Narendra Modi commands ten times more media mention than Sonia Gandhi, Rahul and Priyanka put together. That would surprise only the classes who know nothing of the masses
In a brief data-based analysis of media trends in India, the Wall Street Journal’s ‘India Real Time’ wonders, “What happened to the GandhisIJ” The question is prompted by the writer’s presumably stunning discovery that there are far more news stories about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the man voted to power by the unwashed masses of India, than Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty hailed as India’s ‘Prince’ by an awestruck Western media before the Congress was routed in last summer’s election. That would make his mother India’s ‘Queen’.
Given their exalted status in lutyens’s Delhi and the cringe-worthy manner in which a craven elite fawns over them, and the fact that our so-called ‘national media’ is yet to accept that the glory days of Congress Raj are over, it is not surprising that a comparison of the sort done by the Wall Street Journal should cause amazement and prompt profound commentary. Clearly, there were high (though illogical) expectations that the Dynasty would continue to dominate the mediascape as much in defeat as it did in victory.
Here are some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal’s ‘India Real Time’ analysis:
“… The family — which has led the country for most of its independent history — has all but disappeared from the front pages of India’s newspapers.”
“… Modi has proven particularly adept at managing the media… Modi has been mentioned in no fewer than 55,000 stories in the last three months. That’s more stories than former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh appeared in during all of 2013.”
“… A quick tally of all the news stories that mention all three Congress party royals — Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi —shows that Modi was mentioned in 10 times as many articles in September.”
There are several explanations for these findings. For instance, Modi’s soaring popularity means an insatiable demand for information related to him. That demand continues to increase with each passing day. This, in turn, means higher ratings for news channels that lavish time on him and more subscribers for newspapers that feature him prominently.
It is also true that the very mention of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty evokes revulsion among the voting classes — old India was (and remains) appalled by the cash-and-carry decade when Sonia Gandhi ruled the roost; new India could not care less for either the ‘Queen’ or the ‘Prince’. Gone are the days when the Dynasty clouded judgement.
Commercial interest motivates big media’s coverage of individuals and events. Modi at prime time means higher ratings; Modi on the front page means more eyeballs. This is not to suggest that commerce has triumphed over personal loyalties. Editors who fattened themselves on scraps from the Congress’s high table would want Sonia Gandhi and her son to be the focus of their channel’s (or newspaper’s) coverage but they are clever enough to avoid simmering discontent in the newsroom to turn into open rebellion.
And so it is that the ‘Family’, as the Wall Street Journal calls the Dynasty, finds itself dumped and forgotten. It’s a cruel world. Gone are the days when every gesture, every word made headlines. Gone too are the days when stories would be spun out of not what was said by either Sonia Gandhi or Rahul Gandhi, but what was never said. Silence, we learned, especially over the past decade, can be astoundingly eloquent.
While comparisons are inevitably odious and more often than not silly — no two situations are ever similar — it would be in order to recall that though this is not the first time the Dynasty has fallen from grace, never before has it been ignored by the media as is now being witnessed.
Indira Gandhi remained in the news after her spectacular defeat in 1977. True, the Janata Party Government did its best to ensure she did not fall off the media’s radar, but that was not the only reason. Embittered and alone, with a viciously hostile Government in power, she faced a far more uncertain future than her daughter-in-law and grandson. Yet she commanded space in media because, despite her many sins of omission and commission, in spite of the Emergency she ruthlessly imposed snuffing out democracy, there was sneaking respect for her.
Truth be told, Sonia Gandhi does not command even a minute fraction of that respect. Yes, courtiers and flatterers lavish praise on her. Yes, a certain section of the non-voting classes genuflects at the altar upon which she resides. Yes, the commentariat still sees in her the last hope of saving their perverse ‘Idea of India’ from total repudiation. Yes, editors who hopped, skipped and jumped their way to the top by choosing to be her poodles still yearn for the good times they had.
But not so the masses. The magical, meserising hold the Dynasty had over them once upon a time is now a mere footnote of free India’s political history. Sonia Gandhi and her son are held in contempt; they represent everything that new India wants to reject and discard. That rejection is not to be confused with voting for or against the Congress, although the two cannot be entirely delinked. Indira was Congress; Sonia is not; Rahul even less so.
The White House came to be known as Camelot, after King Arthur’s legendary castle, during the dazzling presidency of John F Kennedy. After he was assassinated, his widow recalled Kennedy’s favourite lines from Camelot, the popular musical:
Don’t let it be forgot,
That once there was a spot
For one brief shining moment
That was known as Camelot…
As we witness the withering away of the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty, those words could be said of the Palace, also known as ‘10 Janpath’.
(The writer is a current affairs analyst based in NCR)