Contemporary political discourse has traveled a tortuous path marked by hypocrisy, contempt, name-calling, rude ridicule and sexist slurs. Indulging in such vile discursive practices not only reinforces a toxic political climate but also contributes greatly to making the pursuit of constructive dialogue and democratic engagement even more difficult.
The predominance of negative vocabulary is evident when Modi calls the BJP “mother of corruption” and the BJP retaliates by calling Modi a “liar” and a “dictator”. The Prime Minister targets the Hindu bloc, labelling it a “pack of cheats”, while the BJP’s Kharge calls the Prime Minister a “Joton ka Sardar” (king of liars). Yogi Adityanath calls Rahul Gandhi an “accidental Hindu”. Kejriwal calls Modi a “Thanedar” in reference to the recent arrests of AAP members. BJP’s Shivraj Chouhan calls Kejriwal a corrupt “natwarlal” (notorious cheat). Yogi also calls Rahul and BJP’s Chandigarh candidate Manish Tewari “udankatras” and says “they will disappear after the elections”.
Tejashwi Yadav criticised PM Modi as a “halka” PM and maintained that the “mangalsutra” can only be worn by a woman when she gets married and marriage takes place only when the groom gets a job, but PM Modi has failed to provide it to the youth.
Damage to political image
To justify their own political agenda, leaders indulge in discourse construction that denigrates their opponents with a view to denigrating their political image.
Political parties may see ‘Nari Shakti’ as a key element of their election campaigns, but Indian political rhetoric remains full of misogyny, sexist remarks and gender stereotypes, reinforcing an overall exclusionary approach towards women in politics. Referring to BJP’s Gayatri Siddheshwara as a typical misogynist, Congress MP from Karnataka, Shamanur Shivashankarappa said, “They only know how to cook in the kitchen.” The comment portrays women as weak domestics, a reminder that despite the massive discussion on women’s empowerment across the globe, deeply rooted androcentric attitudes towards women that are only suited to be nurturers and caregivers persist. Congress leader Randeep Sujrewala’s remarks about Hema Malini as a “lick” sparked a political uproar and the Election Commission of India issued a notice to the Haryana leader. Even in his correction statement, Surjewala said, “We respect her because she is married to Dharmendra Shri. She is our daughter-in-law.” There is benevolent sexism in such statements that not only subvert the individual identity of women but also highlight the reinforcing patriarchy of gender mainstreaming in current political discourse.
Objectification of women
One example of sexual objectification of women came to light when Indian National Congress leader Supriya Shrinath made sexist remarks against Kangana Ranaut. Shrinath posted a photo of Ranaut in a corset on Instagram along with a “nasty” comment. Kanganath responded on social media by saying, “When a young man wins, his ideas are attacked. When a young woman wins, her sexuality is attacked.” However, it was this same Kangana who made blatant sexist remarks against Urmila Matondkar in the 2019 elections, saying, “If Urmila, who is only known for ‘soft porn movies’, can win, why can’t I?” Sexual objectification of women, whether by men or women, greatly hinders women from going beyond their bodies and being seen as someone who can truly contribute to the welfare of the country by being at the forefront of political dialogue with their intellect and vision, not their sex.
Today’s political discourse presents unpleasant speeches that subject women to psychological violence in the political arena. The trail of misogynistic comments continues with BJP’s Dilip Ghosh’s sexist comments on Mamata Banerjee, when he said, “She is wearing a sari, but one leg is covered and the other is not. I have never seen a sari worn like this.” Yet another example of male chauvinism is when BJP’s Abhijit Gangopadhyay (former Indian judge of the Calcutta High Court) said about Mamata Banerjee, “Is she a woman? Sometimes I wonder.”
The practice of name-calling and hostility is not a new trend in the course of election campaigns, but it has clearly intensified. Personal attacks, provocative communal and sexist vitriol, and partisan smears fuel inflammatory political rhetoric that undermines democratic norms and degrades the quality of public debate overall. Derogatory language has multifaceted effects on its recipients. It has the power to incite physical and psychological violence, widen social rifts, and foster a culture of intolerance.
This calls into question the credibility of democratic institutions and alienates voters from issue-based formative dialogue.More informed and proactive intervention by the Election Commission is needed to curb the use of dehumanizing language and move forward in the direction of a more civil, fair and ethical political discourse that induces aesthetic humanism.
email address
The author is Assistant Professor at the Institute of Development Communication, Chandigarh (Opinions are personal)
