“We are happy we welcome this decision what … our Prime Minister has taken”: Political subjectivities in populist politics during demonetization (2016) in India

Abstract

Discursive social psychologists have examined various ways in which political talk and participation in politics are accomplished. In this paper, I examine talk related to a populist policy to examine how it is that members of the general public informally participate in populist political practices. I examined transcripts of broadcast on‐air interviews with those experiencing outcomes of a controversial monetary policy in India introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, namely, demonetization. Discursive psychological analyses show that interviewers and interviewees treated talk on policy as implicating political subjectivities for the interviewees. They flexibly offered various forms of assessments on the policy in ways to negotiate implications that they were predisposed to the policy and Modi. Their political subjectivities as those who were “Modi supporters,” for example, were attended to and negotiated in ways to accomplish interview participation. The findings show the relevance of personal/subjective assessments and positions in political talk. These are discussed in relation to contemporary understandings of populism.

India’s Evolving Experiment with Neoliberalism: A Confluence of Mental Models

“…Much of the pain was felt by small businesses and the working poor, and of those who resided in rural areas, farmers were especially hard hit. Neoliberal critics of the policy would argue that the adverse effects on the gross domestic product of the country would be felt for years to come (Chakravorti, 2017;Sambaraju, 2018).…”

“…Neoliberal economists argued that demonetization is a policy tool that should only be employed as a last resort to combat a severe monetary crisis or to root out crippling corruption. But India was not facing either of these issues at the time (Sambaraju, 2018). In fact, according to Transparency International, a global movement that monitors and reports on government corruption, India was experiencing a period of relative economic stability and an overall record on corruption that appeared to be improving (Sharma, 2016;Sambaraju, 2018).…”

“…But India was not facing either of these issues at the time (Sambaraju, 2018). In fact, according to Transparency International, a global movement that monitors and reports on government corruption, India was experiencing a period of relative economic stability and an overall record on corruption that appeared to be improving (Sharma, 2016;Sambaraju, 2018). Through the adoption of this authoritarian monetary strategy, Modi hoped to bolster his image as a "strongman" who possessed not only the political wherewithal, but also the personal temperament, to tackle corruption head-on (Chakravorti, 2017).…”

Globalization: Past, Present, Future

“…Much of the pain was felt by small businesses and the working poor, and of those who resided in rural areas, farmers were especially hard hit. Neoliberal critics of the policy would argue that the adverse effects on the gross domestic product of the country would be felt for years to come (Chakravorti, 2017;Sambaraju, 2018).…”

“…Neoliberal economists argued that demonetization is a policy tool that should only be employed as a last resort to combat a severe monetary crisis or to root out crippling corruption. But India was not facing either of these issues at the time (Sambaraju, 2018). In fact, according to Transparency International, a global movement that monitors and reports on government corruption, India was experiencing a period of relative economic stability and an overall record on corruption that appeared to be improving Sambaraju, 2018).…”