We have seen the politics of apology all over the globe. In India, we have our own share of this politics. A semblance of a first political apology is found in a rock carving in our country by Emperor Asoka (268- 232 BC) who in a rock edict, expresses his regrets for the violence of Kalinga war. Post this public expression of regret by a king or a speech act of a public apology of an Indian public figure, public apology is absent for a long time. In 1978, we had Indian Express reporting the apology of Indira Gandhi for her excesses during Emergency. We can trace regret about the storming of the Army into the Golden Temple expressed by Sonia Gandhi in 1998. In 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh apologised for Delhi Sikh riots of 1984. There is another apology by V D Savarkar. But it being given to the colonial Government, it is viewed as an act of treason. We also have the apology of MP Pragya Thakur that was given to anyone who was hurt which she asserts that she never really meant to do when she declared that Godse was a deshbhakt. She again uttered what many regard as ‘blasphemy’ but promptly expressed her regret, apparently manifesting that she lacked remorse over her statements. We can already discern it in the if-clause that reveals nothing less than a conditional illocutionary act.
These days public apology rhetoric abounds in our political discourse. We can hear apology lexeme all over the multi-media. We are witnessing how this politics of apology is stalling the Parliament. In the name of democracy and the country being offended on the foreign soil, the Parliament is not allowed to function. This stalling is done by the ruling benches. Usually, it is the opposition that is known to play obstructionist politics. The ruling benches are mirroring democracy as mutilated. The stalling of house by the government has become a cause of angst amidst all right thinking people.
Any demand for apology has the structure of a quest for justice and as such when it is made by a public leader, it does damage his/her reputation and brings about a trust deficit among his/her followers. But when it is fake; it boomerangs on those that make the demand. The claim of Rahul Gandhi is proven as right by the stalling of the functioning of the Parliament. There is no harm in seeking apology when one feels outraged by something profoundly offensive, but linking this apology as a condition to the functioning of the Parliament betrays its enforcers and apparently proves what Rahul had alleged about our democracy. Thus, while the ruling party left no stone unturned to claim that Rahul after the grand success of his Bharat Jodo Yatra scored his first self-goal by airing his views on the functioning of Indian democracy on foreign soil, it seems that it got trapped by the logic of its own practice and blindly proved that democracy was in danger by obstructing its smooth functioning in parliament. The apology lexemes became the mirror of the indicator of democracy in our country. The latest conviction handed to Rahul for defamation in a case and the sentencing for two years appears not far from what he has been alleging all along.
The politics of apology despite its publicly stated goals appear to be a deflection tactic of the ruling party to avoid its accountability in Parliament. It seems to look like an image makeover exercise of the government after being hit by the Adani imbroglio. Issues of price rise, joblessness and the Adani saga seem to be pushed in the background as a new narrative of Rahul shaming India, and consequently, the demand for apology has taken the Parliament and public sphere of the social media by storm. It has led to the discussion about who is a greater serial offender between Rahul and Prime Minister Modi. The way a Surat court convicted Rahul, it appears that it is Rahul for now who has come out as a winner in what has been presented as his serial offence. Although when someone asks rhetorically ‘how come all thieves are Modis?’, it does say that all thieves are Modi but does not logically say that all Modis are thieves due to its rhetorical inflection, it does not say that no non- Modi is a thief. It is then only that we can say that all thieves are Modis.
Let us grant that India is hurt by Rahul’s offence and even grant that he is loose cannon and tend to speak irresponsibly as his conviction in a defamation case is sort to be used by his detractors. We can still ask: who will benefit by the washing away of the parliamentary proceedings? What comes out from this chaos is a disturbing sense that triggers fears of weaponising of our Parliament and our justice addressal system to settle political scores by the ruling party against its opponents. The result is unique political communication that is neither fish nor fowl but works as deterrence for others. The waste of the precious time of the Parliament seems to indicate that the demand for apology is a grand posturing and exercise in rhetoric to escape accountability on the issues that can be discomforting for the Government.
The strength of numbers of the ruling benches seems to create arrogance that seems to feel right and is in its interest when it escapes its accountability to the house. A weak opposition does not help in this regard. Maybe it is this same arrogance of power that is curtailing the size of legislative sessions in Goa. This trend of running away from responsibility and accountability to the sacred house of democracy shows that our democracy seems to be mortally sick. The fact that a pretext like Rahul’s opinion or an important celebration of a religious festival can become a precipitating point for the shut downs of our Parliament and legislature sessions respectively is indeed a serious matter that manifests the health of democracy.
The suppression of dissident voices has come full circle through the suppression of parliament and legislature. Besides the parliament, it appears that all other major institutions that represent the voice of the people are silenced. Media, constitutional institutions and judiciary appear to have become weak. Dissidents are intimidated and even imprisoned. Those that join the BJP appear to be washed and cleaned in the BJP’s washing machine when the cases against them are instantly dropped. This is why maybe none-other than Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal recently said of PM Modi as saying ‘join BJP and do all the corruption you want’. There appears to be no level playing field for the opponents of the Government. Those who speak aggressively against the government have to face the wrath of central agencies. Rahul had submitted an unconditional apology to the Supreme Court in another case. Will that mean he will offer an apology or face the music of the ruling BJP in the instant case? Only time will tell. What has to certainly stop is a politicisation of apology.
(Fr Victor Ferrao is an independent researcher attached to St Francis Xavier Church, Borim, Ponda)
