<p>India has a long history of popular political leaders. From Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi to current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a common factor that unites these figures is their public appeal. They have massive followings who are so passionate that some are willing to give their lives to honour the leaders. So why are people so loyal, so passionate, so crazy about someone who doesn’t even know who they are?<br /><br />Horton and Wohl coined a term in 1956 to explain the psychological interaction between an audience and popular mass media figures, more specifically to people who appear on television. The phenomenon is commonly observed with sports fans. The levels of passion exhibited by a football fan would cause bewilderment to a person who isn’t a fan of the sport. The person might wonder why a fan is so invested with something that has no direct implication on his or her life. <br /><br />Studies reveal a heightened sense of relationship between celebrities and fans due to the use of social media platforms. Despite the lack of interpersonal communication, an audience gets absorbed into living under the illusion of one. This idea, known as the parasocial theory would go on to explain the behaviour exhibited by certain people towards a certain personality or an organisation. The theory could explain people’s association with political ideologies and politicians in general. The key is identity formation. People are often drawn towards a particular idea because of certain societal norms that expect them to behave in certain ways. These norms are both enhanced and mitigated from what they perceive as reality. Personal identity is key in determining whether or not a person can associate himself/herself with a political identity. This personal identity is often moulded by a generic idea of what constitutes the political identity that one wishes to be associated with. <br /><br />A group of researchers led by University of Nebraska-Lincoln political scientists Kevin Smith and John Hibbing suggested that people's physiological predispositions help to shape political orientations. For example, a person uses violent means to ‘protect’ cattle. This person might feel a connect with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Now, while the BJP might not explicitly condone the use of violence to protect cows, people internalise an idea and then carry out actions. Somewhere, the person has interpreted that the use of violence is acceptable as long as he or she is associated with the BJP. And his identity is shaped accordingly. <br /><br />Narendra Modi is arguably the most influential personality in the country today. People listen to him and worship him. The people are also aware that he has faced constant scrutiny but that doesn’t interfere with their impression of him as ‘high and mighty.’ The image that Modi built is a key factor behind this fan craze. Modi has found a medium to interact with the people on a one-on-one basis. He is constantly on television. This election season for instance, in the month of April, Modi received 722 hours of news coverage. This is significantly higher than his counterpart Rahul Gandhi, who received a paltry 252 hours. Modi also hosts the radio program ‘Mann ki baat’ on All India Radio. The idea is to interact with the people and that interaction is important because it gives the people a sense of ‘closeness’ with the prime minister himself. Establishing that closeness helps in building a relationship with the people on an individual level. <br /><br />The case with Rahul Gandhi is different. Rahul’s stature as a political leader has seen tremendous growth over the past few years. The narrative, however, revolves around the BJP. The Congress along with several other political parties are viewed as anti-BJP rather than as parties who have forged their own identities for the elections this time. The case is similar with Rahul. Political leaders are remembered because of the identity they create for themselves. An identity that the public falls for, an identity that sets them apart from the rest of the politicians. <br /><br />Rahul’s political career was always going to be difficult. Overcoming his ‘pappu’ phase could be considered an achievement of sorts. And while transitioning from a ‘laughing stock’ to a potential ‘prime-ministerial’ candidate is huge, it isn’t nearly enough to win the popular vote. <br /><br />If we assume that people make decisions rationally, it would be baffling to see the lengths that people go to defend the indefensible. This brings up another important idea, ‘Solution Aversion’. Researchers have studied political factions and have observed that the manner in which people respond to a set of facts varies drastically based on political affiliations.<br /><br />“In any issue where people’s cherished beliefs and identities are in play, you’re probably going to see some amount of solution aversion,” said Troy Campbell, a consumer behaviour researcher at Duke University’s business school. “We alter our view of reality to be as flattering as possible.” The latter sentence is relevant to India’s political spectrum. Why is it that self-styled ‘chowkidars’ fail to acknowledge criticism of the Modi government, and on the other side, why is that many critics of the BJP fail to acknowledge the positives from their tenure? In either case, the individual chooses to believe in facts that support his notion of reality and remains intentionally oblivious to facts that suggest otherwise. <br /><br />Both theories partially explain the love showered on Modi and the lack of love for Rahul. In a recent interview to Newsnation, the prime minister said that he had used a digital camera and email in 1987-1988. While his intention may be subject to debate, the fact remains that he made a statement that was factually incoherent. The rational move would have been to point out the mistake. While a lot of the Twitter conversation ridiculed the prime minister, a faction also defended the statement suggesting that he might have got the dates mixed up.<br />Defending the statement wouldn’t be the immediate response for an apolitical citizen. However, it would be the move for a person who ‘loves’ Prime Minister Narendra Modi. <br /><br />The problem that Rahul Gandhi has faced and is continuing to face is the new identity that he is trying to create for himself. The effort to alter the people's existing impressions is an extremely difficult one. It is common knowledge that when people vote for the BJP, they vote for Modi to become the prime minister of the country. The analogy isn’t quite the same when they vote for the Congress. And that perhaps is what truly differentiates the prime minister from the Congress president.</p>
<p>India has a long history of popular political leaders. From Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi to current Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a common factor that unites these figures is their public appeal. They have massive followings who are so passionate that some are willing to give their lives to honour the leaders. So why are people so loyal, so passionate, so crazy about someone who doesn’t even know who they are?<br /><br />Horton and Wohl coined a term in 1956 to explain the psychological interaction between an audience and popular mass media figures, more specifically to people who appear on television. The phenomenon is commonly observed with sports fans. The levels of passion exhibited by a football fan would cause bewilderment to a person who isn’t a fan of the sport. The person might wonder why a fan is so invested with something that has no direct implication on his or her life. <br /><br />Studies reveal a heightened sense of relationship between celebrities and fans due to the use of social media platforms. Despite the lack of interpersonal communication, an audience gets absorbed into living under the illusion of one. This idea, known as the parasocial theory would go on to explain the behaviour exhibited by certain people towards a certain personality or an organisation. The theory could explain people’s association with political ideologies and politicians in general. The key is identity formation. People are often drawn towards a particular idea because of certain societal norms that expect them to behave in certain ways. These norms are both enhanced and mitigated from what they perceive as reality. Personal identity is key in determining whether or not a person can associate himself/herself with a political identity. This personal identity is often moulded by a generic idea of what constitutes the political identity that one wishes to be associated with. <br /><br />A group of researchers led by University of Nebraska-Lincoln political scientists Kevin Smith and John Hibbing suggested that people's physiological predispositions help to shape political orientations. For example, a person uses violent means to ‘protect’ cattle. This person might feel a connect with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Now, while the BJP might not explicitly condone the use of violence to protect cows, people internalise an idea and then carry out actions. Somewhere, the person has interpreted that the use of violence is acceptable as long as he or she is associated with the BJP. And his identity is shaped accordingly. <br /><br />Narendra Modi is arguably the most influential personality in the country today. People listen to him and worship him. The people are also aware that he has faced constant scrutiny but that doesn’t interfere with their impression of him as ‘high and mighty.’ The image that Modi built is a key factor behind this fan craze. Modi has found a medium to interact with the people on a one-on-one basis. He is constantly on television. This election season for instance, in the month of April, Modi received 722 hours of news coverage. This is significantly higher than his counterpart Rahul Gandhi, who received a paltry 252 hours. Modi also hosts the radio program ‘Mann ki baat’ on All India Radio. The idea is to interact with the people and that interaction is important because it gives the people a sense of ‘closeness’ with the prime minister himself. Establishing that closeness helps in building a relationship with the people on an individual level. <br /><br />The case with Rahul Gandhi is different. Rahul’s stature as a political leader has seen tremendous growth over the past few years. The narrative, however, revolves around the BJP. The Congress along with several other political parties are viewed as anti-BJP rather than as parties who have forged their own identities for the elections this time. The case is similar with Rahul. Political leaders are remembered because of the identity they create for themselves. An identity that the public falls for, an identity that sets them apart from the rest of the politicians. <br /><br />Rahul’s political career was always going to be difficult. Overcoming his ‘pappu’ phase could be considered an achievement of sorts. And while transitioning from a ‘laughing stock’ to a potential ‘prime-ministerial’ candidate is huge, it isn’t nearly enough to win the popular vote. <br /><br />If we assume that people make decisions rationally, it would be baffling to see the lengths that people go to defend the indefensible. This brings up another important idea, ‘Solution Aversion’. Researchers have studied political factions and have observed that the manner in which people respond to a set of facts varies drastically based on political affiliations.<br /><br />“In any issue where people’s cherished beliefs and identities are in play, you’re probably going to see some amount of solution aversion,” said Troy Campbell, a consumer behaviour researcher at Duke University’s business school. “We alter our view of reality to be as flattering as possible.” The latter sentence is relevant to India’s political spectrum. Why is it that self-styled ‘chowkidars’ fail to acknowledge criticism of the Modi government, and on the other side, why is that many critics of the BJP fail to acknowledge the positives from their tenure? In either case, the individual chooses to believe in facts that support his notion of reality and remains intentionally oblivious to facts that suggest otherwise. <br /><br />Both theories partially explain the love showered on Modi and the lack of love for Rahul. In a recent interview to Newsnation, the prime minister said that he had used a digital camera and email in 1987-1988. While his intention may be subject to debate, the fact remains that he made a statement that was factually incoherent. The rational move would have been to point out the mistake. While a lot of the Twitter conversation ridiculed the prime minister, a faction also defended the statement suggesting that he might have got the dates mixed up.<br />Defending the statement wouldn’t be the immediate response for an apolitical citizen. However, it would be the move for a person who ‘loves’ Prime Minister Narendra Modi. <br /><br />The problem that Rahul Gandhi has faced and is continuing to face is the new identity that he is trying to create for himself. The effort to alter the people's existing impressions is an extremely difficult one. It is common knowledge that when people vote for the BJP, they vote for Modi to become the prime minister of the country. The analogy isn’t quite the same when they vote for the Congress. And that perhaps is what truly differentiates the prime minister from the Congress president.</p>