The Election Of Narendra Modi As Prime Minister Of India
The task of the historiographer task is a game of juggling truth from fiction not only because there are numerous news sources; there are numerous variations on a given source. The task of the writer of history is to identify objectivity embedded within a continually flowing subjective digital narrative. But is this possible? With the Internet, international events of import often have a series of documentation that are attached to the event, including video recordings, tweets, and even several articles written within hours of one another. With international news, and outlets from around the world reporting on events in real time, the historiographer has to sift through multiple sources scattered across international information outlets to put together a composite picture of the event.
It is necessary to lay out the scope of this paper. At least six newspapers have been selected, and they were chosen primarily from English language journals from around the world. The election of Narendra Modi as Prime Minister prompted news sites around the world to deliver article reporting on this event in “history.” History is put in quotes, because part of the problem surveying news sites around the world about a given event brings up questions, not only of objectivity, but what counts as an historical event, especially when an event is touted as one of “historical importance.”Using The New York Times (U.S.A.), BBC News (UK), Australia’s NewsComAu, and The Times of India, we will attempt to discern objectivity from subjectivity in the event of Narendra Modi’s election as India’s fifteenth Prime Minister on May 16, 2014.
The American news media carries with it an aura of influence, and it shows in how American news colors world events. In The New York Times, the headline calls Modi’s agenda “ambitious” and predicts he will face “difficult obstacles” (Barry 2014). The Times focuses the election on Modi addressing the crowd on the Friday afternoon he won the election. The article tries to do too much at once: it gives a value judgement of the country of India as “messy, diffuse and democratic,” and also compares Modi’s governing top-down style to China’s governing policy. Modi’s win signals the end of the Indian National Congress, the article reports, and the cluster of the words, “ambitious,” “difficult,” and “obstacle” comment on the political challenges Modi will face.
The tone of the word “ambitious” has the connotation of competition. Also, the newspaper tries to claim authority by giving a commentary on how it thinks the election of Modi will pan out. And in fact, this is the nut graph of the Times article. While attempting to give objective facts, such as the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party won 282 of 543 parliamentary seats, the article goes back forth between objective and subjective accounts. It splits the international event between telling the story of a man, Narendra Modi, with reference to Modi’s critics (e.g., he governs with “dictatorial style”) and telling the story of the BJP’s party win. The news event is one part biography, one part historiography. The article describes Narendra Modi as a solitary man. The newspaper predicts the future outcome of Modi’s election as a challenge. The article talks about the failures of Rahul Gandhi and reports Sonia Gandhi's concession speech to the crowd and informs us that Modi will speak with actions rather than words.
The British news source does not command the authority of the American news outlets. The British do what other English language newspaper around the world did when Modi was elected: it tried to make a claim of historical importance. In the BBC News account, a similar approach to biography is presented, although there is more emphasis on the BJP party, rather than the man who symbolizes the party line. The headline reads, “India’s BJP Scores A Historic Win” (Soutik 2014). How can BBC News call this story “historic”? It raises another question about the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity. It’s interesting that the article tries to paint a picture of the BJP as “mopping” up parliamentary seats, but why is this more or less historic from other parliamentary elections? An astute reading of the news will reveal that the BJP win did not create an election record. It did win, but after Indira Gandhi assassination, the Indian National Congress “mopped” up 415 seats. It is left to the writer of history to determine what event was more “historic” and it leads us to wonder what makes one election more historical than another.
Further, clues alert us to why the news outlets want readers to view the BJP win as historic. A video commentary prefaces the main body of the article, and if one listens to the video, there is shown a clip of Modi’s brother telling a story about the Prime Minister-elect’s temper. He tells the story of his brother hitting him over a scuffle over a kite the two boys were trying to fly. While citing interviews with relatives of Modi is a nice example of ethnography -- a primary source relating a story about the source material -- it also tries to paint a human picture of a man, as perceived in the news, who is relatively unknown. What is revealed is a news narrative that relies on a story of a man’s “temper” to weave a subjective account, or to present a causal story of why the Indian National Congress lost. BBC News reports the Indian National Congress experienced its “worst-ever performance.” So what is the historical event? Is it the BJP win, or the Indian National Congress’s loss? The BBC, like The Times, interlaces a subjective news story, part indictment of the Indian National Congress defeat, with objective facts, while trying to maintain a claim to historicity.
The Associated Press turns the noun “fete” into a verb: “feted” and The International Business Times uses the imposing verb “dominates” (Shankar 2014, The Associated Press 2014). It is, however the verb “thumping” win or “thumping” victory is used most often in the news reporting of the event. In News Corp Australia’s report, the verb is inserted into the headline: “Narendra Modi has thumping election win in India” (NewsComAu 2014). The Australian account reveals information the other news sources don’t reveal, that the current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh called Narendra Modi to congratulate him on the win. While this is perhaps an innocuous example of political protocol to concede defeat, the article puts Singh’s phone call in the active voice. Furthermore, we get a clue about the word “thumping,” as it is in a Tweet that Singh’s office first spoke about the phone call, which in turn the Australian news redistributes.
The challenge is to separate objective reporting from subjective accounts. The reason why news is not “history writing” is because newspaper tells a story that is driven by a subjective narrative. “News” culls various subjective sources, in this example, the use of Tweets, which are in effect, subjective news bites, almost like lines of thoughts from different political entities around the world. The Australian News Media tries to paint a picture of Modi as coming from a lower caste, and how his victory thumps the majority of the Indian National Congress. The Australian news enjoys citing Tweets, attempting to be a crystal ball in the future, claiming that a Tweet apparently from Modi himself (which enhances the biographical side of the story) when he won a seat in Gujarat in 2002: “India has won. Good days are coming.”
Finally, in the home country of India, where the event took place, The Times of India emphasizes Modi’s win across the states of the Indian democracy (2014). Modi’s election wins were reported as he won districts, rather than one article celebrating the BJP’s party’s win over parliament. The Indian newspaper does not use congratulatory speech, nor does it talk about “domination” or “thumping wins,” or “fetes.” Not surprisingly, the Indian news reports focus on the local implications of the BJP win, and emphasize the way in which the Indian National Congress conceded defeat. Of all the news sites analyzed, the Indian account is more descriptive rather than predictive of future outcomes. The non-Indian news outlets all try to play the part of political soothsayer, or attempt to make causal links. The Times of India headlines the win: “Election Results: Celebrations all over town for BJP's historic win.”
Although, in the body of the news report, it is stated that the win was a “landslide victory,” but it makes the point that the BJP party’s win has both local and national implications. The center of attention in the Indian report is the headquarters of the BJP in Delhi, where it is made obvious where the reference to “landslide victory” originates. The word is used by Chief minister Vasundhara Raje: "I thank you for making us achieve our mission to win all 25 seats. You gave us a landslide victory in the state assembly and Lok Sabha elections. Now, it's our turn to give you the best governance and fulfill all your dreams." The paper calls the Minister confident, but interestingly refrains from commentary.
Two other features of the Indian account stand out: the mention of “beefed up” police forces in areas of problematic Muslim/Hindu relations, and the idea that people voted for the BJP party, despite the platform of individual Parliamentary seats. The paper cites a voter who said: "I was least interested in who was our Jaipur candidate. I voted for BJP with the family only to see Modi as our next prime minister." In the NDTV news coverage of the election, Modi is depicted as gesturing towards the crowd, after his victory (Gupta 2014). In subtle language, the NDTV reports presents the win as something Modi has given to the party, which is probably closer to the political truth. While other news sources make it seem like Modi is a force of nature, and uses a “pull oneself up from your bootstraps” narrative, the NDTV report tries to present Modi as part of a larger political organization. The question, then, is this an historic win for one man, or will history be written in favor the party and the man will subside? The Indian news media seems also content to talk about the tension inherent in the election, the defeat of the Gandhi, Modi’s team’s use of sophisticated technology to bolster his presence, both in person, and online, and in some cases projected as a hologram (Gupta 2014).
In one way the election tells the story of a political party, which is true, and in another way it tells the story of how marketing and savvy politics can bolster the image of a man who becomes the face of that party, and in another way, it is a story of the Indian National Congress’s defeat, and the passing away of a former era of politics in India.
In conclusion, the American version of events tries to paint a biographical picture, while at the same time making a comment both on why Modi’s BJP party won the election, and comparison to other nation states, such as China. The American press, with The New York Times as an example, tries to tie the political pieces together while trying to present objective news. The result is a predictive narrative, rather than a historiographical account of history. The British narrative emphasizes the fact that the Indian National Congress has won, and in its place, the man Narendra Modi represents a “historic win” for India. The Australian news source takes a subtly different approach and emphasizes the transfer of power, from the current Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, an 81-year old economist, replaced by Modi, a “63-year old son of a low caste tea seller.” The Times of India tries to downplay a narrative of “historical importance” and tries to be as descriptive as it can be.
What is closer to objective historiography? The Indian news reports on the local, which is a positive aspect of objectivity, while the international outlets focus on the global, but it loses out on the perspective of India. In sum, the job is to notice what is local, and has implications for India, versus what is global, and has international implications. Of course, in truth, it will take retrospection, after Modi has left office, to see the effects of his election from a historical perspective.
Since this paper is a short term project, and since only a select number of news sources were used, a larger project would first compile all the primary source material. Primary source material would include speeches by Modi, interviews, and words from the mouth of the source. Then, organizing secondary material and classifying it according to bias, intent, and the use of language. In this paper, the use of language was briefly analyzed, but a larger project would try to group reactions to the event according to the motives of the purveyors of the news. What we have are reactions, predictions, and feelings; what needs to happens is to organize the sources surrounding the event according to both objective and subjective accounts.
Works Cited
The Associated Press. "India's Narendra Modi Feted after Landslide Election Win." CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 17 May 2014. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/india-s-narendra-modi-feted-after-landslide-election-win-1.2646232>.
Barry, Ellen. "Narendra Modi’s Ambitious Agenda Will Face Difficult Obstacles." The New York Times. The New York Times, 16 May 2014. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/17/world/asia/india-elections.html?_r=0>.
Gupta, Swati. "Election Results 2014: Narendra Modi Wins India. BJP and Allies Cross 300 Seats - NDTV."NDTV.com. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-2014/election-results-2014-narendra-modi-wins-india-bjp-and-allies-cross-300-seats-525481>.
NewsComAu. "Narendra Modi Has Thumping Election Win in India." NewsComAu. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.news.com.au/world/narendra-modi-has-thumping-election-win-in-india/story-fndir2ev-1226920644056>.
Shankar, Sneha. "Narendra Modi's BJP Dominates India Election Results While Rahul Gandhi's Congress Accepts Defeat In India's Parliamentary Elections." International Business Times. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.ibtimes.com/narendra-modis-bjp-dominates-india-election-results-while-rahul-gandhis-congress-accepts-1585230>.
Soutik, Biswas. "India's BJP Scores a Historic Win." BBC News. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-27435647>.
The Times of India. "Election Results: Celebrations All over Town for BJP's Historic Win - The Times of India." The Times of India. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/news/Election-Results-Celebrations-all-over-town-for-BJPs-historic-win/articleshow/35225089.cms>.
The Times of India. "Narendra Modi Chairs Gujarat Cabinet Meeting, Meets Top BJP Leaders - The Times of India." The Times of India. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Narendra-Modi-chairs-Gujarat-cabinet-meeting-meets-top-BJP-leaders/articleshow/35138769.cms>.
The Times of India. "Rajnikanth Describes Modi's Win as 'historic' - The Times of India."The Times of India. Web. 04 July 2014. <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/Rajnikanth-describes-Modis-win-as-historic/articleshow/35210414.cms>.
