Instead of seeking to outwit rivals through compelling arguments, alternative policies or a more convincing political narrative, parties and their leaders often appear to rely on insinuations, personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations.
Casting aspersions on political opponents has become an increasingly familiar feature of Indian politics. Instead of seeking to outwit their rivals through compelling arguments, alternative policies or a more convincing political narrative, parties and their leaders often appear to rely on insinuations, personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations. This growing dependence on such shortcuts is not merely lowering the quality of political discourse; it is also eroding the very ethos of a democracy that is expected to thrive on reasoned debate, competing ideas and respect for the plurality of political opinion. It would be difficult to identify a precise point in time when this tendency began to take root in Indian politics. In its earlier manifestations, it often assumed the form of whispered campaigns and carefully planted rumours, particularly when allegations could not be supported by credible documentary evidence. The occasional political gains derived from such tactics may have encouraged their wider use. What began as an instrument of political manoeuvring gradually became an accepted feature of electoral and political competition.
The greater concern is that the temptation of a quick political advantage appears to have displaced one of the most important virtues in public life: patience. Indian political history offers several examples of leaders attaching utmost importance to ideology rather than succumbing to the lust for power. Lal Bahadur Shastri resigned as Railway Minister after the Ariyalur train disaster in 1956, in which over 140 passengers were killed. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Jyoti Basu, despite belonging to very different political traditions, both waited for their time, remained committed to their respective political convictions and allowed circumstances, public support and democratic processes to determine their rise.Vajpayee's conduct following the fall of his government in 1999 remains particularly instructive. His government lost the confidence vote in the Lok Sabha by a single vote. In the highly competitive political environment of the time, opportunities may have existed to secure support through inducements or political manoeuvring. Yet Vajpayee chose to accept the verdict of the House rather than compromise the principles he had publicly espoused. His subsequent conduct demonstrated that the pursuit of power, however legitimate in a democracy, need not come at the expense of democratic propriety.
The contrast with contemporary political practice is difficult to ignore. Across the political spectrum, the desire to retain or acquire power can sometimes appear to have taken precedence over the methods employed to achieve it. Personal allegations are hurled with little regard for their evidentiary basis, political opponents are routinely portrayed as enemies rather than competitors, and the distinction between legitimate criticism and character assassination is increasingly blurred.A democracy cannot remain healthy merely because elections are held at regular intervals. Its institutional vitality also depends on the quality of political discourse and the conduct of those who participate in it. Political parties are perfectly entitled to expose the failures of their opponents, challenge their policies and question their decisions. But criticism must be based on facts and arguments rather than insinuation and personal vilification. Reviving those values is essential if Indian politics is to recover a measure of its dignity.