How the covid response of Trump and Modi reflects the cultural differences between the US and Indian democracies
“Every nation gets the government it deserves”; I wonder whether Josep De Maistre said that with a hint of sarcasm. But it is true that constitutions and doctrines alone cannot dictate the kind of government. Most democracies in the world adhere to similar modern and humane principles but their resultant governments are very distinct. The historical context leading to the design of their democratic system and the socio-cultural values of it’s citizen are factors being the differentiator. The interaction of the leader with his/her citizen becomes an interesting text to understand the cultural fabric of the country, and the corona pandemic has set the perfect stage for that. As against the opaque dealings of the Chinese regime, democracies of the world have stood out for their global cooperation and domestic communication. The USA and India are two of the most vulnerable countries at this stage of the pandemic, and the world watches the development in both these democracies with bated breath. Their leaders, Trump and Modi are two of the most polarizing politicians in recent history, and the media either loves them or loves to hate them. The manner in which their domestic communication and interaction with their citizen, in the wake of the pandemic has been designed, is a reflection of how the idea of democracy has been contextualized for two culturally different societies.
In its fairly young history, the USA has become one of the most powerful nation states to have ever existed. While the last major demographic shift took place in the Indian subcontinent about 4000 years back during the decline of Harappa civilization, in America it took place just 500 years ago when Columbus sailed into new world in 1491. The invading Europeans, by virtue of the superior weapons and deadly infections they brought with themselves, wiped out the indigenous tribes. It was followed by ship loads of enterprising Europeans colonizers flocking into the continent in hope of making a fortune for themselves, which they successfully did. As they grew powerful, the colonies organized themselves to safeguard their economic interest, eventually gaining independence from their former countrymen and colonial masters in 1776. American society owes its foundation to modern ideals of democracy and freedom, concept that the European society adapted and adjusted to during renaissance in the wake of social unrest against the ruling elites. While the USA gained its independence through a revolution, in India freedom was a non-armed transition from a foreign occupation to a local government. When the transfer of power from British Raj to an independent Indian government took place in 1947, alien but modern ideals were introduced to a historically fragmented society. Indian society has traditionally been divided on caste and class lines, each individual by the virtue of his larger community identity was assigned a particular role in a steeply hierarchical society. Lack of individual agency and strict power dynamics are not the ideal conditions for ideas such as democracy, freedom and equality to ferment and break out. For centuries, people looked up to their family patriarch, village elderly, local rajah or emperor to dole out welfare and bring about justice. Up until 1947 people in many parts of the country still considered their titular rulers as a quasi-divine being. The romantic idea of the “sarkaar” as the only savior continued well into the decades post-independence, the faulty policies of the welfare state crushing all hope for private enterprise and individual progress. For most Indians, participation in democracy is still limited to getting inked in record breaking elections every 5 years. As against USA where economic revolution preceded and helped design the political reform, India achieved her political freedom without her economic and social revolution. And not so surprisingly, the recent media interactions in wake of the virus crisis in both the countries affirm this idea.
While Trump holds a daily press meeting, Modi surprises an anticipating nation with sudden announcements of his televised address. Trump’s scheduled meeting is different from Modi’s unscheduled speech. Whereas the former is dialogical, designed in a way to ensure daily dissipation of necessary information and developments to American citizen, the latter is styled as a morale booster and social guidance monologue. It takes the form of advisory or commandment depending on where the listener locates herself on the Modi fan spectrum. While Trump’s agenda driven interaction attempts to equip American citizen with the latest know how, Modi has assigned that task to the nodal government health agency, while he himself has assumed the role of a primetime messiah, acting as the nation’s guiding light. Thus, the effective takeaways from Trump’s briefing might be the latest development in vaccine trials, while after Modi’s address Indians would be gearing up for their next task aimed at imbibing national unity and community support to the frontline workers. No wonder, the orchestration on the television screen affirms the same. While Trump is flanked by his team of experts at the briefings who field questions that require technical explanation, Modi pulls off a spectacular one man show with his upper profile hogging the entire screen space with some spare space for half an Indian flag on the left. The design of democracy in the USA ensures that it is a collaborative process, with the citizen and leader sharing the platform to make sense of the developments, in India the citizen is passive in front of their leader, who are expected to patiently wait for him and his words of wisdom.
Popular Indian leaders have always been imagined as the patriarch or matriarch of a large Indian joint family. While Jawaharlal Nehru was pandit or more fondly chacha, his daughter Indira assumed the avatar of mythical “bharat mata”, equating her identity with that of the country. Jayalalitha became the doting mother for her supporters, while Mamata became the elder sister who has your back. With a sharp understanding of media, Modi has fostered for himself an image where he assumes the role of a progressive, modern-day India patriarch, who is not only experienced and pragmatic, but someone who is aware and on top of everything that is happening in the world. Thus, he makes us believe that he can smell the fruit from animal poop one day while the next day he could effortlessly give exam advice to school kids while talking about PUBG. While Trump through his daily press meetings appears as the frontline warrior amidst the crisis, Modi through his shock and awe tactics and preachy rhetoric builds the image of a quick and resolute decision maker for himself.
This leadership style perfected and contemporized by Modi is nothing new for the podium loving Indian leaders. Modi’s call to action through his national addresses have been a major success, India is still undergoing an impressive lockdown which has helped contained the number of cases way below the estimates. However, large section of people and media have criticized the sudden announcements and lack of proper planning as reasons for massive inconvenience, a reminder of the criminal act of demonetization. The migrant crisis in the wake of lockdown further added to it. Young internauts who grew tired of the task maker’s rhetoric’s have called out Modi for being all fluff no substance. India is changing rapidly and Indians, digitally enabled and in sync with global information, are ushering a new culture. Actionable and to the point information over long drawn “gyaan” is what people need, especially in a crisis situation. How the future political leadership of democratic India unfolds in the context of this cultural flux will be exciting to observe.
