Will Sonia, Rahul Refuse Bail? All Hail The Cult Of 'Manufactured Victimhood'

As a society we seem unable to differentiate between genuine victims and politicians playing the victim card to generate sympathy while they evade the law.

Sonia Gandhi and her son Rahul, prime accused in the National Herald property scam, are said to be mulling the possibility of refusing to apply for bail when they appear in court this Saturday (19 December) on the orders of the Delhi High Court. If they finally decide to do this, they will essentially be exploiting the traditional Indian, possibly Hindu, failure to separate genuine victimisation of the innocent from those getting their just desserts under the law.

Hinduism is probably unique in being a religion where there is no rush to judge others. Who knows, they may be following their own dharma, their own karma, may be that was the thought behind this. While this is a healthy trait – as humans we tend to judge others too often and too soon – the non-judgmental attitude has now permeated all of Indian society. We carry our non-judgmental attitude to an extreme where we are unable to clearly label anything as wrong, and deserving of punishment.

In fact, we have am ambivalent attitude towards the law and the punishment it prescribes for crimes. This enables crooked politicians to claim victimhood merely for being summoned to face trail or spending a couple of days in custody for questioning.

Last May, Arvind Kejriwal refused to post a bail bond in the Nitin Gadkari defamation case before retreating from his position. The attempt clearly was to pretend he was the victim when he was the accuser and abuser.

Indira Gandhi, when she was arrested for her violations of the law after the emergency, painted herself as a victim, and the public sympathised with her. So it is not unlikely that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul may try the same stunt and declare themselves the victims of the BJP’s vendetta and pretend to be the wronged party, when it is exactly the other way round. They are the ones who wronged the employees and shareholders of the company running National Herald by taking over priceless properties for a song, and using Congress party funds for that.

It would be a tragedy if Indians routinely give political and economic crimes the benefit of the doubt just when the law tries to catch up with them. If we continue empathising with wrongdoing, we will essentially be creating a nation of breast-beaters and a cult of losers.

As a society we seem unable to differentiate between genuine victims and politicians playing the victim card to generate sympathy while they evade the law. This much is evident from media comments, where the routine editorial advice is to not give politicians the chance to play martyr. We saw this logic applied when Arvind Kejriwal’s principal secretary was raided for alleged corruption. We say the same thing if the politician is old, or Dalit or believed to have any characteristic that elicits natural sympathy.

We lauded Sonia Gandhi’s “sacrifice” in giving the prime ministership to Manmohan Singh in 2004, when the intention was never to part with the powers that go with the chair. We are still talking about her sacrifice, when in reality she sacrificed nothing beyond Manmohan Singh’s credibility as an honest man.

When A Raja went to jail for his 2G crimes, his party boss, M Karunanidhi, claimed he was targeted because he was a Dalit. When YSR’s son Jagan Mohan went to jail for his scams, he reaped a sympathy vote.

However, no one is ever willing to suggest that Narendra Modi was repeatedly demonised and hounded for his alleged role in 2002 because he came from a lower caste. All his accusers and detractors came from the upper castes, including former IPS officer Sanjeev Bhatt but did anyone even point this out?

However, even Modi has not been entirely beyond this. He brought up Gujarati pride, just a Nitish Kumar did in the recent Bihar elections. Both indirectly claimed the broader community was the victim, and benefitted from the conflation.

However, the joke is really on us as a people. Wrongdoers are routinely seen as caste or group victims and re-elected repeatedly.  Despite being a convicted criminal, Lalu Prasad won a resounding vote from his Yadav clan, which held the key to the Mahagatbandhan’s thumping win in Bihar last month.

Despite being convicted for her crimes, Jayalalithaa only managed to consolidate her support base, and when the Karnataka High Court unexpectedly overturned the strong verdict of a lower trial court, her supporters saw it not as a travesty of justice, but evidence of her victim status.

If we allow emotions to cloud the operation of the rule of law, we will create a society of losers, those who value victimhood and defeat over the fighting spirit and achievement.

The paradox is that those posing as victims are not really cowards or losers. Sonia Gandhi is a fighter, Indira Gandhi was one too. Arvind Kejriwal is a fighter, Lalu Prasad is a fighter. But they share one essential trait: they know that Indians are ambivalent towards punishing the guilty.

Another paradox is our discomfort with both failure and success. We routinely self-deprecate when we succeed, but we are equally afraid of genuine failure. If failure results in loss of face, and success has to be denied, we are effectively primed for mediocrity or fraud. We will do everything to avoid failure, even if means stealing, as many of our crony capitalists are doing, and we will be dismissive of our successes.

To be sure, the scenario is not all bleak, as the new generation of entrepreneurs and politicians is more gung-ho and less risk-averse. But right now we are at that cusp where we have not abandoned our old groupthink and attitudes of victimhood and mediocrity, even as we are yet to fully embrace the idea of meritocracy, positive achievement and respect for the rule of law.

Little wonder politicians still have the last laugh at our gullibility.