What Unites people? Who should rule? How should they rule? When the Lord of Westeros sat down to decide on the next king, after Jon killed Danny, they reached a consensus on Bran. Primarily persuaded by Tyrion's argument, that knowledge of the past, present as well as the intention of all the powerful actors will be a better aid for the king in building a strong and prosperous realm, they gave preference to knowledge over personality and its strength. Knowledge; nothing can stop it, no one can steal it. In Democracy though, plebs are the rulers and the role of knowledge becomes prominent as its source, nature, and use becomes pivotal in deciding the fate of the democracy. Liberal democracy, based on humanism and sacrosanct rights of an individual, explores the right of an individual to know beyond constraints. Normative limits are indeed imposed on this right, but liberal democracies, in general, do allow an individual to explore the knowledge and be critical. The advent of social media in itself has given new prominence to the place of knowledge in a political structure. The role of an individual actor has changed from being the receiver of the knowledge to the producer and distributor of the same. But the question is, does the individual actor really remains a true producer/distributor of the knowledge as the silicon valley liberals claim?
Foucault has argued that the discourses on the knowledge are produced by three procedures, external rules of acceptability, the internal mechanism of identifying truth and appropriation constraints.So according to Foucault, these procedures constrains the production of knowledge. In the general understanding of social science, the state itself is said to be one of the lead actors who has a default control over these procedures. The state establishes the producers of this discourse and controls its appearance with an end effect of controlling the discourses which produce knowledge. This constrained knowledge is then used by the plebs to make the decisions in a democracy. There seems a positive feedback loop, whereby the first state controls the knowledge and since this constrained knowledge is used in the democratic decision, it leads to domination in the democracy. Better the control over the discourse, better is the control over the democracy. Every arm of the society whether being state, market or civil society has control over the discourse of knowledge. This mechanism of control leads to domination in democracy. You cannot steal knowledge, but surely you can manipulate it.
Indian democracy has been no stranger to the control of discourse. For a long time in the Indian political structure, the government, of which the Gandhi family was a synonym had control on this discourse. All possible medium of discourse, legislature, market, civil society or press, (Respectfully excluding Ram Nath Goenka here), were knowingly or unknowingly working around the discourse set-up of one family. Generally, the post-1950s marked the trend of a positive feedback loop in the discourse ambiance of Indian politics. If we exclude the post-emergency period, when the media went into an open rebellion, the Indian discourse setup had its constraints controlled by one family. In the early Nehruvian time, Nehru's philosophical leaning around liberal socialism became the sole mechanism of identifying knowledge. The power of this constraint was such that, no alternative philosophical view reached to the people and the only epistemological test of any act or event was its consonance with socialism. While it might be disputable if Nehru intended to construct such discourse, the realm of power as understood in Foucaultian sense ensured that only socialism became an acceptable philosophical tool of analysis. The advent of Indira Gandhi marked a paradigm shift in working of the constraints as the other two constraints on discourses came to be more effective. External rule of acceptability changed from a sole acceptable philosophy to that of identity. A leader's identity became the rule of acceptability for the discourse, everything else was rejected as non-important. The discourse construction was built on either positive or negative shades of the identity, there was no choice. While in the Nehruvian era, the other two constraints seemed to be dormant, they were brought to activity in the Indira era. The internal tools of truth identification, like rules, logic, and reasoning ensured that only positive shades of leader's identity were held to be reasonable, logical and consequently relevant for discourse. Even the third constraint, which limited on who can be a speaker in discourse lead to some of the speakers being treasonous(American Agent) and hence unqualified to be a part of the discourse. Identity became the pivot on which the power of the knowledge creation was exercised by Indira Gandhi. From Rajeev Gandhi to AB Vajpayee, leaders widened the ambit of acceptability bringing the question of policy in the discourse leading to knowledge formation. However, Sonia Gandhi again harkened back to identity as a mechanism of controlling the discourse, she used this identity as a bait for the press, resulting in a manipulated discourse to project her son as a most capable leader in the country. However, they were no match for their challenger of the 2014 election.
Narender Damodardas Modi in 2013 was the first to yield the power of knowledge without being a prime minister. As soon as he was declared the prime ministerial candidate, a set of national liberal media in raze of demonizing his personality, constrained the whole discourse of the 2014 election, simply to his identity. He quickly invoked the rule of truth identification like logic and reasoning as well as judicial dicta, leading to the triumph of his positive identity in the discourse structure. He qualified the speakers on the basis of prejudice and bias to stop them from contributing to the discourse formation leading to his massive victory in 2014. Modi probably is the first non-Gandhi leader of the country to employ his identity as a medium of constraining the discourse. Further, in his tenure, he ensured that his identity is the only acceptable standard in the construction of discourse. Very interestingly, by criticizing the past prime ministers from the Gandhi family, he added the anti-family sentiment as part of his identity in his 5 years tenure. Modi was the party, Modi was the government and you could not have a political debate in the country without invoking the identity of the prime minister. He yielded great power of knowledge, the knowledge which will be used in democratic decision making, the knowledge which leads to domination in democracy.
Prime Minister's 2019 campaign was based entirely on his identity as a leader. The synthesis of knowledge before and during the election campaign becomes pivotal for the electorate in decision making. Though the construction of the discourse here should ideally be a level playing field, however, it is a continuous process and power that the Prime minister has in this knowledge formation is highly asymmetric. Rahul Gandhi's attack plan further aided the asymmetric power. Mr. Gandhi did try to change the narrative of the election with his ambitious NYAY project, but since it was unrelated to PM's identity NYAY made no contribution to election discourse. Modi has the same powers as any other Prime minister had in this country when it comes to constraining the discourse and producing the knowledge. However, by producing a discourse solely around himself(Nationalistic, strong and self-made), he constrains the knowledge and thereby its effect on the electorate. He is a master communicator and he does realize that the power effects how discourse produces truth, thus he uses this power continuously and keeping himself in the center of the debate. People today, who get critical of the media houses which side with the positive shades of the Modi are no different in the power of knowledge than the people who they criticize. Both of them aid Mr. Modi in the constraining the discourse. Power affects how discourse produces knowledge and therefore, power effects decision making in a democracy. If rightly exercised it leads to domination in democracy.
What unites us? Difficult to know
Who Should Rule? Read Aristotle
How should they rule? unconstrained discourses to make more free choices in a democracy.
Narender Modi is not a tyrant, he is better at playing the game of knowledge. He is not the problem, the problem is everyone who has played this game of constraining the knowledge.
Foucault has argued that the discourses on the knowledge are produced by three procedures, external rules of acceptability, the internal mechanism of identifying truth and appropriation constraints.So according to Foucault, these procedures constrains the production of knowledge. In the general understanding of social science, the state itself is said to be one of the lead actors who has a default control over these procedures. The state establishes the producers of this discourse and controls its appearance with an end effect of controlling the discourses which produce knowledge. This constrained knowledge is then used by the plebs to make the decisions in a democracy. There seems a positive feedback loop, whereby the first state controls the knowledge and since this constrained knowledge is used in the democratic decision, it leads to domination in the democracy. Better the control over the discourse, better is the control over the democracy. Every arm of the society whether being state, market or civil society has control over the discourse of knowledge. This mechanism of control leads to domination in democracy. You cannot steal knowledge, but surely you can manipulate it.
Indian democracy has been no stranger to the control of discourse. For a long time in the Indian political structure, the government, of which the Gandhi family was a synonym had control on this discourse. All possible medium of discourse, legislature, market, civil society or press, (Respectfully excluding Ram Nath Goenka here), were knowingly or unknowingly working around the discourse set-up of one family. Generally, the post-1950s marked the trend of a positive feedback loop in the discourse ambiance of Indian politics. If we exclude the post-emergency period, when the media went into an open rebellion, the Indian discourse setup had its constraints controlled by one family. In the early Nehruvian time, Nehru's philosophical leaning around liberal socialism became the sole mechanism of identifying knowledge. The power of this constraint was such that, no alternative philosophical view reached to the people and the only epistemological test of any act or event was its consonance with socialism. While it might be disputable if Nehru intended to construct such discourse, the realm of power as understood in Foucaultian sense ensured that only socialism became an acceptable philosophical tool of analysis. The advent of Indira Gandhi marked a paradigm shift in working of the constraints as the other two constraints on discourses came to be more effective. External rule of acceptability changed from a sole acceptable philosophy to that of identity. A leader's identity became the rule of acceptability for the discourse, everything else was rejected as non-important. The discourse construction was built on either positive or negative shades of the identity, there was no choice. While in the Nehruvian era, the other two constraints seemed to be dormant, they were brought to activity in the Indira era. The internal tools of truth identification, like rules, logic, and reasoning ensured that only positive shades of leader's identity were held to be reasonable, logical and consequently relevant for discourse. Even the third constraint, which limited on who can be a speaker in discourse lead to some of the speakers being treasonous(American Agent) and hence unqualified to be a part of the discourse. Identity became the pivot on which the power of the knowledge creation was exercised by Indira Gandhi. From Rajeev Gandhi to AB Vajpayee, leaders widened the ambit of acceptability bringing the question of policy in the discourse leading to knowledge formation. However, Sonia Gandhi again harkened back to identity as a mechanism of controlling the discourse, she used this identity as a bait for the press, resulting in a manipulated discourse to project her son as a most capable leader in the country. However, they were no match for their challenger of the 2014 election.
Narender Damodardas Modi in 2013 was the first to yield the power of knowledge without being a prime minister. As soon as he was declared the prime ministerial candidate, a set of national liberal media in raze of demonizing his personality, constrained the whole discourse of the 2014 election, simply to his identity. He quickly invoked the rule of truth identification like logic and reasoning as well as judicial dicta, leading to the triumph of his positive identity in the discourse structure. He qualified the speakers on the basis of prejudice and bias to stop them from contributing to the discourse formation leading to his massive victory in 2014. Modi probably is the first non-Gandhi leader of the country to employ his identity as a medium of constraining the discourse. Further, in his tenure, he ensured that his identity is the only acceptable standard in the construction of discourse. Very interestingly, by criticizing the past prime ministers from the Gandhi family, he added the anti-family sentiment as part of his identity in his 5 years tenure. Modi was the party, Modi was the government and you could not have a political debate in the country without invoking the identity of the prime minister. He yielded great power of knowledge, the knowledge which will be used in democratic decision making, the knowledge which leads to domination in democracy.
Prime Minister's 2019 campaign was based entirely on his identity as a leader. The synthesis of knowledge before and during the election campaign becomes pivotal for the electorate in decision making. Though the construction of the discourse here should ideally be a level playing field, however, it is a continuous process and power that the Prime minister has in this knowledge formation is highly asymmetric. Rahul Gandhi's attack plan further aided the asymmetric power. Mr. Gandhi did try to change the narrative of the election with his ambitious NYAY project, but since it was unrelated to PM's identity NYAY made no contribution to election discourse. Modi has the same powers as any other Prime minister had in this country when it comes to constraining the discourse and producing the knowledge. However, by producing a discourse solely around himself(Nationalistic, strong and self-made), he constrains the knowledge and thereby its effect on the electorate. He is a master communicator and he does realize that the power effects how discourse produces truth, thus he uses this power continuously and keeping himself in the center of the debate. People today, who get critical of the media houses which side with the positive shades of the Modi are no different in the power of knowledge than the people who they criticize. Both of them aid Mr. Modi in the constraining the discourse. Power affects how discourse produces knowledge and therefore, power effects decision making in a democracy. If rightly exercised it leads to domination in democracy.
What unites us? Difficult to know
Who Should Rule? Read Aristotle
How should they rule? unconstrained discourses to make more free choices in a democracy.
Narender Modi is not a tyrant, he is better at playing the game of knowledge. He is not the problem, the problem is everyone who has played this game of constraining the knowledge.