I attended my first political meeting more than three decades ago. Thereafter I have been attending these meetings on and off. The arrangements at the meetings then were directly in proportion to the political importance of the speaker. The stage was a visibly a ramshackle arrangement barely able to accommodate a handful of persons. There were no arrangements for seating the audience. Beyond a certain distance from the stage the speakers voice would hardly be audible. Any ground big or small was good for holding a meeting.

There were no party volunteers herding people to attend the meetings, though some form of elementary propaganda was done, but mainly for informing people about the meeting. The meetings would start without much hassle and the main speaker would come on to address very fast. The mood of the public was not of listening with rapt attention but the joy of participating in the electoral process. 

I have attended many meetings but till recently never heard any speakers speak nasty words or hit below the belt. Opponents were treated with respect even when being criticized. The battle was ideological and not personal. It was also the period in the mid seventies and early eighties when many a veteran leader was finishing his political career and many times people went to see him for perhaps the last time. Remember there was no TV then.

I remember attending meetings of certain leaders who are today very big names where the crowd they addressed was not more than say 200 persons. Yet they wold speak with passion and move on to the next meeting. I remember walking away from a meeting because the speaker was shouting at the top of his voice and there were hardly a 100 persons. In course of time this politician was to aspire for the highest post in the country and is active today also. 

I remember seeing politicians like Raj Narain who looked like a wrestler and spoke in a rustic Hindi with Bhojpuri accent. The public simply loved to hear him though a majority may not agree with his views. Similarly other powerful speaker was Acharya Kripalini who spoke with a distinct Sindhi accent and would speak in a halting manner. He was respected by the crowds for he was a freedom fighter. Another powerful yet humourous speaker was Piloo Modi. He had a very wide girth and spoke with a Parsi accent and abandon. His speech was full of satire and crowds lapped them and cheered him on. S K Patil the boss of then Bombay Congress would speak in a low voice and ramble on and on. Mohan Dharia one of the three Young Turks of the then Congress was another powerful speaker worth listening.

I also attended once a meeting in Srinagar which was addressed by Sheikh Abdullah at the height of his popularity. He was not a good orator but spoke with considerable conviction. His speech was more of an educative fashion wherein he was as if teaching his audience rather than addressing them in a political manner. He could raise the passions of the crowds whenever he wanted to. 

One of the most charming meetings I attended was when a moderate crowd was addressed by the charming Rajmata Gayatri Devi in a town in Rajasthan. It was like she was coversing with the people rather than addressing them. Her beauty and poise were held in awe by all of us in the crowd and I remember thinking how could any one oppose her!

This was the same feeling I got listening to the diminutive Lal Bahadur Shastri who also could bond with the crowds instantly and they loved to hear him speak in a simple language. After the victory in 1965 war over Pakistan his mere appearance on the stage was enough to electrify the crowds. Alas he departed much before his time.

However it was Indira Gandhi who stole the show. By those days standards the stage used to be somewhat bigger and bit more decorative. Because of security arrangements lot many security personnel would be all over the meeting venue. Normally the attendance in her meetings would be very high. She was held in high esteem and many also saw her as a representative of the Nehru family which at that time was held in high esteem. She would speak in a shrill voice and also be more conversational in style. She would rarely be shouting in her addresses. The audience would respond to her appreciatively. However in the elections immediately after withdrawal of emergency I saw relatively thin crowd at her election rally.

The scene has dramatically changed today. A political meeting is now treated like an event management exercise. The center of attention is the stage. At a very high cost the stage is sought to be made as elaborate as possible. In fact many a time stages are based on a particular theme. Gone are the days when the audience would be sitting or standing on the bare ground. Now a days chairs or benches are hired in hundreds and thousands to make the audience comfortable. In some meetings I have heard food and cold drinks are served. The sound arrangements are very efficient and cover the whole ground. These days security arrangements are also very strict.

However it is unfortunate that the speeches have now become more personal than before. Attacking the opponent personally is now resorted to rather than attacking their ideology. This has introduced an element of crudeness in the public discourse. Today's speakers do not show restraint and resort to attacking communities, religions and castes with impunity. There is no question of an apology later on. They deny what they have said even when it is recorded and is being shown repeatedly on TV channels. Fear of loss of prestige is no longer an issue. The impression has gained ground that one has to take hard stands, speak tough, abuse if necessary and no need to retract if it is demanded later on. Almost all parties are resorting to these tactics, some more and some less. It seems there is a competition in how crude and nasty one can get.

Instead of engaging in political debates, the political leaders today are shooting sharp barbs at each other. These are lapped up by the TV channels. It seems many times that the leaders are speaking so harshly to increase the TRP's of the various channels. Such vitiated has become the political atmosphere that secularists are portrayed as communalists and vice versa.

Meetings are now more like a clinical affair, to be finished fast as the waiting helicopter will take the leader to another meeting. A leader is like a busy film star who has multiple shootings to attend in a day. Content and reasoning has taken a back seat. The easy thing to do is to attack the opponent. Many in the audience seem to like it. Meetings are now more of an 'organized and managed' affair. 

What a contrast to the earlier days when meetings were a more leisurely affair than the high pressure drams of today. But that is the change one has to accept.