Every time I have travelled to rural areas in India during elections, I have run into astute voters who are aware of every aspect of the candidates in the fray, including how many times they have switched parties, and well-versed with the caste equations of the constituency. This hyper awareness is helpful for a reporter. It makes our lives easier when we meet a respondent who is knowledgeable, eager to engage, and does not need to be persuaded to speak.
However, the penetration of the Internet and mobile phone has also meant a surge in disinformation. The challenge then is to separate the voter’s own personal experience or opinion from propaganda. Establishing this distinction is essential to understanding the impact of various election campaigns and what may influence voter choices.
In the run-up to the 2017 Uttar Pradesh elections, while touring the western part of the State, I heard a common complaint among people belonging to upper castes and non-Yadav backward communities against the incumbent government led by Akhilesh Yadav of the Samajwadi Party. They lamented that the government had been building boundary walls for graveyards, even as it took away land from cremation grounds. Nearly a week later, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said at an election rally, “If you create a kabristaan (graveyard) in a village, then a shamshaan (cremation ground) should also be created. If electricity is given uninterrupted in Ramzan, then it should be given in Diwali without a break.” In hindsight, I feel I should have asked the people whether their opinion was based on their own experiences or whether they had heard this elsewhere. I did not know whether the Prime Minister’s comments indicated that his party had its ear to the ground or whether he was merely amplifying propaganda that had already been running.
