India: Undercurrents

Many in the INC who have held political and influential positions over the past ten years are learning how to be in the opposition (or the voice of the opposition) for the first time in their lives. This does not apply only to the young crowd, but also to those who entered into politics in 2004 or thereafter.

Similarly, many in the present government are first-time ruling party politicians at the centre.

One finds it necessary to key in a few words of caution for all my party colleagues, and, indeed, for those currently in government, after having observed more than a year of the new governments at the centre and the state where i am (Andhra Pradesh).

Do not encourage indirect/insinuating forms of communication. While in power, i think politicians are sought to be communicated to by various pressure-groups and lobbying entities and intelligence agencies (of the government, of foreign agencies, media, political parties, corporate houses and so on), directly or indirectly.

Indirect communications are difficult to point out at the outset because of their oblique nature (but with the cumulative effect of getting a message across).

This could be from various sources, and tailor-made to address specific individuals based on the nature of their exposure to inputs (media, social media, circles of people they are in contact, including domestic help, relatives, providers of goods and services etc.).

While such communications might initially appear to be useful to the target-individual, this must be seen only as a means by which the ‘oblique’ system of communication is being tested. The same method then serves the perpetrator/s the purpose of communicating pressures and even intimidation.

When one is a part of the government, such pressures, if any, are tolerated or dealt with, to an extent, due to the fact that it is the responsibility and duty of the government to build consensus on issues and address them, and also keeping in mind, the fact that parties in power are usually in a position (though not necessarily so), to effectively have suspicions of negative oblique communications investigated and acted upon.

The current opposition needs to be acutely aware of the fact that howsoever integrated (across political party lines), Indian society might be, when it comes to contentious issues, this government is likely to want to keep a very close watch on opposition politicians.

Unlike ten years of power, when most communications of this indirect kind could be attributed to harmless party networking or to routine governmental information-gathering etc., it must be realised that some opposition leaders are probably subjected to more unwelcome pressures today, than they ever have been while in power. Thus, any frivolous or cloak-and-dagger kind of communication at least within one’s own party, should be avoided at all costs. Sections of the media that value the ideals of democracy should also desist from adding to the confusion in the event that they happen to be doing so.

Attempting to influence the functioning of the present government by attempting to influence a (by-now-familiar) system, and attempting to impose secretive methods of communication on fellow-citizens will create more harm than gain. Furthermore, If the government wants to consult the opposition, it must do so openly, and not through innuendoes and easily deniable pressure tactics.

A simple example of this kind of communication is through the use of body language, gestures or sounds that are sometimes discernible as being a part of a relay, or in any case, orchestrated and often echoed. It must be appreciated that relying on such relays by thinking of them as trust-based forms of communications is inherently flawed because clandestine communications are open to a diversity of interpretations. The consequences of such communications could end up being most unintended.

Another example is of people talking and behaving like other people (phraseology, manner of speaking etc.), and thus over-communicating out-of-turn in the process. (In my book, there is a line of truth that divides lies from reality theatre, just assuming that this is someone’s grand idea of what reality theatre could be).

A more complex example is of sounds transmitted at inaudible frequencies that are then heard by people (or a person) when the relevant sensory trigger is activated, or while in a state of sleep that makes such frequencies audible.

It is my strong recommendation that everyone should employ specific, unequivocal direct (verbal or written) communication, and take responsibility for their words and deeds. The tactics described above only generate unverifiable data and confusion, and would be an anti-national saboteur’s delight.

It is also my recommendation that those who comprehend such tactics and the existence of related technologies (possibly termed as surveillance), make the effort to create an overall awareness regarding the existence of such features of modern society, so that when a person complains or attempts to raise an alarm, he or she is not met, automatically, with the incredulity of a foolish majority along with the stone-walling of the complicit and the indifference of the lotus-eaters.