But the question remains, who will lose political weightIJ
Motabhai and Chotabhai, let us call them fictitious characters for the nonce, decide to stay hungry for a bit not to become lean or even to stay mean but because the want to draw attention to the causes they espouse respectively. After all, in the attention-seeking game, fasting is always preferred over feasting. At least if it is simpatico attention which is sought to be drawn. The self-denial implicit in not eating for a whole day is one aspect of this mode of protest to highlight an issue; the other is the sense of empathy it generates among millions of co-citizens of our Indic civilisation for whom an upvaas once week if not more often is de rigueur. And then there is the tradition of the saintly in Indian politics and public life which in the form of the Mahatma gained more traction than ever before or since in the modern, post-industrial world. The moral power that one man wielded over his fellow Indians across class, caste and community barriers was unprecedented, his not eating caused anguish even among those who opposed him.
Cut to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's and, preceding his, Congress president Rahul Gandhi's respective fasts. The latter done and dusted, the former ongoing. Rahul's symbolic fast was against the duly elected Government of the day for its many alleged sins of mis-governance and to promote communal harmony and peace. He came, he didn't eat, he left and there was a bit of a political jamboree around it including allegedly photoshopped pictures of Congress leaders tucking into a chole bhature break-fast before the fast, about sums it up. Modi's fast, with the Prime Minister going ahead with his usual working day and the BJP president following suit, promised to be a more sombre affair, meant to draw public attention to the anguish he feels at the alleged deliberate and wanton stalling of Parliament by the Opposition, a charge that is vociferously denied by the BJP's opponents, it must be said. But the fact that BJP president is following the Prime Minister, sitting on fast in Hubli in poll-bound Karnataka on the same day, has taken the sheen off the entire exercise and brought it firmly into the domain of the electoral.
A fast by a public figure is not a one-day diet to fit into a bandhgallah for a prospective swearing-in. Neither is it a political circus got up by leaders looking to build momentum against a ruling party which has trounced it in election after election. The very essence of this mode of protest has been grotesquely twisted by politicians and political parties across the spectrum. It has been reduced to no more than a device by which to shore up the spirits of the faithful and galvanise respective core support bases. It is perfectly valid as agitprop, of course. But if the Mahatma were around, he would probably have gone on an indefinite fast, rather than the one-day version in vogue, to protest this mode of political protest which does nothing for the greater good.