Valson Thampu

Though many do not dare to say so in public, the politically-neutral and unbiased citizens of India felt unconvinced by the public display of sadness by the Prime Minister at the toll that the pandemic has taken on the lives of our sisters and brothers. Curiously, this seemed a less sincere expression of feelings than the sadness the Prime Minister expressed at the retirement of Gulam Nabi Azad from the Rajya Sabha. Clearly, it should have been the other way around; for the death of over 300000 Indians is a far greater calamity than the retirement of a jaded politician.

The effect would have been quite different had Modi expressed his anguish in private, and it happened to be noticed accidentally and leaked to the public. If so, what does this tell us of the interface between the private and the public domains of reality? Why is it that what is natural in the private domain seems contrived in the public?

There is a general consensus that feelings and sentiments must be confined to the private sphere; whereas actions and articulations are appropriate to the public sphere. It is only as impressive to make a fiery speech in one’s bedroom as it is to weep in public; especially on issues that need to be acted upon, not wept over. Resources and activities that pertain to humankind’s intimate life –from love-making to sentiments of diverse kinds- are, by convention, confined to the private sphere. From ancient of days, men and women have distinguished themselves in public life by their capacity for heroic deeds and significant statements.

The stature of a Prime Minister lies in his capacity to manage a crisis. He should excel by what he does and how he sustains the morale of a people through the trying times. People feel reassured only through experiences of being helped and by clear priorities in governance to that end. Of course, it is noble on the part of the Prime Minister to be anguished at the gigantic suffering of the people. The frank expression of sadness by him would have melted the hearts of all Indians, had it been complemented by a feeling on their part that everything possible to avert and mitigate their suffering has been done. It is in this context that a project like the New Vista, envisaging an outlay of Rs. 20000 crores, becomes problematic. The government should have seen it as such. It is instructive to consider why it hasn’t.

The significant thing to note here is that caring for the needy and the suffering is non-political. As such, it belongs to the private sphere. Only consider this. Doctors, nurses and technicians –care-givers in general- also die in the line of duty. They have done so for centuries in all societies. But, nowhere in the world is there a ‘care-memorial’ on par with war-memorials. There is even a statue for the ‘unknown soldier’. But there is none, to honour care-givers; known or unknown. Or, consider something domestic. Men sustain families, but women sustain the species. They are the bearers, nourishers, and care-givers of life. But their work goes unsung. The exploits of soldiers are romanticised, celebrated, commemorated.

There is a logic to this. The work that our wives and mothers do happens in the private sphere. We don’t associate ‘excellence’ with this realm. For anything to be excellent, it has to be seen and acclaimed as such in the public realm. This prejudiced allocation of prestige impinges our theme here. There is a good reason why governments around the world –more in poor and developing countries- attach a low priority to health care and education: indeed, to welfare measures in general. No care-giving activity carries prestige. Come general elections 2024, not many will remember how well or ill the pandemic was handled and the people served through these dark and difficult days. Everyone will be talking pop-eyed of the New Vista Project as the pride of India. Caring for the people is assumed to be electorally un-rewarding. Mercifully, there are indications now –Kerala being an example- that this is changing. Grassroots care for the people, as against pyramids of vainglorious developmentalism, is beginning to be, thanks to COVID, electorally significant. This message is unlikely to be lost on Modi, given his astuteness and pragmatism.

Until this radical change becomes an electoral fulcrum nationally, political priorities will remain dominated by catalysts of public euphoria –a surgical strike, a war-memorial, a New Vista project, a heaven-kissing statue, and so on- than the quality of care and welfare provided to the people; though, in the long run, it is the latter that makes the country respected in the global arena. So, the real issue is not if the PM should have wept in public over the dead, or if his tears carry conviction. The real issue is if we should have to weep and beat our breasts, crisis after crisis. If we are not to, it is necessary to outgrow the outlook by which only what is political and prestigious is valued and celebrated. Human needs must be prioritised over trinkets of VVIP vainglory. Until that happens, there will be no end to our woes and our tears.

May be, this is an occasion for us to consider a curious and relevant phenomenon: the fact that the high rating of the Prime Minister remains unrelated to how he performs on his promises. Nearly all promises with which Modi launched himself as the Prime Ministerial candidate, and the many made since then, remain forgotten. It is unnecessary to list them here; as they are fresh in public memory. The economy has taken a severe beating. Barring a handful of corporate giants, almost every Indian has lost economically. By the current estimate, 97% of Indians have suffered loss, one way or another, in the years that Modi has been in office. Yet, his popularity remains flatteringly high! This is eerily unreal.

The public domain is a sphere of fragmented reality. The tears of the Prime Minister and the tears of his desperate fellow Indians must belong together. Sadly, they don’t. And that is a mute critique of the sort of reality that fills the public domain today. The tragedy is that citizens as a whole are squandering or disowning their duty to see reality for what it is and to make choices accordingly, whereby they disown the freedom of choice that democracy confers on them.