijay gave way to the rich-but-romantic businessman Raj.

A crucial trope of the public culture produced by the new 'mercantile' elite was a deep-seated sense of being wronged. Firstly, by the Nehru-Gandhis who had denied them a chance to lead the nation. An imagined economic history of post-independence India was conjured up to blame 'Nehruvian' socialism for India's poverty. National media spread the notion that if only India had taken a capitalist path right from the beginning, it would have been a superpower by now.

This was the second "collective display" to show unity in the fight against the virus requested by PM Modi since the lockdown started

This chip on the shoulder stuck even faster as Indians were exposed to global capital. An all-pervasive theme in nationalist historiography of India's golden Hindu past being interrupted by the dark centuries of 'Islamic' rule was revived. This time, it was pushed forward in an even cruder form, by part-time historians, newspaper columnists, and recently, through pseudo-historical Bollywood movies. The figure of the 'Muslim' became the biggest scapegoat for India's poverty, along with the liberals, leftists, and 'secularists' who had stalled India's economic growth. What was needed was a hard-nosed, iron-willed leader, who could correct all these wrongs and Make India Great Again.

The new elite's angst dovetailed beautifully with the demands of the marginalized and the poor who too had been left at the mercies of the arbitrary and ad hoc benevolence of the state. They too sought an 'embodied sovereign' - a powerful leader who represented the 'will of the people' against the old ruling elite, who were seen to have perverted the mandate of the national movement.

Narendra Modi represents such a leader who needs complete disciplined loyalty to be able to correct the 'wrongs' and 'inequities' of forty years of Congress rule. 'Liberal' values of criticism, protest, dissent and human rights can only distract the supreme leader from his iron resolve to Make India Great Again.

109 people have died of coronavirus in India, with 32 dying and 693 fresh cases in the last 24 hours alone

In effect, the 'people' have 'produced' Modi and by participating in what he tells them to collectively do, they are participating in the process of governance itself. The rhetoric of otherness (they can be recognised from their clothes), sacrifice (switch off your lights, give up your currency notes) and gratitude (thank doctors by clapping, revere the army) is part of this process of recreating a new nation. In fact, some find it difficult to even participate without an exhibitionist celebration of these symbolic rituals. So they go out on the streets to beat thalis, or congregate with candles and crackers. It is not an aberration. It is part of the design.

Narendra Modi understands that he is as much a puppet of this process of as the citizen-subjects he addresses. That is why he periodically creates participatory events, that will 'reproduce' this new populism and strengthen the unquestioning relationship between the leader and the governed. Those who see these as laughable antics of a megalomaniac are condemned to remain stuck in a self-deluding orrery of errors. 

(Aunindyo Chakravarty was Senior Managing Editor of NDTV's Hindi and Business news channels.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.