I was vaguely cognisant of the meaning of the Yiddish-origin word “chutzpah”, but the full force of what it implied was driven home during the soccer World Cup in 1986. It was the quarter-finals between Argentina and England, sworn enemies since the Falklands War in 1982. The incomparable Diego Maradona scored the first goal using his hand, a clear foul that the referee did not see. He scored a second goal, deemed “the goal of the century”, and Argentina went on to win the match 2-1. At the subsequent press conference, when asked about the illegal goal, he cheekily remarked that “it was the hand of God”. My brother, a professor of English, told me that Maradona’s comment was the consummate example of chutzpah – brazen, unashamed daring and sheer gall that shrugged off the truth.

Our Prime Minister’s performance at the recent G7 Summit was another breath-taking display of chutzpah. In his address through video-conference, Modi said that “democracy and freedom are a part of India’s civilisational ethos” and that India is a natural ally of the G7 nations to fight against threats of “authoritarianism, terrorism, violent extremism and economic coercion.” Hold your breath! Modi even offered to share India’s “expertise” in Covid management with other developing countries. On the concluding day, India signed the joint statement that reaffirmed the values of “freedom of expression, both online and offline, as a freedom that safeguards democracy and helps people live free from fear and oppression” and decried “politically motivated internet shutdowns” as a threat to freedom and democracy.

Good God! Considering the shrinking democratic freedoms in our country in the last few years and the catastrophic mismanagement of the pandemic, the Prime Minister’s performance at the G7 Summit was a peerless rendition of audacious posturing and chutzpah.

Artfully, inconvenient realities at home were brushed under the carpet. Besides, he knows that the leaders of the inappropriately named “Free World” couldn’t care less what happens here!

The G7 Summit was not about social justice or fundamental liberties, or about getting one’s own house in order. The sad reality is that behind the grand visage of being defenders of democratic values, the G7 nations, the four guest countries and the EU, who claim that their grouping represented more than half of the world’s population living in democracies, were actually trafficking in platitudes, bonhomie and self-serving commercial national interests. 

India gained nothing from the Summit. The most potent external threat faced by the country – the escalating Chinese transgressions – was ignored in the deliberations. Perhaps, India wanted it that way, knowing that nothing would come of support from nations that have always been long on words but missing in action. Lest we forget, Tibet’s unending nightmare is a damning indictment of a collective ethos that is impervious to injustice that does not impinge on one’s own interests. All that the international community has done for Tibet is to cluck in sympathy. India knows that hers is a lonely fight!

In our country, the G7 Summit is being discussed for the PM’s address eulogising democratic values, particularly his criticism of authoritarianism and India’s unequivocal support for freedom of expression, both online and offline.  Surely, the world leaders present at the Summit were aware of the recent report of the US government-funded Freedom House downgrading India’s status as a democracy from “free” to “partly free”. And the even more damning assessment of Sweden’s V-Dem Institute, relegating India from “the world’s largest democracy” to an “electoral autocracy”.

What’s the real story? In today’s India the guiding principle of the ruling dispensation is not social justice but the consolidation and extension of its power by any means. The distinction between national interests and the government’s interests has been deliberately blurred, abetted by complicit institutions and a fawning media. In the guise of safeguarding national security, this government has launched an all-out offensive against all forms of dissent. Criticism of the government is labelled as seditious or as anti-national or as hate speech. Even the cartoonist is not spared.  A trigger-happy government has unleashed the sedition and terror laws against its opponents, choreographed by a leader who has bombed the citizenry with lies and skilful browbeating. Here is a sprinkling of the repressive acts of an authoritarian government that tell a story:

In 2019, 1,948 persons were arrested under the draconian UAPA, the imposition of which in itself is considered a punishment. The misuse of the law continues apace.

A recent analysis shows that 96 percent of sedition cases against 405 Indians for criticising political leaders and governments over the last decade were filed after Modi came to power in 2014. The most infamous was the arrest of 21-year-old Disha Ravi as a key conspirator in the toolkit case that allegedly was part of a campaign to wage “a social, cultural and economic war against the government of India.”

Filmmaker Aisha Sultana was booked for sedition for calling the Lakshadweep Administrator a “bio-weapon”.

The RTI Act which empowers citizens to question the secrecy and abuse of power in governance has been systematically undermined  and is now practically defunct. Apart from non-filling of vacancies of Commissioners’ posts, information regarding urgent public issues such as Covid management and policy are being denied with impunity.

The Gujarati poet, Parul Khakkar, who penned the poignant poem about the sacred Ganga being transformed into a corpse-logged hearse due to the dereliction of the government, has now been forced into cyber hiding.

The IT Rules, 2021 are the latest ham-handed attempt at censorship and jamming user privacy and is deemed unconstitutional by the experts. Now, the UN rapporteur on freedom of expression has voiced concerns that the rules do not conform with international human rights norms.

It is ironic that even as the Prime Minister harangued the leaders of the G7 about the dangers posed by authoritarianism, the Delhi High Court, in a courageous, historic judgement, granted bail to three students who have spent over a year in jail under the dreaded UAPA. They were peaceful anti-CAA protestors who, in a textbook case of police legerdemain, got linked to the “larger conspiracy” of the horrific North-East Delhi riots. 

Where other courts have treated the UAPA as sacrosanct and incontrovertible, the two honourable Judges made some noteworthy observations regarding the tenuous prosecution case. They observed: “…the line between the right to protest and terrorist activity seems to be getting somewhat blurred. If this mindset gains traction it would be a sad day for democracy.” Further, the Judges noted that “the foundations of our nation stand on surer footing than to be likely to be shaken by a protest, however vicious, organised by a tribe of college students.”

For me the coup de grace against the arbitrary application of the UAPA was this observation: “Where the court finds that an act of omission is adequately addressed and dealt with by the ordinary penal law, the court must not countenance a State agency ‘crying wolf’.” Amid a wintry chill, does this judgement herald the dawn of a new spring?

Our country is in a bad way. Apart from the pandemic that has killed hundreds of thousands of our people, we are floundering economically, socially, and in relations with our neighbours. The democratic space is shrinking by the day! Modi’s critics blame him for all our travails and yet, his approval rating, at 64 percent, is the highest among world leaders. What explains his stranglehold over the majority in this country?  Please bear with my borrowed wisdom enunciated below: 

Many decades ago, Erich Fromm, the German social psychologist, advanced the theory that the lure of authoritarian leaders has to be understood through psychological considerations which, admittedly, are moulded by socio-economic factors. According to him, the middle class comprising shopkeepers, artisans and white-collar workers provide the backbone of support for the authoritarian leader. They are identified by their hatred of racial and political minorities, their craving for domination, their love of the strong, their pettiness with feelings as well as with money; their muscular nationalism and identification of the leader with the nation. Fromm could well have been psychoanalysing our present-day middle class.

It is certainly not Fromm’s case that the working class is hostile to the authoritarian leader. On the contrary, he believes that they submit to the leader out of a sense of inner tiredness and resignation and having given up hope in the effectiveness of political action. They are also influenced by a strong sense of nationalism, which is exploited by the leader.

The role of the representatives of big industry and business in setting up the authoritarian leader is a crucial factor. In Fromm’s view, it is near impossible for a leader to establish his authority without their help, and, in turn, their support is rooted in the knowledge that he will safeguard their economic interests. Touché! Mr Fromm, your overall diagnosis is the perfect template for evaluating the reasons for Modi’s overwhelming popularity, despite the country being in a deep hole.

In conclusion, it is necessary to point out another critical factor for the continuing support for Modi among the people, something that Fromm could never have anticipated. It is that millstone round the Congress party’s neck – the Gandhis -- who are anathema to ordinary citizens on both sides of the aisle. So long as the dynasts lead the only other pan-national party, Modi is the odds-on favourite to win again in 2024. And then we can wish democracy goodbye!   

(The writer is a retired civil servant)