Though most people do not dare to say so in public, the citizens of India, who are largely not involved in politics, felt unconvinced by the public display of sadness by the Prime Minister at the vast toll that
the pandemic has taken on our sisters and brothers. Many felt that his seemed a less sincere expression of feelings than the sadness he 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 300,000 Indians is a far greater calamity than the retirement of a single jaded politician.
Would the effect have been otherwise had Modi expressed his anguish in private, and it had 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. To make a fiery speech in one’s
bedroom lacks public impact just as much as it does 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. By contrast, it is by heroic deeds and significant statements that men and women have distinguished themselves in public life from ancient times.
The stature of a Prime Minister lies in his capacity to manage a crisis. He should excel by what he does, and by how he sustains the morale of a people through trying times. People feel reassured only through
practical experiences of being helped by government systems, and by clear governance priorities for that purpose.
Of course, it is noble on the part of the Prime Minister to be anguished at the gigantic suffering of the people. HIs frank expression of sadness 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. That is why a project like the New Vista, envisaging an outlay of Rs. 20,000 crores, becomes problematic. The government should have seen that. It is instructive to consider: why hasn’t it?
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. What do I mean? Consider this: doctors, nurses and technicians –care-givers in general – have died in the line of duty 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 may sustain families, but it is women who sustain the species. They are the bearers, nourishers, and care-givers of life. But their work goes unsung while the exploits of soldiers are romanticised, celebrated, commemorated.
Is there any reason for this? The work that our wives and mothers do, happens in the private sphere. However praiseworthily, beautifully and lovingly done, why we don’t associate ‘excellence’ with this realm? Why has human culture, since time immemorial, pretended that, for anything to be excellent, it has to be seen and acclaimed in the public realm?
Whatever the reasons for those facts, governments around the world – and even more so, 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. Is it any wonder the BJP thinks that, 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. Not only BJP, most of our political parties seem to think that it is ok to try to bribe voters, but setting up systems that will care for our people is somehow thought 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 – rather than by 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 do so, it is necessary to outgrow the outlook by which only what is political and prestigious is valued and celebrated. There will be no end to our woes and our tears till human needs are prioritised over trinkets of VVIP vainglory.
