Events & Issues
New
Delhi, 23 May 2019
Politics of Labelling
A DANGEROUS GAME!
By Dr. S. Saraswathi
(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)
A primary lesson for all political speakers
is to avoid controversial terms particularly to malign somebody or
something. Labels, names, and terms carry
political significance and have played a significant role in the just-concluded
General election. In fact because of our ignorance of historical events and
background of organisations, and lack of ability to conduct sensible and
orderly political discourses and decent election campaigns, several irrelevant
issues came up during electioneering this year with the sole aim of denigrating
rival candidates and parties.
Labelling and name calling candidates and
parties took the place of issues and policies leading to unnecessary exchange
of abuses. People were practically asked to choose between labels and names and
not between policies and programmes. Voters were treated like ignorant
illiterates.
A case in point is of the new face in the
electoral theatre, Kamal Haasan, who ignited a fierce debate in the country
over what is reported as his “Hindu terror” remark with reference to the
assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse. He was speaking in an
election meeting in an Assembly constituency in Tamil Nadu on behalf of his
party candidate.
The highlight of his speech as reported in
the media is his depiction of Godse – independent India’s first terrorist – as a
Hindu. The connection between the assassin and his religion was not clarified. He has also responded to critics with further
assertion that, “If a historical fact I point out hurts you, then this wound
will never heal”.
Haasan was booked under Sections 153 A
(promoting enmity on grounds of religion) and 295 A (deliberate and malicious
act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its
religion and religious beliefs) of the IPC.
Kamal insists he has used the Tamil word “theeviravadhi” meaning “extremist” and
not “bayankaravadhi”, Tamil
equivalent of “terrorist”. He applied for and obtained anticipatory bail to
avoid arrest. This is not the first time he spoke of Hindu extremism as he
himself admitted, but his earlier speeches did not receive this much attention.
For some political personalities, proper usage of terms in their mother-tongue
or another language is a problem. Still,
they are very vocal.
Another leader defending Haasan, is reported
to have welcomed his statement adding, “Godse was not only an extremist but
also a terrorist …” This episode opens the need for understanding the use of
labelling in politics as much as the meaning of terrorism or the character of
Godse.
2019 election has no connection with Mahatma
Gandhi or Godse or the tragic assassination of the Father of the Nation to be
remembered in an election campaign for a by-election to State Assembly in Tamil
Nadu. The reference is nothing but an attempt to denigrate the opponent by
attributing to him a dangerous link in the past.
Labelling is describing someone or something
in a word or short phrase. Its use for communication is unquestionable. It is
mostly intended to highlight the fact that the label is a description coming from
outside rather than from some intrinsic character of the labelled thing. Thus, label is earned by creating
perceptions consciously and unconsciously, or deliberately and incidentally. And
label is used to perpetuate usually a negative image of a person or group. As
such, it is a strong rhetorical tool.
The speciality of this election is that labels
are coined by experts and poll advisors more than being earned by the labelled.
A big industry has grown all over the world to collect raw data, separate
positive and negative characteristics contained in the data, construct an
edifice suitable to one’s purpose with the data, and run a machinery to
propagate the image created. Its greatest use is in election period. Labelling and
name calling form an important part of this industry. It is going on in full
swing in India whereas in the West, it is on decline after its rapid rise.
Labelling in politics is intended to
influence our perception, judgement, and behaviour and determines interaction
between individuals and groups. Labels confirmed by endless repetitions block
individual judgements and affect interaction with the labelled. They promote
preconceived notions and presumptive assumptions. In the politics of labels,
there is no use for knowledge and experience. It promotes divisive politics.
Name calling is explained as a form of ad hominem, meaning attacking opponents personally
as opposed to attacking their policies. In this election, it is also done ad nausium, i.e. repeatedly any number
of times. Name calling is a form of verbal abuse, and in politics, it is used
as a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against opponents or ideas.
Political parties conduct election campaigns
like marketing and advertising companies, which aggressively push their
products. They pick catchy labels and coin rhyming slogans and indulge in
repetitions day in and day out. Crowd collection seems to be the object of
campaigns conducted on filmy style and supported by audio-visual media.
Labels originated in politics several
centuries ago. Perhaps, we never realised that Whig and Tory were terms of
abuse introduced in 17th century applied respectively to opponents
and supporters of hereditary right of King James; that “rightist” and “leftist”
are terms for conservative and liberal groups respectively. Nazi labels, Hitler
title, and fascist name have been commonly used in the West in political
contests and have entered into India also. These are used as negative
symbols.
Between the two World Wars, an organisation
called The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) took up a systematic study
of “propaganda” – a political strategy adopted by Hitler. The analysis included
“name calling” in its list of common rhetorical techniques. It was found that
bad names have played a powerful role in the history of the world and in our
own individual development.
Bad names have ruined reputations, and incite
people to violence. These have been applied to “other” people, groups, tribes,
political parties, institutions, neighbourhoods, States, sections of a country,
nations, race and so on.
On the other hand, labels are necessary to
introduce some order in the chaotic world. It helps categorisation and easy
identification of what one wants from a heap of things. The function of putting
identification mark of a product on its package is called “labelling”.
Labelling in sociology is the theory how the
self-identity and behaviour of individuals may be determined or influenced by
the terms used to describe or classify them. It was developed in the 1960s. In
these days, terrorist and insurgent are labels that carry worst negative
connotation. When used in election speeches, public uproar is inevitable.
Incidentally, there is no consensus on the
definition of “terrorism”. It is a value-laden term and its usage is prohibited
in some places. There is also much controversy over the distinction between
“extremism” and “terrorism”. To give any religious association to terrorism is
bad politics aimed at dividing peace loving people.
Kamal Haasan’s speech has intensified the
unwanted debate on terrorism and religion, which is already going on among
forces wanting to reap political benefits from dividing the society.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|