Abusive Language: Growing Trend in Politics

By Deepak Parvatiyar

The use of expletives by ‘Sadhvi’ Niranjan Jyoti, the Minister of State for Food Processing Industries in the Modi government, conveys more than what meets the eye.

The reckless ‘sanyasin’, in an election rally in Delhi on December 1, asked the gathering to decide whether they wanted ‘Ramzaada’ (followers of Lord Ram) or ‘Haraamzaada’ (an expletive meaning bastards).

Was it just an instance of loose tongue or a clever ploy to polarise the voters in Delhi where elections are to be held soon? It did create a ruckus with an agitated Opposition stalling the proceedings in Parliament, demanding Jyoti’s immediate sacking. Yet, her use of profanity did make headlines – something that a politician relishes, what if Prime Minister Narendra Modi reacted by warning his party leaders against addressing the nation “out of turn”.

The examples of loose cannons in politics are too numerous to be enumerated.  Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s reference to Modi as  “Maut Ka Saudagar” (Merchant of Death) in an election rally in 2007, is one such example. Other such examples are Modi describing the Congress as “gudiya (doll) party”, and then making reference to (Aam Aadmi Party supremo) Arvind Kejriwal as “AK-49” in his election rallies this year.

Remember Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan publicly calling rival politician Amar Singh as “debauch” and a “broker” in May 2009? Or BJP MLA Heeralal Regar stating at a public rally in Tonk, Rajasthan, in March this year that, "Sonia and Rahul Gandhi should be stripped off their clothes and sent back to Italy"?

Modi's campaign manager in Uttar Pradesh, Amit Shah, (now the BJP President) had been banned from holding rallies and making speeches in Uttar Pradesh by the Election Commission of India in April this year and it was only when Shah vowed not to use “abusive or derogatory language” that the Commission rescinded the ban.

Similarly the ECI had banned yoga guru Baba Ramdev from campaigning in Lucknow over his remarks that Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi “goes to Dalits’ house for honeymoon and picnic…” Ramdev had then claimed that the statement was “misrepresented”.

On 26^th October 2002, the then PM, Atal Behari Vajpayee, had obliquely referred to Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Pravin Togadiya’s certain remarks against Sonia then and cautioned that one should not “cross the limits of decency…”

Elections times are war times! Examples of loose language galore but politicians very well know that all of this imprudence blows over quickly. However the scars remain. The Congress and the BJP had both approached the ECI seeking de-recognition of each other over the use of intemperate language during the state elections in five states – Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Mizoram and Delhi – in 2013. The ECI then had put all political parties “on notice” over the use of “abusive” language.

Use of abuses is nothing new in politics.  It has been a global trend and politicians in nations supposedly the most civilised ones, too resort to profanity with aplomb. After all, they make headlines and politicians know that bad publicity is good publicity.

From Indonesia to Turkey and Britain to the USA, more and more political leaders, including heads of state, have been using expletives to deride opposition and to aggressively make a point. Hence, there is little surprise when the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan slams protesters, calling them “looters,” or the Opposition Milliyetçi Hareket Partisi (MHP) leader Devlet Bahçeli calling the ruling AK party leaders “half-intellectuals, terror peddlers, blood barons, death monger…”

Old habits die hard and bad mouthing is one such habit.  In an interview on June 8, 2010 on the Today show, US President Barack Obama raised many eyebrows by using the term "whose ass to kick".

Obama’s predecessor George W. Bush too was recorded describing a reporter  a “major-league a—hole”, during the 2000 election campaign.

Late Lyndon B. Johnson, who was the US president during the Vietnam War,  had famously dirty mouthed Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson for his anti-Vietnam stance by saying, "You pissed on my rug".

As recently as on May 22, this year, the BBC had been forced to apologise following a “f**kwit” remark by former police minister and Conservative MP, Nick Herbert,  during a live lunchtime politics show.

It had been a usual practice to clean up vulgar outbursts before they were reported to the public. It was only in 20^th Century and later that instances of political profanity started getting highlighted. Advancement in mass communication technology too contributed to this as even words uttered in private are tapped by sensitive tools.

One such example was the microphone capturing US Vice President Joe Biden’s words, “This is a big f—ing deal”, that he said to President Obama at the signing ceremony for healthcare-reform legislation.

Besides, many such vulgar remarks skipped public domain because of the confidentiality clauses. Consider  US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, calling the then Indian PM, Indira Gandhi an “old witch” in a private conversation with President Richard Nixon in 1971.

Kissinger apologised once his dialogues were made public on the expiry of the confidentiality period.

Time and again there have been concerted efforts to discourage use of abusive tongue in public either through legislation or through state measures. But they have made little impact.

Consider the following:

n  In 1986, the California state legislators had introduced a task force to promote self esteem. Again in 2010, they launched a “Cuss Free Week” aimed at reducing profanity in public places

n  The US Supreme Court had upheld a federal prohibition on the one-time use of expletives in a case arising partly from an expletive uttered by Cher at a Billboard Music Awards show in 2002

n  In Russia of late, from July 1, 2014,  President Vladimir Putin, took a concerted step to ban use of certain to cleanse the Russian language in order to ensure its “purity”and  to create a “national and spiritual identity” for Russia.

Apparently many these measures have not met the expectations. More important is the self-restrain practiced by politicians themselves. But if a ‘Sadhvi’ (a female saint) resorts to hurling invectives, it does reflect poorly on the society.