This week, the GST Council met in New Delhi, making revisions to taxes on a variety of products, from household items to electronics. For those studying political communication, the rhetoric around these changes has been nothing short of grandiose. Descriptions like “landmark” and “the biggest reforms since the 1990s” have been used repeatedly, yet much of the Opposition has been calling for similar reforms for years. The exaggeration of these changes, especially in comparison to economic reforms from the mid-1990s, raises interesting questions about political narrative.

Lesson One: Crafting the Narrative

A noteworthy moment this week was when India’s Home Minister, Amit Shah, gave a 45-minute interview just after Parliament’s monsoon session ended. The timing of this interview seems strategic, designed to regain control of the narrative following a difficult session. Despite critical issues raised by the Opposition, Shah’s opening statement in the interview was a clear attempt to manage the story: “Through your medium, I would like to inform the people about the 130th Constitutional Amendment.”

During the Parliament session, the Opposition had raised several critical issues, including the undemocratic process behind some bills and the abrupt resignation of the Vice President. However, when the government’s actions faced mounting criticism, they shifted the focus to television interviews with soft questions. This was an attempt to reframe the narrative and deflect attention from the Opposition’s concerns. Despite his defensive posture, Shah’s attempt to invoke political heavyweights like LK Advani and George Fernandes did little to defuse the growing discontent.

Lesson Two: Shifting the Narrative

With Bihar’s elections looming, political parties and campaigners are intensifying their efforts to influence voters. One such initiative, the Voter Adhikar Yatra, aimed to highlight allegations of vote theft and electoral manipulation. However, following the campaign’s completion, some attention was diverted to an incident where the Prime Minister faced verbal abuse at a rally. The use of emotional appeals and media clips, portraying the Prime Minister as a victim, sought to deflect attention from other political issues in Bihar. This approach of playing the “victim card” has become a common strategy to redirect political discourse.

Lesson Three: Controlling the Narrative

A month ago, a young MP from the Opposition participated in two podcasts on the same day. One was aired by a traditional media channel, while the other was published on a digital-only platform. While both interviews shared the same format, the digital podcast outperformed its legacy counterpart by a significant margin, with viewership numbers far exceeding those on traditional media. This highlights the growing importance of digital platforms in shaping political narratives. Politicians now have numerous outlets to control their message, and the choice of platform is crucial to reach a broader audience.

Conclusion

As a student of political communication, the ability to influence public perception through narrative is clear. Whether through grand rhetoric, shifting focus, or mastering new platforms, political leaders continue to find ways to shape the story. These lessons offer a glimpse into the complex strategies used in India’s political theater, as leaders navigate the delicate balance between defense and deflection in a rapidly changing media landscape.

Image Source: Google | Image Credit: Respective Owner