As coalition politics inarguably assumes centre stage in our political drama, it is throwing up important lessons that concern not only politicians, but organisations and groups of every kind as well. It would be a tragedy if we fail to study this process carefully and explore the almost unimaginable insights it offers about ourselves and the world around us, and its huge potential for learning.
The issue is identity. Identity is a somewhat ambiguous term, since it simultaneously straddles opposites -- internal and external, active and passive, individual and group, belonging and differentiation.
Let's first define identity as a concept that defines an individual or group to him/her/itself, and distinguishes him/her/it from others. It is a fundamental basis of how we perceive ourselves and the world. It is the very first self- awareness input a newborn receives: that s/he is no longer one with her mother, that s/he must 'chart her own course', so to speak, from here on. Once this understanding is internalized, the newborn instinctively develops strategies to negotiate the 'self'
vis-à-vis the 'nonself' environment. It doesn't always succeed.
As we grow older, we are constantly thrust into the identity milieu: we are given names with meaning by our parents, we have surnames that also connote 'who we are' and 'where we come from', we are taught concepts of class, caste, language, region, nation and patriotism in school as well as outside. Indeed, the entire concept of loyalty and conflict is a consequence of taking 'positions' -- positions that derive from our self-identity, whether as a consequence of internal choice or external imposition.
The other identity construct is vis-à-vis stereotypes. Just as we define ourselves with respect to other individuals and groups, we do the same with stereotypes: every film promo on TV uses the expression
hat ke to describe their latest film, and in doing so, becomes a stereotype in itself. Similarly, many individual politicians try and dissociate themselves from the stereotypical image, so as to earn respect of constituents: "Naidu is not at all like a politician: he just listened and didn't utter a single homily!" while others revel in it.
In politics, too, the issue of identity is perhaps paramount, as manifested through the questions: "Who are we? What do we stand for? How are we different from the rest?" While all political parties naturally share a near identical agenda for the nation (food, clothing, shelter, employment, business, defense, environment…), the key to their success and failure lies in how they identify, manifest and manage their differentiation.
The recent consensus amongst the BJP group to adopt a national manifesto while subsuming their stock Hindutva issues is an example of this kind of management at work. It is prompting people to ask a fundamental identity question: "Minus Hindutva, what is the BJP?"
Similarly, another identity doubt about the BJP group that has been voiced is that "the induction of non-Hindutva votaries into policy-level BJP ranks is a dilution of its core identity." The BJP, which rode to its position of strength on the basis of a powerful Hindutva identity (who can forget
Mr. Advani storming through the country on his "Ram Rath"?), has chosen to adopt the "betrayed martyr" position, symbolized by
Mr. Vajpayee's crestfallen yet dignified demeanour.
The concerns of the pro-Hindutva lobby is valid; we can only comfort them with the fact that political identity is a fairly ephemeral construct. People forget quite soon, and quite easily: the five-year election cycle acts like a wiping-the-slate-clean process, but the Congress' experience will contradict this: they have been struggling with their identity ever since Rajiv Gandhi was shot dead. The bare truth is that the Congress drew its identity almost exclusively from the Nehru-Gandhi aristocracy, dangerously so. The seamless continuity of four decades was broken when Narasimha Rao came into power, revealing for the first time to Indians, the image of the Congress as a venal, self-serving bunch of politicians. Sitaram Kesri can enjoy the dubious claim of driving this nail into the Congress' coffin. With Ms Gandhi's arrival, Congress is desperately hoping for a return to innocence of sorts, but the Indian voter has already woken up from the Nehru-Indira dream.
Significantly, the BJP has chosen an identity issue as their key election plank in September: "Will you allow an Italian-born PM to lead your country?" To which one stream of opinion responds: "We Indians don't need outsiders to lead us, thank you," while another says, "Why make country of birth an issue? Why not discuss performance?"
Few would have noticed that identity-wise, the most distinctive personality today is no one from the BJP or Congress groups: it is Laloo Yadav. In Bihar, evidently, people are under his sway to a great extent, although his recent sojourn out of power, and out of visibility (more seriously), could have diluted his charisma. He can be a terrific asset in these identity crisis times, but unfortunately his distinctiveness is a greater threat to his friends and associates than his enemies.
The push and pull of colours is another identity aspect that our politics thrive upon: the BJP/Shiv Sena combine has seized 'ownership' of saffron virtually all over the country: signs welcoming you to 'Hindu Rashtra' in bold orange are no longer as shocking as they were when they first came up. The TDP in Andhra has done the same with yellow, and Renuka Chowdhary showed more allegiance to the party colour than its ideals during her last few months in that party. Of course, thanks to the BJP's saffronisation drive, we have suddenly become acutely conscious of the 'other' colour, the colour green.
Interestingly, the Hindutva drive drove the ownership of this colour right out of India -- to Pakistan. No wonder it's such a dynamite colour today, and no mainstream political party wants to own it.
Our inexperience in managing coalition identity is evident in the way the several constituents exert pushes and pulls on the group identity from time to time, as efforts to express their individuality within them. Jayalalitha is the obvious example of this, but Chautala, Mamata Bannerjee and the Akalis have also tried unsuccessfully to do so on occasion. Perhaps the only true master of this fine art is George Fernandes, who appears to have reconciled his party's identity
under the BJP umbrella so comfortably, that he is under no pressure to restate it and redefine it from time to time.
Besides Laloo Yadav and George Fernandes, no politician appears to have comfortably reconciled his identity pressures -- not even the formidable Bal Thackeray (suggestive how of all the people, he insists on spelling his name in an anglicised manner!). This indicates that identity management skills are not assured by virtue of legacy, education, social status, or even popularity. It may be more than a coincidence that both these masters are Bihar-based, although
Mr. Fernandes is not a 'native' Bihari. Come to think of it, Mr. Fernandes' identity is definitely not geographical or linguistic, but an evolution of his labour leadership days. One wonders what voters in his constituency perceive him as.
Moving away from politics a bit, our acceptance of business' motive "We profit on your need" makes for far more effective identity dynamics. Since half the identity deal -- what we expect of business -- is consistent across the board, managing the other half is easier. In politics, although this is what really happens, this is not what we expect of it -- we expect things like national interest, national leadership, social progress, complete accountability and such deliveries from politics.
So imagine the enormous respect a business group like Tata has accumulated, since it has surpassed the stereotype and is delivering to us what we actually expect from our politicians. Their motive has left the "We profit on your need" way behind, and is closer to "We act in the nation's interest." It remains to be seen how much longer and how much farther the Tatas can stretch this dual identity: earn profits as a business and occupy the moral high ground as great patriots. Maybe they are setting a new paradigm. Maybe they are creating history.
The overarching reason why the Tatas are succeeding is their integrity. What they promise, they deliver. Which includes attitude, as well: while many people deliver on their claims pretty well, not many do it with as humane and sensitive a demeanour as the Tatas do.
Integrity is key to identity. And this is the greatest missing ingredient in our life today, as internal and external pressures tear us apart into living contradictions; as ideals and reality force us into making either/or choices; as the present and the future present themselves as opposites, not as aspects of the same instant.
Arvind Lodaya, 1998
Any material on this website may not be used for non-academic purposes without my explicit permission.