Abstract
While there is a considerable body of research on the pragmatics of apology across the globe, the Indian apology discourse has received hardly any attention from scholars. Political apologies particularly, have been neglected as an important area of research in India. The act of tendering public political apologies, which was almost absent from the Indian repertoire, is an emerging trend in India. This article aims to identify the salient characteristics of Indian political apologies by contextual analysis of the apology texts and is a first of its kind as far as known to the authors. Indian political leaders use evasion and manipulation in apology utterances to avoid an explicit apology. The graver the transgression, the greater the hesitation to offer an explicit apology. We suggest that the categorization of political apologies should take into consideration the stature of the political apologizer also and not just the magnitude of the offence, as this can have a significant impact on the apology behaviour.
Introduction
Historically, the earliest record of a semblance of public apology in India is found in the rock edicts of King Ashoka, an Indian emperor, who ruled almost the entire Indian subcontinent from c. 268 to 232 BCE. In one of the rock edicts (Edict 13), the king expresses regret for the violence of the Kaling war (Hutchison, 2009; Rich, 2008). 1 It is difficult to say whether this was an explicit apology by the king or just an expression of remorse for the violence inflicted by him.
Post this ancient public expression of regret, the speech act of apology was almost absent from the repertoire of Indian public figures (Kaul et al., 2015). There could be several reasons for this late adoption of public apology as an image repair and restoration tool. The prime reason is generally believed to be cultural. Culturally, Indians perceive tendering of a public apology as admitting guilt (Maddux et al., 2012), unlike in places such as Japan and Hong Kong, where a public apology is an attempt to repair damage and restore relationships, not necessarily implying an admission of guilt. In this context, Mishra observes that ‘Indian Corporate history shows that brands rarely say “sorry”’ (Kaul et al., 2015).
However, in the last decade in India, public apology rhetoric has changed significantly. The emerging shift in public apologies being accepted as an image restoration tool could be attributed to the hyper-connectivity of audiences on social media. On social media platforms, situations can escalate rapidly, breaking down the traditional barriers of time, location and gatekeepers of information says Karen Freberg, Assistant Professor, Strategic Communications at University of Louisville, USA (Kaul et al., 2015). The increasing reach of the social media 2 has necessitated that leaders, corporations and individuals show agility in responding to public sentiment. In the digital age ‘one angry tweet can torpedo a brand’ (Bernoff and Schadler, 2010). The Indian general elections in 2014, saw most political leaders using social media actively to connect with the masses. In fact, the landslide victory of Bhartiya Janta Party was partly attributed to the effective use of social media platforms by the party leader, Mr Narendra Modi (Kaul et al., 2015).
Whatever be the reason, we are now witnessing a large number of apologies being offered via e-mails, tweets, media statements and blog posts by Indian political leaders, which are becoming a frequent part of the Indian public discourse.
Indian political apologies have begun to garner a great amount of coverage in the media and have provoked significant public debate recently. Since this rhetorical genre is relatively new in India, it is an interesting area of study. In this context, this article attempts to study the salient features of Indian political apologies and understand whether the political apologies offered in India meet their communicative function or are they a mere public relations tool meant to subvert an uncomfortable situation without involving any intent to seek forgiveness, offer repair and promise forbearance.
This article aims to draw conclusions about the sincerity of apologies delivered by political leaders in India with the help of a contextual analysis of apology lexemes and linguistic markers used with the apology lexeme. Using Harris et al. (2006) and Kampf’s (2009) framework of non-apology tactics we analyze Indian political apologies for their effectiveness. We also attempt to understand whether there is any correlation between the position of the political leader and his/her apology behaviour.
Our first hypothesis is that the Indian political apologies are more of a public relations strategy deployed to dissipate public angst and do not express genuine contrition or guilt on the part of the apology giver. The second hypothesis is that the leaders, senior in the political hierarchy, are more hesitant in tendering valid apologies.
Related work
From high-profile apologies by public figures to interpersonal apologies delivered in everyday contexts, apologies continue to get attention from discourse scholars in the field of humanities and social sciences. Although political apologies have ‘become one of the most prominent of “public” speech acts’ globally (Harris et al., 2006), Indian political apologies have not received much attention from discourse scholars.
A political apology is ‘a form of political speech with increasing significance and power’ (Luke, 1997: 344). Harris et al. (2006) list four general characteristics of political apologies:
(1) Political apologies are highly mediated;
(2) generated by (and generate further) conflict and controversy;
(3) contain an explicit IFID (illocutionary force indicating device) and an acceptance of responsibility and/or blame for the ‘offence’ by the apologizer; and
(4) rarely receive an explicit absolution as a response.
Kellerman (2006) points out that there is no such thing as a simple apology: ‘To acknowledge a transgression, seek forgiveness, and make things right is a complex act’. This complexity of the apology act gets confounded in political apologies as the presence of an audience transforms the performativity of the apology act, Kampf (2009). The hyper-mediated political apologies create a difficult situation for the apologizer, who tries to appear as a moral person who conforms to the standards of a moral discourse without being unveiled as a hypocrite at the same time. This makes the apologizers device creative ways to save face, minimize responsibility and restore image, (Kampf, 2009).
The literature on apology has been greatly influenced by the work of Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) and their politeness theory, where a key function of an apology for the transgressor is regarded as the redressal of Face-Threatening Acts (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987; Goffman, 1971; Holmes, 1995, 1998). The maintenance of face depends upon the acceptance and validation of the social identities we present to the others. Goffman’s (1967) seminal work characterizes face as ‘the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact’ (p. 5). It is not a private or an internalized property ‘lodged in or on his [the individual’s] body’, but as an image ‘located in the flow of events’, supported by other people’s judgments, and endorsed by ‘impersonal agencies in the situation’ (Goffman, 1967: 7). However, despite the advantages that public figures can derive from apologizing, the act can still undermine the desired face that the public figure wishes to put forward.
However, many researchers now (Harris et al., 2006; Mills, 2003) question the function of an apology as a way of redressal of a face-threatening act or event and consider this redressal act as an interplay of factors such as blame, allocation of responsibility and avoidance. Harris et al. (2006) argue that ‘to approach political apologies by means of face-oriented definitions is often not particularly helpful’ as ‘political apologies often raise issues of a very serious nature, involve a wide audience and go beyond addressing the “face-needs” of “the person offended”’. Holmes (1995) claims that apologies are not just face-saving but offer face benefits to the apologizer as well. We found this to be true in our corpus too as politicians offer apologies not just to redress a lapse but to project their ‘positive face’ (Wagner, 2004).
Several taxonomies of apology exist, and research shows that the two key defining features of valid apologies in all languages and across all situations (Harris et al., 2006; Lazare, 2004; Olshtain, 1989: 157; Olshtain and Cohen, 1983: 22–23; Scher and Darley, 1997; Trosborg, 1995) are, ‘admissions of blameworthiness and regret for an undesirable event’, Darby and Schlenker (1982: 742). According to sociologist Tavuchis (1991) ‘an apology must express sorrow’, and should have two critical ingredients: ‘The offender has to be sorry and has to say so’, and this personal sorrow of the offender should take the form of a ‘performative utterance’ and make ‘a private condition into a public communion’. Thus, a valid political apology must contain both an illocutionary force indicating device (Ifid) and an explicit expression of the acceptance of responsibility/blame for the ‘offence’. The two Ifids most often associated with apologies are sorry and apologize.
However, in an attempt to mitigate the damage caused to their image, the transgressors compromise the apology marker (Kampf, 2009). Ifids are compromised with non-apology markers.
Tavuchis (1991) opines that the context in which an apology occurs is also important in determining its relevance and meaning. Adding to that, Meier (1998: 216), emphasizes the need to understand the underlying cultural attitudes in the speech act of apology. Meier (1998) further contends that the research goals in the study of apologies, should not merely focus on ‘identification of the contextual factors that influence linguistic choices but rather, at a deeper, explanatory level, the culturally-determined valuations of these factors’ (p. 226).
Therefore, in this article, we examine the pragmatics of Indian political apologies in order to understand the characteristics of Indian apologies. Also, we try to study whether the apology behaviour of the political leaders changes according to the severity of the offence; whether the stature of the political leader impacts the apology act.
In the literature on apology research reviewed by us, we did not come across any typology that considers the position of the leader in the political structure and its impact on the apology expression. We attempt to analyze the Indian political apologies to see whether a correlation exists between the leader’s position and apology behaviour.
Data and methods
For the present study, 30 explicit political apologies (and other apology-related utterances such as demands for apology and refusals to apologize) reported by the Indian press between 1978 and 2019 are analyzed.9 As Lakoff (2001) has pointed out, the multifaceted nature of apologies means they are contributions to a larger discourse, and thus open to analysis from multiple perspectives, including the cognitive and interactive, formal and informal, narratology and sociology, to name but a few. A discursive approach to language as a social practice views the context in which it occurs as of central importance (Fairhurst, 2009; Potter, 2007; Potter and Wetherell, 1987; Wodak, 2001). All discourse approaches can be seen to study ‘who uses language, how, why and when’ (Van Dijk, 1997: 2). Hence discourse analysis is particularly suitable for our work.
While most studies on apology analysis have been based on simulated data there have been few investigations of naturally occurring discourse (Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1984; Frantz and Bennigson, 2005; Harris et al., 2006; Meier, 1998). The limitation of simulated data is that the responses of the subjects tend to conform to the researchers’ notions of what constitutes an apology. There is, therefore, more need for analyzes of naturally occurring discourse in varies cultural contexts. As studies on Indian public apology narratives are very limited, we attempt to analyze naturally occurring Indian public apologies collected using a systematic keyword sample in the online archives of the leading Indian newspapers and popular social media platforms.
The common communicative act of apologizing becomes complex because even very familiar linguistic forms can take on different connotations when delivered by different speakers, to different audiences, placed within new cultural contexts (Bae and Park, 2011; Lazare, 2004: 23). In the present study, we link the semantics of apology lexemes to the contextual interpretations to decode the Indian discourse of political apologies. Our interpretations of apologies and their connected narratives are inevitably informed by our ‘frame of reference’ (Heracleous, 2004: 176); ensuring that all data are affected by the constructions placed on them by the researcher (Alvesson and Deetz, 2000). Accordingly, hermeneutics (the art of interpreting texts) assumes that once new audiences (either the primary intended audience or the research community) encounter a given text, their interpretations may not coincide with the original intentions of the author (Ricoeur, 1983). The challenge then lies in going beyond the apparent explicit meanings in a text and to tease out the implicit, probable or possible meanings which are likely to be attached to it by different audiences.
Several researchers consider the severity of the offence as the starting point for categorizing apologies (Cohen, 2004; Deutschmann, 2003; Harris et al., 2006; Holmes, 1990; Lakoff, 2000; Thompson, 2000). Harris et al. (2006) in their work on British political apologies suggest that the most useful categorization of political apologies is the one ‘which relates to the relative “seriousness” (or magnitude) of the act involved’. Hence after analyzing the apology texts individually, we classified our apology narratives into three categories:
After grouping the apology texts, detailed discourse analysis of the apology utterances was made to demonstrate the various ways in which Indian political figures attempt to reduce their responsibility for incidents. The analysis of the sincerity of the India political apology pragmatics was based on Kampf’s (2009) work on tactics of non-apologies.
Discussion
The discussion of Indian political apology discourse may serve as a case study for examining and comparing patterns in political apologies globally.
Apologies for historical events
In this category, we included those apologies which were offered for a serious past event and for which there had been a long-standing demand for a public apology. Such past events include grave transgressions which deeply impacted the collective social, cultural and political sentiments. The political figure tendering the apology may not directly be responsible for the past event and may be acting on behalf of a party or as a representative of a position.
Political leaders making public apologies for a serious past offence is rare in Indian political discourse. Demands have been frequently made but leaders find creative ways to sidestep making an explicit apology (see Figure 1). In our data set, we had only one significant example of this category apology.
Apologies for historical events.
As early as 1978, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi10 is said to have apologized for the alleged excesses committed by her party members during the period of national emergency. The period of national emergency, from 1975 to 1977, has often come up for criticism as being undemocratic and dictatorial. Addressing a public rally in on 24 January 1978, Mrs Gandhi stated that even if those responsible for the mistakes and excesses were not willing to own up, she would take the ‘entire responsibility for the same’. However, she also believed that: ‘It (Emergency) was a dose of medicine to cure the disease’. Indian Express, a leading national newspaper reported, ‘Mrs Gandhi apologises in public’. From the excerpts available of her speech, it is not clear whether a valid apology was indeed made or was it a journalistic interpretation of the leader’s speech. As the entire text of Indira Gandhi’s speech could not be found, it is not possible for us to draw any conclusions on the same.
Another very sensitive issue discussed often as part of the Indian political rhetoric are the incidents of 1984 – the army storming the Golden Temple (the Sikh community’s holiest shrine), and the anti-Sikh riots that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. 3 Following the assassination of Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984, sudden violence broke out in northern India, mainly in Delhi, which specifically targeted the members of the Sikh community. The ruling party, Indian National Congress, was widely accused of not taking timely and strong measures to control the violence. Post the anti-Sikh riots, repeated demands were made by the Sikh community for an apology from the senior Congress leaders. For years the Congress leaders avoided making any statement on these incidents of 1984.
In 1998, Congress Party leader, Sonia Gandhi, 4 while addressing the party’s election campaign rally referred to the army entering the Golden Temple, in 1984. She said, ‘Ju kuchh June 6 ko hua, uska mujhe dukh hua’ (I am anguished by whatever happened on June 6). She added, ‘There is no use recalling what we have collectively lost. No words can balm that pain. Consolation from others always somehow sound hollow’ (Text #3). In December 1999, she made another mention of the 1984 events, saying – ‘I have earlier expressed my deep anguish and regrets for the events of 1984, which ought never to have happened’.
The leader acknowledged the pain of the victims without accepting responsibility for the events. The apology that was expected did not happen.
Finally, the apology, the clamour for which had been going on for almost two decades, was offered in 2005. Dr Manmohan Singh the Prime Minister who himself belonged to the Sikh community made an apology statement in Parliament on 12 August 2005, Dr Manmohan Singh said:
‘I have no hesitation in apologizing to the Sikh community. I apologize not only to the Sikh community but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution’. Dr Singh also added, ‘On behalf of our government, on behalf of the entire people of this country I bow my head in shame that such a thing took place’. (Text # 2)
This was the first explicit apology made by an Indian political leader for a grave past incident and was widely accepted by the media as a heartfelt apology. Robert O’Blake, Deputy Chief of Mission at the American Embassy in New Delhi, said that,
‘The PM’s singular act of political courage will be long-remembered as a momentous—almost Gandhian—moment of moral clarity in India’s long march to religious harmony’.
5
However, if we analyze the statement, the apology seems to sidestep naming the riots for what they were – gruesome killings of members of a particular religious community. The PM is clearly hesitant in naming the incident and uses vague expressions like – what took place in 1984; such a thing took place.
This is an apology tactic used to blur the offence (Bavelas, 2003; Kampf, 2009) in which ‘apologizers title transgressions with different names in order to reduce their responsibility’.
Also, no specific agent has been named as the cause of violence. Who were the perpetrators of the violence; who should take the blame? The apology does have an explicit Ifid but misses the second essential apology element – acceptance of responsibility. Manmohan Singh says that he is apologizing on ‘behalf of our government, on behalf of the entire people of this country’ and he is apologizing to ‘not only to the Sikh community but to the whole Indian nation’. Though the apology is intended to assuage the hurt of the Sikhs who had been affected by the violence, by making his apology all-encompassing he dilutes the intent and impact. The apology also does not make explicit that on whose behalf and in what capacity is he apologizing – as a political leader, as representative of his party or as a member of the Sikh community?
The PM expresses contrition but evades culpability for his party’s role in instigating the violence – an accusation that was repeatedly made by the opposition parties.
What makes this apology meaningful is that after two decades a leader of significant political power and status acknowledges the trauma faced by the Sikh community. The apology comes across more as a leader’s personal moral sorrow and guilt that such a thing took place rather than a public apology to assign agency and accept responsibility. Manmohan Singh’s apology was meant to assuage the sentiments of the Sikh community without accepting the role of his party in instigating the riots, which he cleverly did.
The demand for an apology from other senior leaders of the Congress party for the 1984 riots continued. In March 2014, during an interview, the then Congress Party’s Vice President, Rahul Gandhi was asked why he had hesitated to apologize for the riots which followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (also Rahul Gandhi’s grandmother) in 1984. Rahul Gandhi replied,
‘The Prime Minister of the UPA has apologised and the President of the Congress party (has) expressed regrets. I share their sentiments completely’. (Text #4)
When pressed further, he said, ‘Innocent people died in 1984 and innocent people dying is a horrible thing and should not happen’. (Text #4)
This is certainly not an apology because an apology cannot be ‘shared’. However, it illustrates Rahul Gandhi’s continued efforts to distance himself from accepting responsibility even when the PM who belonged to the same party had already apologized. He uses tactics to circumvent making a direct apology (I share their sentiments completely).
Similarly, the third most significant event for which apology was repeatedly demanded by political parties and several sections of the society was the 2002 anti-Muslim riots in the western Indian state of Gujarat in which Hindu mobs killed over 1000 Muslims. Mr Narendra Modi was the chief minister of Gujarat during the riots. During a television interview, just before the May 2004 general elections, Mr Modi stated the following:
That’s why I said in the (Gujarat) Assembly that if anybody has to be punished for what happened in Gujarat, it should be me I am also a human deep-down, but just because one incident happened during my governance, I know that I will have to carry the burden forever it (Gujarat riots) took place when I was in power so I can’t detach myself from it. (reproduced in The Indian Express, 17 September 2013). (Text # 5)
Nine years later, in another interview with the Reuters news agency on 12 July 2013, Mr Modi speaking about the violence, said that he would have felt ‘guilty’ over the violence ‘if I did something wrong’ but if ‘someone else is driving a car and we’re sitting behind, even then if a puppy comes under the wheel, will it be painful or not? Of course, it is’. ‘If I’m a chief minister or not, I’m a human being. If something bad happens anywhere, it is natural to be sad’, said Modi.
Mr Modi feels the ‘burden’ of the incident but is not apologetic. Any form of apology might be construed as an attribution of responsibility. Hence, he is not willing to apologize even for the violence that took place and the lives lost during his stewardship of the state.
The explanation for the reluctance of Indian politicians in making sincere public apologies can perhaps be found in Luke’s (1997) argument that ‘the politics of the public apology provide us with evidence of a ‘fear’ of the power of the word – that saying it may indeed make it so, in ways that cannot be accommodated by governments, politicians and political constituencies’ (p. 366) and that, in certain cases, public demands for an apology from a prominent politician may actually in effect be a demand ‘for a reconsideration and discursive reframing of history’.
There are few more examples of politicians offering apologies which refer to serious past offences, however, their apology is for their own lapse/misconduct rather than the event itself. For instance, when a Member of Parliament of the ruling party – BJP, Pragya Thakur, referred to Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse, as a ‘deshbhakt’ (patriot) she faced strong public backlash. In response, she said:
My intention was not to hurt anyone. If it has hurt someone, I apologise. (May 2019). (Text # 7)
Again, in November 2019, she made the same reference and once again promptly issued two statements of apology:
I apologise if I hurt people’s sentiments. (Text # 8)
Still, however, if someone was hurt, I express my regret and apologize. (Text # 9)
The BJP leader made the same controversial statement twice, received the media attention that she probably wanted and then promptly issued a brief apology to silence the dissenters. By repeating the transgression, the leader not only indicates a lack of remorse but also reveals an attitude where an apology is an easy communicative strategy to escape anger and criticism, devoid of moral culpability. Thus, this apology fails to meet an essential aspect – the moral quality of the act (see Luke, 1997; Robinson, 2004; Taft, 1999). As Taft (1999) states, a morally valid apology ‘acknowledges the existence of right and wrong and confirms that a norm of right behaviour has been broken’.
Secondly, the MP in all three statements of apology used the ‘if-clause’ to qualify the act of apologizing. The use of conditional illocutionary act (Searle and Vanderveken, 1985) is one of the most popular strategies applied by public figures when they are required to restore their image. The if-clause is seen as an attempt at hedging (Boncea, 2014), in which the act of apologizing becomes hypothetical, and can be done only if certain conditions are met. Thus, all three apology statements are effectively non-apologies (Kampf, 2008).
Similarly, under attack, for his insensitive 1984 riots remark, Sam Pitroda Chairman of Indian Overseas Congress apologized in May 2019-
I feel sorry that my remark was misrepresented, I apologise. (Text # 6)
In the above text, the writer feels sorry for misrepresentation of his remark and not his actions. This is a meta apology as described by Frandsen and Johansen (2010) wherein the ‘apologist does not apologize for what he or she may have done wrong because he or she does not have to, according to their sociocultural order – but for the negative effects that the act committed by the apologist may possibly have caused’.
Leaders who have larger than life persona do not wish to be seen as failing in their role. For individuals in a leadership role ‘apologizing may be perceived as a humiliating act which detracts from the apologizer’s symbolic power’ Kampf (2009: 2). As Liu (2010: 233) has noted ‘Mistakes and failures are weighed against not only the leader’s capabilities but also their character and moral integrity’. These individuals view the public apology as a bigger face threat than the transgression itself. Their ‘sorry’ could be perceived as an admission of culpability or contrition, resulting is tarnishing their personal image.
Thus, there is clear reluctance and discomfort in offering public apologies among Indian political leaders. As shown in Figure 1 below, the apology is either evaded or manipulated for past serious offences.
We argue that while suggesting any typology of political apologies not only the severity of the offence, but the stature of the political leader must also be considered as this affects the apology act.
Apologies for current serious events
We consider current serious offences as apology narratives that mainly involve different scandals that stem from politically incorrect statements (Lakoff, 2000), sex, misuse of money and power (Thompson, 2000) or violations of diplomatic codes in the international arena (Cohen, 2004).
A very interesting pattern observed in the ‘mid-range offence’ apologies is the use of ‘regret’ (noun and verb forms) as an apology Ifid. Out of the 12 apologies in the category that we analyzed, seven used regret.
For example, when a flight ban was imposed on a Member of Parliament for physically assaulting an employee of India’s national air carrier, he was forced to issue an apology wherein he wrote,
I write to convey my regrets for the unfortunate incident that took place on 23rd March 2017 in the Air India flight No. AI 852, seat No.1F. (Text # 10)
Initially, the MP remained defiant and refused to apologize to the airline staffer who was assaulted. Eventually, when a flight ban was imposed on him, he was forced to write an apology letter addressed to Union Civil Aviation minister. In the letter, it is seen that the explicit focus of regret is the outcome rather than the actions or decisions which might be assumed to have brought this about. The intent seems to be to suggest external rather than internal causation. Given that the writer only uses the noun regret, and no other apology Ifid, it can be implied that the writer feels sad about the incident but not necessarily repentant about his own actions. Moreover, he clearly does not believe that he is responsible for the way the event escalated (‘It could have been no one’s intention to have let the situation aggravate to the level that it eventually did’.)
Secondly, the noun form enables writers to distance themselves and minimize their responsibility for the offence (Harrison and Allton, 2013). Thus, a regret which is a kind of feeling, an expression of emotion on the part of the tenderer of the apology and stops short of any further liability.
There are six more apologies made by political leaders to avoid juridical action and subsequent heavy compensation. A series of defamation cases were filed against Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal 6 and his Deputy, Manish Sisodia.
During the Punjab Assembly election campaign in 2016, Kejriwal had repeatedly attacked the Punjab government and particularly former Punjab minister Bikram Singh Majithia for being hand in glove with the drug mafia in Punjab. Subsequently, Majithia filed a defamation case against Kejriwal. In March 2018, Kejriwal submitted a copy of the written apology to the court.
Sub: Retraction of allegations made against you and an offer of regret.
I hereby withdraw all my statements and allegations and apologise for the same.
. . .The damage caused to your esteem, the hurt caused to your family, friends, well-wishers, followers and the loss caused to you is regretted.
7
(Text # 11)
The regret that is offered is for the outcome (the damage caused to your esteem) and not for the action or behaviour of the transgressor (Kampf, 2009). In fact, in all the above contexts the apology giver does not even believe that a transgression has taken place and offers the apology just to end the legal wrangle. The use of passive form (regretted) helps to deflect responsibility through the omission of an agent; that is, nobody is identified as having caused the events.
Next, in the same month, Arvind Kejriwal wrote a second apology to Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari expressing regret over certain statements he made against the BJP leader, who had filed a defamation suit against him.
I made certain statements, without regard to its verifiability. which seem to have hurt you and therefore you have filed a defamation case against me. I have nothing personal against you. I regret the same.
The above letter was intended to be a general expression of sorrow and at the same time avoid the negative consequences attached to the realization of a felicitous apology.
All the above apology letters were penned by a political leader under threat of litigation and not out of remorse. The allegation retraction statements that followed were motivated by the need to get out of a tricky situation with the least possible damage.
Another interesting example is the apology offered by the then leader of the opposition party, Mr Rahul Gandhi. In response to a criminal contempt petition moved by a member of Parliament, Meenakshi Lekhi, in the Supreme court, Mr Gandhi accepted that he wrongfully attributed a phrase to the court. In an affidavit submitted to the court he said:
It is also clear that no court would ever do that and hence the unfortunate references (for which I express regret) to the court order and to the political slogan in juxtaposition the same breath in the heat of political campaigning ought not to be construed as suggesting that the court had given any finding or conclusion on that issue.
The Supreme Court bench as well as the other parties did not accept this as an apology and said that regret was not enough. The Chief Justice of India, Mr Ranjan Gogoi went to the extent of asking Mr Singhvi, who represented Mr Gandhi,
‘And what is this “regret” written inside brackets?’.
Mr Gandhi was asked to submit a full-fledged apology. The apology that followed in a few weeks was:
The Deponent (Gandhi) unconditionally apologizes for the wrongful attributions to the Supreme Court.
Here too the apologizer by not using a personal pronoun, distances himself from the incident.
Thus, in the Indian discourse, though the noun form of ‘regret’ is clearly not considered an apology Ifid, it is still used by several politicians when forced to offer an apology and is perceived as a word to avoid personal responsibility, where the speaker sees it as the least costly method of delivering an apology. All the above apologies were submitted to end a deadlock or avoid litigation.
A study of some more apologies in this category of offences shows that in most apology statements conjunction if is used:
I apologise if the nation feels that I have disrespected the prime minister. (Text # 18)
I apologise if I have hurt the prime minister. (Text # 18)
If PM Modi is upset with it, I am sorry. (Text # 18)
If my words have hurt her then I am sorry. (Text # 19)
As discussed earlier, using conditional illocutionary act (Searle and Vanderveken, 1985) is one of the most popular strategies applied by public figures (see Figure 2). The use of conjunction if in apology statements ‘undermine the claim that anyone was offended by their acts’ (Kampf, 2009). The use of conditional if-clause may also be used by the writers of apologies to save themselves from any future action which the offended parties may bring against them by disclaiming responsibility about the absoluteness of their statements in the first instance. The tenderer of such an apology contends that either he is uncertain whether he performed an offensive action or that he is uncertain of his moral culpability in the offensive action. Such an apology is often considered deceptive. While it is made to garner the goodwill and positive benefits of a full and meaningful apology, yet it falsely alleges that the author of the apology does not know whether the relevant act was one for which he was morally culpable.
Apologies for current serious events.
For example, in Text #20, Giriraj Singh, a Union Minister and a Member of Parliament from Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), in April 2015, made a remark loaded with racism. He said it was the colour of Sonia Gandhi’s skin that made her the Congress president.
‘If Rajiv Gandhi had married a Nigerian and if she wasn’t white skin, would Congress accept her as a leader?’ he said.
A massive outrage followed that saw opposition leaders slamming the BJP for the remarks. The minister issued a statement:
‘If Rahul Gandhi or Sonia Gandhi are hurt by my statements, I regret what I said. I don’t understand what I have said is against women. I never had such intentions’. (Text # 20)
The first condition of a valid apology is the admission of wrongdoing (Tavuchis, 1991). By doubting whether the transgression happened, the speaker communicates an unwillingness to acknowledge that a violation occurred. The if-clause also places the onus on the offended party to say whether the offence actually occurred or not (Battistella, 2014).
Another example of leaders manipulating their words while apologizing is the written apology tendered by the Governor of Tamil Nadu. In April 2018, while leaving a press meet the Governor, Banwarilal Purohit, patted the cheek of a senior lady journalist, Lakshmi Subramanian. This act was not received well by the public and the journalist fraternity. In response to the public outcry, the Governor tendered a written apology.
He wrote:
I wish to express my regret and apologies to assuage your sentiments that have been hurt. (Text # 17)
According to Kampf’s (2009) non-apology tactics, this is a non-performative apology as it expresses a desire to apologize (I wish to express my regret . . .) without actually apologizing.
In-Text #19 (given below) the apology has an explicit Ifid and also the apologizer promises forbearance but blurs the offence. It is not clear what the apology is for and what is the ‘mistake’ referred to.
I apologise to my party and the people’s organisations. Our party is in principle against encounters. We should not support encounters even in extraordinary cases. I promise to take care to ensure that such mistakes will not repeat. (Text # 22)
Another example of a senior leader avoiding using a direct apology Ifid and trying to mitigate a situation without having to take the blame for the impasse is the statement made by Arun Jaitley, the Finance Minister and the leader of Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Indian Parliament, which was reported in the media as a half-apology. The minister attempted to bring the government-Congress impasse over PM Narendra Modi’s comments about ex-PM Manmohan Singh and Pakistan to an end.
He said that the prime minister’s statements ‘did not question, nor meant to question the commitment to this nation of either former PM Manmohan Singh or Former VP Hamid Ansari. Any such perception is erroneous, we hold these leaders in high esteem, as well as their commitment to India’. (Text #21)
To conclude, regret is not an apology Ifid and carries no acceptance of responsibility or accountability. Thus, when leaders prefer regret (see Figure 2) over sorry or apologize, (the two most frequently used Ifids in explicit apologies – Harris et al., 2006; Robinson, 2004), the apology becomes an implicit explanation or even a justification of the offence and avoids taking responsibility which is a necessary condition for a valid apology.
Apology for minor offences
Offences which are seen a temporary embarrassment or discomfort for the political leader, and which do not create a serious threat come under the category of minor offences. We analyzed apologies under this category which ranged from apologies for minor factual slips in statements, social gaffes and insensitive remarks.
What probably, makes certain offences slight is that in the spectrum of political apologies these offences may be on the lower end in terms of the severity of damage and the number of individuals or communities impacted. The magnitude of the offence is lesser when the individual or community affected is small, or the political leader making the apology is not a very prominent leader or the offence has a very short span of media attention. So, in this category, we consider eleven apologies, which had localized, or topical impact and the only resolution needed was an apology. Even if the apology were not made, it would not result in serious image damage for the leader.
For example, Goa’s Ports Minister Michael Lobo apologized for his comments on ex-pat Goans, accusing them of poisoning the minds of local residents. Faced with criticism he said,
‘If they are hurt, I am saying sorry. But if you tell the truth also, one is targeted’. (Text # 29)
This apology upset only people from the tourist state of Goa and received media attention only for a day. The apology was not crafted very effectively, and the Minister does not seem to be convinced that he committed any mistake as he believes that ‘if you tell the truth also, one is targeted’. However, the Minister’s statement sufficed as an apology and no further demands were made by Goans holding OCIs (Overseas Citizenship of India).
Another case in point is the public apology from the IT and Municipal Minister of Telangana, KT Rama Rao to a road accident victim in Hyderabad who was reportedly stuck in a traffic jam when he was being taken to the hospital as there were traffic restrictions while the minister’s convoy was driving past. The Times of India headline read – ‘Green channel for KTR convoy, agony times for accident victim’.
Mr Rao took to Twitter and said,
‘I certainly hope it’s not true because that’s never been my way of working. If it’s true, my most sincere apologies to the gentleman and I also request @TelanganaDGP to ensure that instructions are passed on to policemen so that this is not repeated anywhere’. (Text # 23)
This conditional apology doubting the authenticity of the incident was also sufficient to placate sentiments.
Another observation from the apologies in this category was that senior and prominent leaders are more willing tender a felicitous apology for minor offences (see Figure 3). Compare the following two apologies by prominent political leaders:
Apologies for minor offences.
The first is by External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj for saying that Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed lakhs of ‘Indians’ in Nepal in May 2018. The fact was that Mr Modi addressed Nepali people, not Indians. When this was pointed out to her, she tweeted –
‘This was a mistake on my part. I sincerely apologise for this’. (Text # 27)
The second is by Women and Child Development Minister Maneka Gandhi in July 2018 –
‘I sincerely apologise for using the term “other ones” during the debate on the Trafficking of Persons (Prevention, Protection and Rehabilitation) Bill, 2018, in Lok Sabha. I did not “snigger,” I was embarrassed at my own lack of knowledge. I was not aware of the official terminology for the transgender community’. (Text # 28)
Thus, senior leaders make valid apologies for minor offences as the perceived loss of face and image damage is lesser. Moreover, by offering an apology for a not so serious offence, the leaders have an opportunity to project their ‘good self’ (Goffman, 1971) willing to take the blame even for a minor offence.
The use of conditional apologies is the preferred strategy to minimize responsibility for this category of offences too:
- I tender apology to the people of the community if his (Minister’s) remarks had hurt them.
- I am deeply saddened if people were hurt by this remark of mine.
- If they are hurt, I am saying sorry.
- Despite that, if the Chair feels that I had done a wrong, then I apologize for that.
Conclusion
The Indian political apology rhetoric is still in its nascent stages. As public apologies are a new phenomenon, Indian political actors are not sure of how this communicative strategy would be perceived within their ‘interpretive community’ (Kampf, 2008). They still are wary of tendering clean apologies devoid of manipulation and evasion. For serious historical events, the discomfort to apologize is evident. Explanations are made to placate emotions without making it seem like an apology at all. We only had one apology made for a serious past event made by a leader of national stature (apology by Dr Manmohan Singh for anti-Sikh riots). One plausible reason for this behaviour could be the high-power distance culture of India 8 with a score of 77 (Hofstede, 1983) where certain individuals have a socio-cultural role that is larger than life. They cannot be seen as failing in their role. The core purpose of the leaders’ discourse in cultures like India is to maintain the leaders face at all times. The cultural aspect of Indian apology discourse needs further study.
Based on our analysis of 30 apologies made in the Indian public discourse between 1978 and 2019, we conclude that Indian political actors still perceive apology as culpability and are hesitant to apologize especially in situations where a grave transgression has taken place. There is a greater willingness to apologize in matters where the perceived face threat to an individual or organization is not significant.
For serious current events, a public apology is used as a strategic communicative tool to avoid a messy situation; most often a juridical action. In such apologies, most commonly used apology Ifids are avoided (sorry and apologize) and regret is preferred. The attempt is to appear as having apologized without bearing the moral and social cost that comes with apologizing. Regret, especially the noun form helps to create external causation rather than an internal one for the offence (I write to convey my regrets; I regret the incident etc.).
For minor offences, what is observed in the Indian rhetoric is the trivialization of the apology. The entire act is trivialized and offered not out of contrition but merely to pacify emotions. The apologizer does not necessarily take responsibility for the act but meets a communicative expectation by apologizing. Taft (1999) who emphasized the moral nature of an apology believed that ‘Authentic apologetic discourse occurs in an environment where the participants respect apologetic discourse as a moral activity and resist subverting the discourse for strategic and instrumental purposes’. Most apologies in our corpus are offered for strategic purposes and seem devoid of contrition. Political leaders apologizing to escape legal actions, public anger, media criticism, are all apologies offered to end an unpleasant situation; not necessarily involving remorse on the part of the apologizer.
No response would be interpreted as a second lapse and the quickest and the least costly way to end the unpleasantness is via a brief apology statement. There is no guarantee that a repeat of the same episode will not happen (Pragya’s apology Text #7, 8 and 9). This perhaps is the Commodification of Apology, that Taft (1999) talks about in his work. Thus, the communicative function of Indian apologies is not to seek forgiveness or offer repair, but it is used as a strategic tool to control or mitigate the negative consequences of the trigger event. As not apologizing may only add to the transgression, apologizing has become the most accepted damage control communicative tool. A lot of sections get appeased just by receiving the apology.
Thirdly, we observe that the Indian cultural constructs continue to view an apology as a weakness. As Lazare (1995) and others note the greatest impediment to an apology is a pervasive cultural attitude that views apology as a weakness. Thus, leaders use several tactics to avoid offering a direct apology. As Lazare notes, the admission of wrongdoing often ‘collides with values that many take pride in upholding, ethical values like competency and honesty’. Thus, to this day Mr Modi refuses to apologize for the riots that took place in Gujarat under his leadership.
The fourth and perhaps the most interesting observation that emerged from our texts was the meaning associated with the apology lexemes – sorry and regret. According to Kampf (2008), ‘contextual factors, such as social power, social distance and the severity of the violation, influence the transgressor’s decision whether or not to apologize and in what words to convey the apology’. Sorry seems to evoke negative attributions, hence avoided by political leaders (only five sentences used sorry as an Ifid) and in all these five sentences non-apology markers (Kampf, 2009) are used to deflect personal responsibility. Contextually sorry translates to – I am/was wrong, or I committed a mistake. Regret achieves the purpose of acknowledging that a wrong happened without taking responsibility for that wrong. It gives the appearance of an apology without an actual acceptance of blame. ‘I regret’ translates to – I feel bad for what happened but what happened can be anyone’s fault.
Common to all categories of apologies in our corpus, was an evident lack of sincerity. There is the use of one or the other tactic for diminishing the amount of responsibility taken by the political leaders. The conditional if conjunction is the most frequently used such tactic. Political leaders feel compelled to ‘perform’ normative language behaviour, and therefore they come up with verbal/written expressions that meet moral standards in the public domain. This lack of sincerity in apology expressions by Indian political leaders is no different from the political apologies offered globally (Harris et al., 2006; Kampf, 2008).
Lastly, we would like to posit that the position of a leader in the political hierarchy should also be taken into consideration while classifying political apology narratives. Who is apologizing is as important as for what is she apologizing, in the political rhetoric. When a public apology is offered by a leader who is at the centre stage of political affairs, her apology is observed and interpreted very closely by the media and public. This, in turn, makes the leaders more cautious in the choice of apology expressions they use. Thus, when Mr Modi, the PM of India, speaks about the riots of 2002 he is acutely conscious of how his every word would be perceived by his multiple voters. The cost of the decision whether to apologize and how to apologize is high for the leader of his stature. If for a similar category offence, the apology is offered by a political actor, not very high in the political pyramid, the apology decision and design could be very different. For instance, Member of Parliament, Pragya Thakur, made an insensitive comment about the assassin of Mahatma Gandhi, twice. Both times, she issued a brief apology. For her, the decision to apologize or not was easier to make. Moreover, even when the apology offered was linguistically a non-apology, it was reported in the media as an apology, accepted as an apology and helped to bring the matter to a closure.
An interesting point to note is that there is no exact synonym for ‘sorry’ in the Hindi language. The common words associated with an apology in the Hindi language are – kshama (forgiveness), khed (regret), maafi (forgiveness), dukh (sorrow) (Kachru et al., 2008). As Indians are second-language speakers of English, it would be interesting to study in future how the Hindi apology lexemes influence the linguistic choices made in English language by Indian speakers of English.
This article is a contribution to a detailed analysis of the Indian repertoire on political apologies. It may help in providing a clear picture of variations in Indian apologetic responses and help in future to understand the nature of stylistic variation across cultures.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.