This has been the most media-glutted election in Indian memory, with the proliferation of television channels and digital, personal platforms. This year, as the Election Commission observers and micro-observers fan out across the country, sensitive constituencies are going to be video- tracked and watched.

The ubiquity of the camera means that every little infraction — from Rabri Devi’s smutty allegations to Lalu Yadav’s fighting words, from Mulayam Singh’s minatory manners to Jaswant Singh’s monetary largesse — is now captured for a country-wide audience. The Election Commission appears to have done more close reading and semiotic analysis of such clips than your average Film Studies 101. Also, for the first time, there is an abundance of “uncertified” personal images this election, on social networking sites, blogs and video-sharing sites. And yet, does the presence of many, many more cameras bring us any closer to the truth?

The camera’s level gaze certainly impacts electoral goings-on — it provides, in some measure, an arena where candidates are accountable for their positions. This is significant in a country without a strict sense of public record, where it has been standard practice to spin statements to suit different audiences. What was said during an election speech in a specific place and meant for a limited number of eyes and ears now screeches on screens all over the country. A gut sense of being watched presumably forces most candidates to regulate their own actions. Other times, this newfound visibility is thoroughly exploited — like Varun Gandhi’s stunning rise from the BJP’s pushy upstart to galvanic force and mascot, all on the basis of a single speech, played and replayed on TV, viewed several thousands of times on YouTube.

... contd.