JANUARY 26, 2019
Politics of Contempt?
Members of the BJP have been losing their grip on the 2019 election as well as on their tongues.
T
he diatribe expressed by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
member of legislative assembly (MLA) against the Bahu-
jan Samaj Party (BSP) chief has beaten all previous re-
cords of the political use of contemptuous language. The foul
language used by the people’s representative in question is
extraordinarily devastating as it seeks to push a person—a
woman, a man and a person belonging to the third gender—
beyond any recognisable limits of humanity. The MLA and her
party leaders did express regret and tender apologies to the BSP
chief, but more as a perfunctory, formality than out of genuine
regret. However, such calculated gestures by a moral offender
are seldom adequate for repairing the damage done to any self-
respecting personality, including the BSP chief. The use of
offensive words publicly produces a long-lasting impact. Such
language, through anti-social gossip, continues to remain in
circulation long after the actual expression of the tirade,
thanks to the strong presence of caste and patriarchal con-
sciousness that feeds into such gossip. Moreover, such calcu-
lated gestures of regret and apologies do not go too far, except
in simply excoriating rather than destroying completely the
vice of contempt that is driven deep into the caste and patriar-
chal consciousness. The questions that we need to raise are:
Why the contempt against a particular person? What is the na-
ture of this contempt? And, what moral implication does it
have for a person who holds such contempt?
The contempt that mediates through such diatribes has to be
understood primarily in the context of the political challenge of
the electoral alliance between the BSP and the Samajwadi Party
(SP), which seems to have been perceived by the members of the
BJP as formidable. Ironically, the expression of offensive lan-
guage is an acknowledgement of such a challenge. Interesting-
ly, singling out the BSP chief for such an assault doubly confirms
this fear of opposition. Of all the leaders from the opposition, it
is the BSP chief who has been at the receiving end of such offen-
sive language. There are two factors that can explain this “spe-
cial treatment” meted out to her. First, the BJP legislator in
question has chosen as the subject of her diatribe a person who
has decided to firm up the alliance without succumbing to being
targeted by the ruling party. Second, the challenge posed by a
person from a lower caste, and that too from a woman, is not
bearable for this BJP legislator. The fear of such a woman is,
then, at the core of her diatribe.
Economic & Political Weekly EPW JANUARY 26, 2019 vol lIV no 4
It has been a patriarchal privilege and prerogative to use
offensive language so as to morally denigrate women. But, when a
particular woman uses the same language against another wom-
an, it should compel us to see the source of such corrosive con-
tempt, as being not just in patriarchy, but also, more fundamental-
ly, in caste. This particular inversion of masculinity is not because
of the gender concerned, but because it is caste that tends to domi-
nate or overdetermine the politics of contemptuous expression.
The woman legislator’s outburst awakens us to a larger ques-
tion. The affirmative reproduction of patriarchal language by a
woman suggests that she is disinterested in her own truth,
wherein she herself is a victim of the masculine language. The
public endorsement of such language seeks to baffle her and
keep her from approaching the truth of her own patriarchal
subordination which necessarily becomes her predicament. A
person whose party politics compels her to produce such a lan-
guage, perhaps, fails to realise that in such a reproduction, she
denies men, women and persons belonging to the third gender
from being legitimate bearers of the right to equal dignity.
It is desirable that political agents should conduct criticism of
the political formation in the current context at the level of
Uttar Pradesh and also at the national level. The critiques need
to be conducted within the reasonable limits set by the demo-
cratic ethos which is constitutive of mutual respect for the po-
litical presence of different social groups and political parties in
opposition. Such a critique must be processed with arguments
containing in them a minimally normative energy sustaining
ethical capacity for mutual respect. Argumentation, although
some arguments may seem to be weak or poor according to es-
tablished standards, does provide a breathing space that would
otherwise be infested by offensive political speech. After all, de-
mocracy offers a greater space for argumentation and overcom-
ing one’s prejudices that corrupt the basis of a valid argument.
Weak or inadequate arguments may be bearable as they do not
immediately threaten the democratic fabric that has weaved
within it decency, mutual respect and dignity, which are the
most essential components of democratic politics. The political
ambition to continuously capture governmental power without
any argumentation invariably leads to the overplay of foul lan-
guage. Does not being a part of a robust democracy, for its own
dignified survival, make it imperative on us to give a chance to
an argumentative culture in politics?
7