India’s darkest hour

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely; Great men are almost always bad men.”… The words of Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8^th- an English politician talking about the monarchies in Europe attaining status of demi gods.

Time and again it has come across in history that great leaders went on to reach a status of total power over their subjects. They were good as leaders, decisive and ruthless against external threats and also with a sense of care and concern for their people. But at some point, the power and sense of judgement turned foes and leaders turn into demons.

Exactly 40 years ago - 25^th June 1975 is one such date in the history of unified India- when a democracy went through a phase of Political Emergency with everything and everyone coming under the direct rule of one person- the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. A period that might have been the darkest hour of unified India till date.

So why is this even relevant today? Its past, history, dead and buried…. Yes, it is. But what remains to be recalled is how a country can drive itself into doom without realizing the effects till very late. I openly say that I am not a fan of Mrs Gandhi (I’m not Nixon as well) but I do feel that as the 2^nd longest serving Prime Minister of India, there are actions of hers (especially post 1971) which continue to affect us even to date. 

Though I was not around when it happened (if I was, I’m sure I’d have been in jail for writing something like this), I have read a lot of accounts from journalists, historians and other who witnessed the drama unfold to help me find understand the times. Not to mention, my journalism classes and “India after Gandhi” by Ramchandra Guha (I regard this as the most in-depth account of India post- independence) to be the basis of my writing.

Mrs Gandhi was not a politician, not even someone who might have has anything to do with the freedom struggle or a nationalist. An estranged daughter of Nehru; she was more like a personal assistant who was not even a member of the Congress party. But the unofficial influence got her to be the Party president in 1959 and a cabinet minister for I&B in the cabinet led by Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1964. All this while, her party leadership was more of a coy to keep away an ambitious Morarji Desai; the infamous Kamraj Plan. Even on her appointment as the Prime Minister in 1966, the tag of “Moom ki gudiya” did reflect the fact that no one had faith in her abilities to lead India.

The concentration of power started to happen when Mrs Gandhi on being expelled from the Congress due to fall out from the senior leaders, formed Congress (I) and pulling along the entire but 65 members of the existing people in power. Nehru was a Socialist, but his ideology of keeping government away from business was well defined. Indira broke this line and prior to the 1971 elections, 14 banks were nationalized and the allowance to the princely state heads was abolished. This naturally led to a lot of dissent amongst the people, but opportunity presented Mrs Gandhi very soon.

December 1971 and the Bangladesh War saw Mrs Gandhi take the ruthless path against Pakistan and paid no heed to the fact that the US Navy was on alert during the conflict. The fact that even an opposition leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee deemed her as “Goddess Durga” was a testimony to the way she handled the situation. The populist slogans like Garibi Hatao won hearts of the people and the whole country stood behind the lady. With a lot of support, Congress (I) swept the state elections in 1972 without anything given away to the opposition. It had become a scenario where “Indira is India” was actually happening.  But this was possibly where things went wrong and the power structure turned amorphous. Indira Gandhi self- conferred upon herself a Bharat Ratna – much like Nehru.

Failed monsoon, rise in unemployment, rising inflation, the pending expenses of a jubilant but costly war with Pakistan and the state resting with all the powers for finance and wealth; it was just an explosive situation. With her son Sanjay Gandhi acting as an advisor, draconian powers were unleashed on the people. While students and youth came out on the streets following an able socialist like J P Narayan, new leaders like George Fernandes crippled the railways with a strike. Former royalty stripped of their privy purse used all their might against Mrs Gandhi. Adding fuel to the fire was the Allahabad Court verdict regarding election malpractices which dismissed Mrs Gandhi’s membership to parliament.

Was it the romance with power or the fact that you have people’s support behind- not prepared to step down and the social uprising at hand; a Political Emergency was imposed. It was now a crazy circus that was controlled by Indira and Sanjay Gandhi for the next 21 months. What followed was definitely something that I feel was short of the Simon Commission Report.

Ordinances were passed and constitution amended in a manner by which all political opposition was crushed with people suspected of anti-government activity being imprisoned. The press was gagged and power to newspaper offices and presses was shut off. How can one not talk about the courageous R P Goenka printing blank spaces in Indian Express as a mark of protest against the government imposed censorship?

Ruling with an iron fist got a whole new meaning and fear became the currency of the government machinery. Civil liberties were curtailed and with brutal activities like forced population control programmes and dismissal of any state government not in tune with the central power was the biggest blow to democracy. Certainly the darkest hour – and a trauma for all those who saw the worst of it.

I’m happy that such things might never happen again in India. Changes in the constitutional framework have now eliminated the possibilities of an Emergency being imposed unless absolutely critical and agreed upon by 2/3^rd of the parliament. Media today is much more deep rooted and India is no longer in a space to be isolated from the rest of the world. The biggest difference – people now have access to ways and means where they cannot be dominated by a force that is suppressing them and anything that is against national interest meets stiff opposition.

But the impact from the days of the Emergency is still around. Dynasty politics is now deeply entrenched in our system. The son-daughter distant relative of a politician becoming a successor is a common thing for today. Also, the feeling that an MP’s relative is above the law is somehow still a law. Going back to privatization of the financial system is still work in progress. There are some other misdoings from the tyrant leadership in those days which led to a lot more complications – but 1975 to 1977 was by far the worst we saw as a nation in terms of a democratic state turn into a pseudo dictatorship. 

Alia Bhatt- a one you just cannot ignore

'There's no such thing as bad publicity' –a statement often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, a 19th century American showman and circus owner. Apparently, Barnum was a self-publicist and never missed an opportunity to present his opinion to the public- no matter in what context. Apart from being a man of showbiz in the 1800’s, his approach was bang on the money; self- promotions and publicity are a crucial part of being a public figure. Unless people talk about you, know you and have the craving to know more in person; you are possibly just another person. In his own words- Without promotion something terrible happens... Nothing!!!

Today, most people who wish to be in the public domain hire public image managers in a quest to ensure their public face is maintained. Considering there are lot more options in media which can spread a word at the speed of sound, there are moments where someone can goof up big time. In the last one year, there have been two instances after which the involved individuals might have got them to think, ‘why the hell did I go there in the first place?’ Interestingly, both invoked a similar kind of reaction on social media. The real distinction has been how the matters have been handled post the debacle and what it has done to these two individuals.

The first one was of course- Rahul Gandhi and possibly his career interview with Arnab Goswami. Sure a lot of politicians make blunders when they talk; but this was epic in the sense that his handling of the media post the interview was atrocious and laughable. Needless to say, while the Modi wave was on the rise, a lot of jokes on Rahul Gandhi started floating around. A parallel example was that of Alia Bhatt when on the celebrity talk show ‘Koffee with Karan’, her lack of knowledge about India’s President (like many others) was exposed in a grand manner. What followed was her crowning as the Indian version of the blonde with a strong line-up of jokes.

The similarities in both cases: both were actually trying to establish themselves in the public eye and their image in the meantime was gone for a toss. While Rahul had all kinds of childish jokes dedicated to himself, Alia jokes were going across the board. Jokes which at one point were like an exclusive monopoly of the surds were being recycled for Alia. In fact I believe at some point, her PR agency came in a planted some more jokes just to keep the excitement and name flashing on social media.

Indians have been harsh with anyone who had an issue with their public image. In the past, the moment anyone got involved in controversies, people and brands choose to distance themselves from the person involved to manage the rub-off. This makes the post debacle response of the involved both interesting and crucial. This was possibly the stark difference in these two cases.

Rahul and the Congress went into denial. They did almost nothing to change the public perception with any other public appearances aimed to control the damage. If empowerment, women’s representation and youth were his points laid down to the world, nothing was done to being meaning to the words by some on ground actions to the people who most mattered in his campaign. While they attempted to downplay the matter or wait for it to die out- Rahul lost his presence in the national politics. He can be an equivalent to Sarah Palin in some ways.

Conversely, the Bhatt camp did nothing to hide the fact that general knowledge was not the strong point of Alia. Interestingly; in the month following the incident, she played a student in India’s most respected educational institutions, a Stockholm syndrome driven lover and a very typical North Indian. While social media was taking her persona for a toss- she actually allied with a popular youth based internet channel to let people know that she is working on herself to overcome her flaws. As a matter of fact, I recently found that her youth connect is so powerful that she is the face for a range of products from Garnier, Hero Pleasure and Philips in recent times. In all the above ads, she projects a smarter and opinion leading act.

If you ask me, I am yet to watch any of her films and the idea of her being a far refreshing act in terms of glamour compared to her half sibling Pooja Bhatt came in only after I saw what a disaster Pooja was (30 mins of Phir teri kahani yaad aayee was all it required). I also know that she is someone who possibly never been to a college to take up studies seriously and might be the low ranker amidst her contemporaries as far as educational qualifications might go. But one thing is for sure- every single person who has ever read a newspaper or is exposed to some form of social media today knows who she is. Would she get all the films and endorsements she has in her bag even then? May be. But one thing is for sure- the kind of recall she has today is second to none.

A line of conclusion- like her or hate her for all she does, she is someone who we cannot stop hearing about. She is plastered all across youth channels with her ads and endorsements and for all I have read; her acting has also been appreciated. She is many ways is now an established brand; something we just cannot ignore. 

Demystifying Modi- A marketing perspective

The General Elections of 2014 have officially gone down as the biggest democratic exercise globally and the mandate has been an epic one for India. For the first time since 1984, a national party has the majority to form the government on its own and based on some indicatives, possibly the first time after 1972, a national leader selected by the people out of choice rather than the lack of it.

Yes, the BJP has emerged absolutely dominant across 5 states and enjoys over 80% votes in 5 others and the credit for this should go down to the grass root party workers. But for holding over 200 public addresses, inspiring and infusing enthusiasm in the party workers and building himself as a force to reckon with; it will be a complete three act dominated by Narendra Modi.

Leaving the debate whether brand Modi won the election or was it anything else to the political experts, I am only going to apply basic marketing principles to the success and place forth a simple perspective.

Give the people what they want: The very definition of marketing is focussed towards the needs of people. One factor India has been missing for a long time has been a strong and decisive central leadership. Possibly Indira Gandhi was the last known exponent of this trade and it reflected her resounding re-election in 1972; all thanks to her transformation from the ‘moom ki gudiya’ to the lady behind the victory in the Bangladesh liberation war.

Beyond elections have been just a series of counter actions and replacements to previous governments but never based on leadership. Morarji led coalition in 1977 an outcome of public dissent against the Indira governance. The re-election of Mrs Gandhi was due to the failure of the Janta Party. Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 got a massive sympathy wave, VP Singh in 1989, succeeded on the misdeeds of Rajiv, Chandrashekhar was a stop-gap and Narshimha Rao in 1991 got the benefits of another sympathy wave for Rajiv.

The 13 day Vajpayee government in 1996 failed an absolute mandate, Deve Gowda and I K Gujral were again stop gap arrangements. Vajpayee managed a coalition finally in 1999, but it failed to be decisive as it was always held at ransom by its allies. Manmohan Singh in 2004 was a last minute socially acceptable alternative and in 2009 there were little or no alternatives.

Narendra Modi in 2014 was a sign of definite leadership put forth before the Indian electorate. Who will be the PM had a definitive answer for months leading up to the elections and it was the biggest thing to have worked. Critics, party members and even media has come out saying that in a record turnout voting exercise; Modi was instrumental in installing confidence in the minds of a voter to give up on their inertia and apathy towards the government and exercise their vote.

A robust product: As a 3^rd term CM of one of India’s most rapidly developing state, Modi had suitable credentials to back him as a leader with decision making abilities. Gujarat under Modi was becoming a model state. The biggest beneficiary of the Sardar Sarovar project, water had now reached desert regions of Kutch and combined with hydro and solar power projects on the Narmada canal, Gujarat was now a power surplus state.

From an economic perspective, the swift action for the shift of the Tata Nano project in Sanand with the record time approvals and land allocations was a demonstration of the commanding stature of Modi against other state governments. No one could make such a profound statement by getting the approval from Tata, the gold standard in Indian industry, for their dream project.

Modi has gradually developed as a mark of decisive, progressive and development led governance. This was a much higher product promise presented to the Indians in a long time.   

Power of promotion: Like most others who have risen through the ranks of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Modi has the mass appealing oratory skills that we seek in a leader. He had been a crowd puller with his well-articulated language and confident words.

In addition, the BJP left no stone unturned to build a nationwide campaign across every form of media. Apart from the effective use of social media, television interviews, radio ads, ground activities, rallies and even use of holographic at places- it was a complete and through media campaign.

Going places: Addressing 185 rallies in 45 days leading up to the final phase of elections is no mean feat; it averages to 4 rallies everyday across various parts of the country. To add to it, Modi never stayed over at any place post his address and made sure he was back in Gandhinagar every night. What this super human effort achieved was connecting to the last mile of voters and a gratification of sorts to every single person that the man has taken the effort to meet me in my town.

Multi- appeal positioning: Modi was remarkable positioned to appeal to every Indian in some or the other way to counter the political shortcomings on his resume. A 3^rd term CM with a reputation for global recognition towards good governance was the solution at hand for a country ridden by corruption and scams. For the corporate world, he was a morphine shot in the waiting to aid a crawling economy. His modest backgrounds echoed the sentiments of a commoner while his rise thought the RSS ranks was an encouragement to his party workers.

If religious fundamentalism was a stumbling block, the development model was a redeemer. If zero national experience was a flaw, his work under similar conditions in Gujarat was a strong point. If his age was a spot of concern as compared to other campaigners, his experience overruled the matters.

In an overall, there can be many more factors which we can draw; these were some prime in my opinion. The only hope I hold in my mind is for the faith rested by the voters on this one man leads him to make an incremental change to the lives of every Indian.