When asked specifically about the Russian meddling in America’s elections, President Putin shot back, “Put your finger anywhere on a map of the world, and everywhere you will hear complaints that American officials are interfering in internal election processes.” Similarly, when confronted with accusations of collusion by Moscow in helping his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump tweeted, “…What about all of the Clinton ties to Russia, including Podesta Company, Uranium deal, Russian Reset, big dollar speeches etc.”
In both cases, the classic diversionary tactic of drawing irrelevant equivalents to the question asked were deployed, and the pertinent question was left, unanswered. The implied intention was to divert the blame from oneself onto a political opponent – even without answering the question directly, and yet making oneself look substantially ‘cleaner’ and ‘better’ than the political rival. The persuasive power of moral-relativism would invariably ensure that a Putin or a Trump could not be cornered, and their respective loyalists would continue swearing by their leaders, however insincere in answering the moot questions. This technique of Whataboutery i.e. counter-comparing, was the favourite ploy of the Soviets in the Cold War era, whenever faced with uncomfortable questions or queries about their realities.
While media, technology and necessities of maintaining the libertarian values of democracy have ensured that the politicians can be asked awkward questions, but they have found a combative way around the same with rhetorical counters of Whataboutery that not only offer a getaway but also results in one-upmanship in political diatribes. Given the inherent chicanery, deceit and deviousness of intent involved in Whataboutery, it is the favoured means of those who seek to hide their own misdoings and lack of credible answers.
Authoritarian leaders who typically slam all forms of opposition voices and democratic concerns are naturally drawn towards Whataboutery than essentially democratic, open and honest political leaders. In modern democracies, the wave of uber-nationalistic fervour has ensured that democracies are now led by the likes of nationalistic leaders like Shinzo Abe, Boris Johnson, Recep Erdogan, Scott Morison, Benjamin Netanyahu etc. The era of more inclusive, moderate and liberal politicians is on the retreat and that affects the sort of public discourse, language and spin doctoring that has taken over the political debate and culture.
Unfortunately, such regrettable expressions of political angst and intolerance have afflicted the discourse in Indian politics, with Whataboutery now dangerously institutionalised. In recent times, the Indian society and politics too have got consumed by passions and expressions of muscular nationalism that have led to justifications with fear-mongering, constant reference to ‘enemies’ (often without context) and Whataboutery. Society is reeling under unprecedented levels of polarisation, unrest and insecurities – the civilisational, moral and constitutional idea and spirit of India, is under attack.
Amidst such dissonance, blunt levers of Majoritarism afforded by participative democracies are partaken or dangerously dangled to further sully the political environment, towards electoral harvest. Wherever possible, either a justification is not given e.g. top leadership not holding ‘unmanaged’ press conferences, or the task of ‘managing’ the narrative is given onto other party functionaries who deliberately invoke reckless Whataboutery as the sole counter. This allows for a very ingenious blunting of pertinent questions as manufactured; incredulity at the very question is immediately postured, as the question is deflected to a supposedly even ‘worse’ action/ record of the opponent. A cover of ‘context’ is afforded while indulging in Whataboutery.
However, the most important argument against Whataboutery is that the political party with an ostensibly ‘worse record’ is no more germane to the current situation, as that party has presumably been defeated. What matters is, now. The past cannot deny the right to question today or tomorrow? Parties pretend to a position of ‘party with a difference’, and Whataboutery is a sure sign of the absence of any such ‘difference’. Harping endlessly on the past has diminishing returns, as the citizenry has already punished the party in opposition and the onus shifts on questioning the current dispensation, and not the one, voted out.
Therefore, questions pertaining to the shameful loss of lives in the 2020 Delhi riots are not answered by reminding people of the 1984 riots, as a Whataboutery. Similarly, the inability to explain the rationale or benefit of demonetisation does not lie in Whataboutery of Nehruvian economics, as that too is passé. The disallowance of OROP as promised cannot be wished away by the rhetorical ‘the previous government did nothing?’ as the previous government paid the price for not keeping promises, and the current government following suit, is as unacceptable. But a bitterly polarised environment aids Whataboutery as the blind cadre derives greater satisfaction and pleasure in the ostensible failure of the ‘other’ than in an honest introspection of the lack-of-difference, by that of the party supported.
Irrespective of the party in power, it is the duty of the citizenry, media and the opposition to hold the party in power to account, at all times. To question, is not to be seditious, anti-national or to ‘play into the hand of the Pakistanis’. On the contrary, this ought to be the response of responsible and concerned citizens. The cadres do considerable disservice to their parties when they shield their own leadership from hard questioning, as a ‘wrong’ allowed to get away temporarily, returns to haunt in the long run.
Today a peculiar situation exists, with traditionally friendly countries like Iran, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka asking some uncomfortable questions about recent decisions, as are some multilateral bodies of the UN and parliamentarians from Western democracies. To ridicule the same is convenient, but the undeniable din is rising. To answer these questions from within and outside the country cannot be predicated on obvious failures of the past like the Emergency, the 1984 riots or even Nehru-Menon’s disinterest in the armed forces that had cost us severely in 1962. Today’s decisions need to be answered by those in power today, without a comparative scale of Whataboutery. Overtime, citizenry loses patience and democracy can ensure that Whataboutery becomes an insufficient defence.
(The writer IS Lt Gen PVSM, AVSM (Retd), Former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Puducherry)