Cyber Communities

THE SOCIAL WORLD of India is divided into many thousands of little compartments. Many are exactly like others in terms of class or even profession but separated on account of geography and language. Sociolo­gists often try to club these groups into more manageable categories and students of politics are inclined to see convergences on the strength of voting behaviour. Of course, if the search is conducted for unitary threads, groups in India very often transcend region, language, income and, in rare cases, the Hindu-Muslim faultline.

These days, thanks to the mushrooming of social media, people are connected to each other on newer and newer bases. Speaking personally, my wife and I together must be members of at least 25 WhatsApp groups, some hyperactive and others that come alive seasonally. These range from the usual, such as neighbourhood groups, workplace groups, multiple groups formed based on shared political preferences and alumni groups, to unusual ones, such as a group formed by the mothers of those who had been in school some 15 years ago.

I am unsure as to whether I find membership of these groups rewarding or mildly irritating. I recognise that each group comprises some very dedicated members who are never wanting in offering their opinions or posting links of articles that they consider useful for others. Whether that is due to the surfeit of post-retirement leisure time or a way out of loneliness is a matter of conjecture. All I can say is a lot of people must be finding the WhatsApp groups useful, otherwise these cyber communities wouldn’t have been mushrooming. The revolution in communications has created a virtual level playing field where everyone has acquired the facility of being heard.

The only time the opinion of every individual acquires the same value is during election time. As an observer of politics, I tend to attach greater significance to all opinions—both logical and ill-informed—than I would at other times. After all—unless muscle power rules the roost—these opinions provide invaluable clues to the voting behaviour of individuals. Equally, they are also a guide to what has come to be known as group-think.

Many members of one of the groups I belong to have gone apoplectic over Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s election speeches. In their perception, Modi has lowered the level of Indian politics with his attacks on those who breed generously, on Muslim reservations and on Muslim illegal immigrants from neighbouring countries. According to them, this is against the Model Code of Conduct and violates the spirit of the Constitution.

Since the Election Commission has so far not taken any action against the prime minister, apart from urging overall restraint, they appear to have concluded that the Election Commission members have ceased to be neutral umpires and have been put in their positions to facilitate the victory of BJP. The extent of their anger has reached such a pitch that public figures don’t balk from calling the prime minister names. Admittedly, they are members of the Old Establishment, the ones dispossessed from power and influence after Modi won power in 2014. All the same, the vitriol is quite disturbing.

The over-reaction is quite striking. As it becomes more and more apparent that BJP is going to form the next government with a reasonably comfortable (if not a steamroller) majority, sections of Modi-haters are going into a state of denial. They are detecting a reverse swing based on the prime minister’s ‘body language’ and the Supreme Court verdict on Arvind Kejriwal. This reverse swing has been detected in many elections before but almost invariably it has failed to materialise. In 2019, the pundits were seriously embarrassed by the fact that their anecdotal evidence bore little relation to the votes. This is not surprising since the anecdotal evidence (apart from the mandatory views of the taxi drivers of election tourists) are from compartments that resemble the WhatsApp communities. You can get made-to-order views if you know which group to tap.

Then comes the question of history.

Modi is by far the most aggressive election campaigner who has made it to the top job. Jawaharlal Nehru was a pontificator who knew that Congress was unassailable. Indira Gandhi’s reputation was more formidable than her oratory. And Rajiv Gandhi was never entirely comfortable in Hindi, although he wasn’t half as convoluted as his son. As for Manmohan Singh, he was normally kept away from campaigning.

Of the non-Congress lot, Atal Bihari

Vajpayee was past his prime by the time he became prime minister. In fact, in 2009, the BJP leadership was petrified that he would commit some major gaffe.

It is Modi’s out-and-out political thrust, plus his ability to speak about himself in the third person that has broken all earlier assumptions.

About The Author

Swapan Dasgupta

•