A movement of dissent should challenge not this or that policy of the parties but the kind of politics in which different parties broadly operate, with some differences and some similarities there. It should be realised that in major democracies where the free will of general public opinions seem to be the ulitmate thing the major parties often carry similar kind of political, economic and cultural agendas. It was once pronounced often by Leftists that different parties often carry the ruling classes' agenda even when they look likely fiercely opposing each other at political platforms. In India, the coming of T. V. and strengthening of the new middle class have created a different kind of world view in last one and half decades which want to see the whole society moving in the desired direction of this new class. Slowly and geadually this class has taken over the popular mediums in a way that often what is seen as the popular mandate is really the opinion of this new class.
Two things should be carefully thought about: What is the history and philosophy of this new class? and; Should this class be considered carriers of new forces of this society?
It is not difficult to agree that this new class is the product of globalisation, a process which can not be traced back before 1980s. This new class had evolved largely through the colonial and post colonial middle classes these classes have successfully guided this society in last hundred years or so. In a way, this new class loves to see itself as sucessor of the colonial national middle class. Whether this claim is valid or not is subject to debate on which we will come little later. At this moment let us consider whether it is justified to call middle classes as a class? Can't we say that what is perceived as middle class is a conglamaration of different classes which share many things but these groups have had so many differences as well. So, these middle classes should not be seen as a class but as social groups which represent different shades of opinions and it would be wrong to bracket all of them under the same group- middle class. The Indian experience is quite different from those of European countries as in the latter societies there had emerged industrial societies which shaped this new class- the middle class or bourgeosie somewhat in a similar fashion. In India the process of the rise and growth of middle classes have been far more complex. Here, the rise of middle class has been marred by uneven development of modern forces and the modern middle classes have always been forced to collaborate with the feuadal forces to carry forward their agenda. In pre-Independence this class had to fall back on feudal forces' support to strenghthen national movement. And, after independence, despite Nehru and Socialist endeavours the modern middle class never enjoyed the strength to challenge the feudal forces. As a result, India had had a middle class which was by orientation a modern class but by compulsion a class which could not follow modern agenda beyond a point.
The middle class’ success lies in successfully maintaining a democratic system which made it possible for the lower classes to move ahead economically and socially. The compulsion of ensuring greater numerical support to survive politically different contesting partied had to take populist measures which ultimately gave opportunities for greater democratization, at least since 1960s. The democratization threatened that section of middle class which had a liberal orientation as a large number of people started entering into institutions which controlled Indian society. The tensions, hot contestations for political spaces in different parts of India in late 60s and entire 70s brought into forefront two issues which had not been figuring very high in middle class action plans. These two factors were Hindu Muslim equation and the Caste question. Both these questions were becoming major issues of mobilizations and soon political parties started realizing that unless we take into considerations these issues the political survival would be impossible.
The new middle class came after that. The growing political tensions, opening of new forces generated by government supported liberalization measures created the possibility of the emergence of a new class which did not share the world view of old middle class. In a very short time the political elites started wearing Ray Ban glasses, Nike shoes, expensive suits, and speaking in English as if English should be the new language of Indian generation next. In a year or two there was the original India shining campaign in which India was being projected as a new emerging global power which can boast of crores of computer savy people and millions of professionals who share their dreams of Americans and so on. This new shift in the thinking of Indian middle class is a little understood development. Since then, the old Indian middle class had been in retreat.
What began as a dream in 1884 started looking like a possibility for the new middle class of India. It is interesting to note that in between the government of 1984 and 1991 came a government which can not be considered as a government of the new middle class. Still, it furthered the process initiated by the government of 1984 and when government of 1991 took the task of changing the fabric of Indian economy there was really no political challenge before them. The rivals were even more enthusiastic about the changes. Meanwhile, the fall of Socialist systems in different European countries made this new middle class even more confident.
The philosophy of this new middle class is very simple- money, money and more money. Only thing which matters is money power. The new class found ample opportunities in the form of I. T. jobs which offered them salaries which not many had even thought of a generation ago. A young man getting jobs giving him more than 2/3 lacs monthly salary was unheard of in the days of old middle class. Jolted, the old middle class tried to adjust and it also started to think that in the changed order of the world we should change and it may be possible that opening up of economy was not that bad. Now, entire India looks ready to accept the logic of globalization which is in line of capitalist growth in the entire world.
Above mentioned trajectory is perhaps only one side of picture. The other side is as follows. The old middle class had always been idealists in the sense that it believed that the world can be a better place for all. The idealism of middle class had made them the social leaders of this country. Entire country looked up to them for inspiration and lead. But, as the retreat of the idealist middle class started in 1980s and the power of money becoming more visible a new morality and axis of socio-economic and political control started emerging. Soon, new leaders, new goondas, new players in economic fields had emerged and people could see before their eyes how people were becoming millionaires with out doing anything except buying shares ! Harshad Mehtas became new icons, Dawood Ibrahims became new bosses and all this was done under the nose of and possibly in connivance of the political leaders who projected great Indian future. Since then, with all hiccups and some lows, the process of globalization had remained the guideing force for Indian politicians be it right, centre and, I am afraid, the left! It can be debated that among Narsimha Rao, Bajpeyi, Manmohan Singh and Buddhadeb Bhattacharya who has internalized the logic of globalization more than others!
In today’s India people of this country are sharply divided into, at least two halves: one which wants to be part of this new world order which would give them greater financial benefits and more choices of life and ; the other which is ignorant of or in opposition to this penetration of new world capitalism into their societies. The current politics has to make a choice between these groups. The rise of popular media also a significant player as it informs and hopes to guide the popular perception. Today, it is interesting to see how media is trying to put pressure on governments to see the reason which is invariably the view of the dominant class. The media, although look like carrying all shaded of popular opinions, carry the voice of the dominant class. Take for example, two issues- the Reservation of OBCs and the signing of Nuclear Treaty with the USA. On the first, there existed both kind of view among people- for and against the reservation, but the media projected anti-OBC voices so prominently in such a way that the pro-reservations voices did not get any prominence.
Today, the Left had decided to put some check on government’s initiatives to accept a nuclear treaty with the USA. Even before their voices are heard the entire media is concluding that the Left is wrong and if elections are held the Left would lose more than one third of its strength in the Lok Sabha. The message is clear- Do not dare to pull out the support from the government which is bent on signing a nuclear treaty with the USA even without proper debate over its results. This attitude of media makes us think whether we should think in terms of issues or should we think in change of terms in which we think. Why should we give our judgement on issues which are set in terms of new class’ interests and this class is representing the aspirations of only those who are with the globalization. Can we think, before anything else, whether globalization is good for people of India or not?