OSTENTATIOUS SPENDING vs AUSTERITY

Shashi Tharoor, by making the statement that he has been staying in a Five Star Hotel at his own expense and hence has not violated the proposition of practicing austerity by congressmen, showed that he has not understood the symbolism involved in Congress President making the appeal or directive. The primary ingredient of symbolism is adherence to the same, the explanation of ‘why deviation’ being only secondary. Having grasped the essence of the same, Nandan Nilekeni shifted to Karnataka House.

Much of the discussion in the media and commentaries have missed the symbolic element. Having missed it, the propositions or arguments were focused on the rationale, pluses and minuses, the miniscule saving by Government by this exhibition of nominal austerity related to the country’s requirements and availability of finances. The know-alls in the media ( and unfortunately some of the thinkers and intellectuals ) have derisively dismissed this move as gimmick, caricature of socialism, not in tune with the current ethos of the country, etc.,

· A flag is a symbol and is not merely a piece of cloth and hence reverence for the flag. So also was Swastika, for Germans 70 years back. There is no utility or cost aspect in this phenomenon. And that applies to all symbols. The Indian President has hardly any power. But the President is the symbolic head of the Republic.
· When India was at war with Pakistan and China, many Indians had vowed to forgo one meal a day till the war ends. A symbolic gesture. So also wearing Khadi and Nehru cap.
· Hence Sonia Gandhi traveling in economy class in airline, Nilekeni shifting to Kanataka house, Rahul Gandhi carrying a head-load of sand and bricks alongwith a village woman carrying same, Rahul Gandhi saying that politicians should be austere, his traveling by train, are all symbolic gestures. And they appeal not merely to masses but many others, such as, intelligentsia, doctors, film stars, etc., Rahul Gandhi carrying a load will bring in a large number of votes to Congress, contrary to the views of skeptics. Because symbols have such power.
· For a long long time Indian ethos was moored in austere living. Except for the Rajas, English Administers and a few others, all lived modestly. This included businessmen who could afford to live lavishly. Exhibitionism of wealth was shunned. It is only during the last six or seven decades and more correctly during the last two or three decades Indians in large numbers started veering round to living lavishly, some beyond their means, with the new trend of exhibitionism over-coming austerity.
· The know-all would call these activities as hypocrisy. Yes an element of hypocrisy is there. But only an element. Through a token action if the onward march to wanton show of wealth and waste, and lastly mindless imitation of West in such matters, could be restrained then the move has to be hailed.
· Then again contrary to the perception of those who ‘ claim to know the mind of the masses’ and assert that the voters in the villages would not be hood-winked by such pranks, the ground level reality is that such moves have mass appeal ( as Gandhi repeatedly showed ) not merely to village folk but also to a large number urban, educated, middle and upper class. Tokenism has its place in the human mind.
· Yes, there is wide spread corruption in the country, with politicians in the forefront of this queue. Yet, politicians, do generally live frugally or give the impression of living frugally. It is this impression which matters when it coming to votes.
· Perception of masses – Affluent will live extravagantly with no concern for the poor. Wealth is not the issue. Flaunting the same is. Mukesh Ambani building an expensive house when poor people are starving. Illogical comparison. May be. But for a large percentage of Indian people this type of comparison is relevant and hence made. The fact is that the value judgment of masses about the rich people is not at all positive.
· Business people – we spend our money ( not correct. It is often the company which takes the tab ), whereas politicians spend country’s money. Is there any difference.
· Politics is also a profession. Don’t look at the politicians from the prism of 50s when all politicians were expected to live frugally. And don’t forget the fact that during the last two decades or so the trend slowly started of all those who can afford from lower middle class to those who are filthy rich, according to their means flaunting their wealth and living lavishly. Then why not politicians? And when all other groups can grasp and exhibit symbols when they need, why not politicians?

*****