
COMMENTARY
They seem to have realised that their strengths are the heroic image of Chiranjeevi coupled with his philanthropic activities, a strong and aggressive fan following across the state, and the support of a m ajority of the Kapu voters. They have been using this strength judiciously by reaching out to all sections like lawyers, farmers, women teachers, doctors, factory workers, etc, through the network of fans’ associations. A series of meetings have been held all over the state mobilising these sections. The numerous 24-hour news channels starved for news lapped up these events and repeatedly tele cast them thereby creating an impression of
an imminent major “change in the air” in the political landscape of AP. A close look at the ground situation does not show any significant e vidence of a s weeping mood for change among the people. While there is always space for any number of political parties repre senting the aspirations of various sections of society, the claim that there is a c omplete vacuum in the opposition camp is far-fetched.
Chiranjeevi’ team seems to have identified his weaknesses well in advance and, in textbook political theory style, are t rying to turn them into strengths. For e xample, the lack of political experience and understanding of current issues, domination of the family, the perception of Chiranjeevi as a “sensitive” person un suited to the rough and tumble of contemporary politics, lack of a political organisation at the grass roots level, the existing identities of his political opponents (Y S Rajashekar Reddy as a strong pro-farmer leader with charisma and following of his own; Chandra babu Naidu as a modern, progressive leader and inheritor of NTR as the keeper of Telugu pride), and polarisation of anti-Kapu castes against him. Chiranjeevi used the well attended press conference on August 17 to counter these perceptions. For example, on the question of sensitivity, he said “sensitivity” was something missing in current p oliticians and would actually help him in empathising with the people better. Chiranjeevi and team have studiously avoided any public display of caste affiliation lest it antagonise the sympathisers and neutral voters among the other castes.
Further, the actor has undertaken a couple of whirlwind tours to meet the families of handloom weavers in Siricilla in Karimnagar district to understand their problems. He also visited Pallepalli in M ahabubnagar to meet the people of that village whose land is scheduled to go to a special economic zone (SEZ) coming up there. These tours were touted as precursors to a longer “yatra” by the actor across the state later.
Good vs Evil, Hero vs Villain
Chiranjeevi has been careful to avoid all forms of aggressive postures against his political opponents and criticism of their policies. Chiranjeevi’s team seems to be banking on appealing to the middle-class and the increasing number of urban voters and youth who have no strong political affiliations or ideologies except to deride the existing political class and yearn for “change”. Chiranjeevi has taken a neutral stand and avoided all criticism of YSR, Chandrababu Naidu and their policies. Praising them for doing a good job and saying that he will ensure that the fruits of development reached everyone.
When Chiranjeevi was asked to name his opponent/enemy he refused to name any person or party preferring to state that poverty was his “enemy/opponent”. Further, Chiranjeevi and his team have categorically refused to be drawn into a verbal duel with their political opponents through the media. In fact, leaders and fans of Chiranjeevi went to the house of a Congress leader who had criticised him and presented him with roses as a gesture of friendship.
The upper, middle and elite classes as well as the mass of Indian people find the appeal of a battle between good and evil, the haves and have-nots, hero and villain difficult to resist. NTR had demonstrated this when he successfully portrayed the Congress and its leaders as “villains”. To take an analogy from the film world more often than not a movie without a “villain” will make a good documentary widely a cclaimed by the critics and jurors of awards but will rarely succeed at the box office. Chiranjeevi needs to play to the gallery to win the audience over by l eading a fight against the current evils in society (corruption, social injustice, price rise, farmer suicides, etc) and project the c urrent leaders as the personification of that evil as well as the root cause for the ills of society. His inability to take strong positions and his vague and non-committal r esponse to crucial issues like SEZs the demand for Telangana, scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categorisation, etc, tell us that the homework done by the a ctor and his team was at a very superficial level. But they are not to be blamed entirely for not taking a stance so early in the game with the existing major parties like the Congress and the Telugu Desam Party still dithering on these i ssues. While there is no doubt that the p olitical entry of Chiranjeevi will radically transform the politics of the state, the role of the major incumbent parties, their strengths, caste polarisation and alliances could throw up interesting results in the 2009 elections.
october 11, 2008 EPW Economic & Political Weekly
Comments
EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.