Ideology and Identity: The Changing

Party Systems of India Pradeep K.

Chhibber
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/ideology-and-identity-the-changing-party-systems-of-i
ndia-pradeep-k-chhibber/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Ideology and Organization in Indian Politics: Growing

Polarization and the Decline of the Congress Party
(2009-19) Zoya Hasan

https://ebookmass.com/product/ideology-and-organization-in-
indian-politics-growing-polarization-and-the-decline-of-the-
congress-party-2009-19-zoya-hasan/

Pakistan Factor and the Competing Perspectives in

India: Party Centric View Raja Qaiser Ahmed

https://ebookmass.com/product/pakistan-factor-and-the-competing-
perspectives-in-india-party-centric-view-raja-qaiser-ahmed/

Anglo-Indian Identity: Past and Present, in India and

the Diaspora Robyn Andrews

https://ebookmass.com/product/anglo-indian-identity-past-and-
present-in-india-and-the-diaspora-robyn-andrews/

Origins of the Mass Party: dispossession and the party-

form in Mexico and Bolivia Ackerman

https://ebookmass.com/product/origins-of-the-mass-party-
dispossession-and-the-party-form-in-mexico-and-bolivia-ackerman/
Language as Identity in Colonial India: Policies and
Politics 1st Edition Papia Sengupta (Auth.)

https://ebookmass.com/product/language-as-identity-in-colonial-
india-policies-and-politics-1st-edition-papia-sengupta-auth/

Growth and Development Planning in India K. L. Datta

https://ebookmass.com/product/growth-and-development-planning-in-
india-k-l-datta/

One Hundred Years of Social Protection: The Changing

Social Question in Brazil, India, China, and South
Africa Lutz Leisering

https://ebookmass.com/product/one-hundred-years-of-social-
protection-the-changing-social-question-in-brazil-india-china-
and-south-africa-lutz-leisering/

eTextbook 978-1305117204 Systems Analysis and Design in

a Changing World

https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-1305117204-systems-
analysis-and-design-in-a-changing-world/

Power and Ideology in South African Translation: A

Social Systems Perspective Maricel Botha

https://ebookmass.com/product/power-and-ideology-in-south-
african-translation-a-social-systems-perspective-maricel-botha/
Ideology and Identity
Ideology and Identity
The Changing Party Systems of India

Pradeep K. Chhibber and Rahul Verma

1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers
the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education
by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University
Press in the UK and certain other countries.

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press

198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America.

© Oxford University Press 2018

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the
prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted
by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction
rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the
address above.

You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.

Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data

Names: Chhibber, Pradeep K., 1956– author. | Verma, Rahul, 1986– author.
Title: Ideology and identity : the changing party systems of India /
Pradeep K. Chhibber and Rahul Verma.
Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, 2018. |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018001733 (print) | LCCN 2018017062 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780190623890 (updf) | ISBN 9780190623906 (epub) |
ISBN 9780190623883 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780190623876 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: Political parties—India. | Party affiliation—India. |
Elections—India. | Political culture—India. | India—Politics and government—1947–
Classification: LCC JQ298.A1 (ebook) | LCC JQ298.A1 C484 2018 (print) | DDC 324.254—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2018001733

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Paperback printed by WebCom, Inc., Canada
Hardback printed by Bridgeport National Bindery, Inc., United States of America
CONTENTS

List of Tables vii

List of Figures ix
Acknowledgments xi

Introduction: Ideology in India’s Electoral Politics 1

1. State Formation and Ideological Conflict in Multiethnic Countries 8

2. Ideology, Identity, and the 2014 National Elections 35

3. Intellectual Lineages of the Politics of Statism and Recognition 54

4. Who Opposes Reservations and Why? 85

5. The Myth of Vote Buying in India 103

6. Transformational Leaders and Ideological Shifts 131

7. Transmitting Ideology 151

8. Statism, Recognition, and Party System Change in India 169

9. Ideological Challenges and the Decline of the Congress Party 207

viContents

10. The BJP and an Ideological Consolidation of the Right? 234

Conclusion: Ideas, Leaders, and Party Systems 256

Appendix 267
Bibliography 287
Index 315
TABLES

4.1 Experimental Research on Prejudice and Discrimination from India 91

4.2 Neighborhood Discrimination and Support for Reservations 93
4.3 Experimental Design of the UP Survey Experiment 97
5.1 Do Citizens Receive Gifts at Election Time? 114
5.2 What Drives Voters’ Choice in India? 115
5.3 Do Freebies Influence Vote Choice? Experimental Evidence
from Chennai 117
5.4 Whom Do Voters Credit for Welfare Schemes? (in %) 118
5.5 Can Politicians Monitor the Vote? 120
6.1 Does Ideology Make Vote Mobilizers? 148
7.1 Ideological Transmission in India 157
7.2 Who Influences a Respondents’ Vote Choice? 159
7.3 Extent of Religious Practice in India (in %) 163
8.1 Party Loyalty and Switching among Candidates 181
8.2 Party Loyalty among Voters in 2009 182
8.3 Party Loyalty among Voters in 2014 183
9.1 The Congress’s Performance in National Elections since 1977 209
9.2 The Congress Decline post-​2014 210
9.3 The Extent of Congress’s Decline 211
10.1 The BJP’s Performance in the Hindi Heartland 247
10.2 Consolidation of Social Forces in Favor of the BJP in
2014 247
10.3 The Rise of BJP since the 2014 Elections 248
A1 Datasets Used in the Book 267
B1 Questions from Surveys to Measure Ideological Stability 269
B2 Distribution of the Achieved Sample of NES 2014 Surveys 277
B3 Profile of the Achieved Sample of NES 2014 Surveys 279
C1a Prompts in Leadership Experiment 280
viiiTables

C1b Summary Profile of Leadership Experiment 280

C2a Sample Size of Neighborhood Experiment 281
C2b Sample Profile of Neighborhood Experiment 281
C3a Sample Size of Symbolic versus Policy Experiment 281
C3b Sample Profile of Symbolic versus Policy Experiment 282
C4a Prompts and Sample Size of UP Experiment 282
C4b Sample Profile of UP Experiment 283
C4c Prompts of UP Experiment in Detail 283
C4d UP Experiment -​Difference of Means Test 284
D1 Party Systems by State 285
FIGURES

2.1 Ideological Polarization among Social Groups in 2014 38

2.2 Ideological Polarization among Party Members and Voters in 2014 39
2.3 The BJP in 2014: An Ideological Consolidation of the Right? 43
2.4 The Making of Anti-​Congress Sentiments (in %) 45
2.5 Preference for Narendra Modi as India’s Next Prime Minister 46
2.6 Economic Liberalizers (Antistatist) and Support for Modi in 2014 48
2.7 Ideological Positions and Vote for the BJP in 2014 50
2.8 Ideological Polarization and Participation in Political Activities 51
4.1 Support for Reservation: Symbolic Prejudice or Policy Conflict? 95
4.2 Support for Dalit Reservations (in %) 98
4.3 Support for Muslim Reservations (in %) 98
4.4 Support for OBC Reservations (in %) 99
5.1 Public Sector Employment in India 1961–​2012 112
5.2 Voters Receiving Benefits in 2014 and 2009 113
5.3 Beneficiary Status and Vote for the Congress—​2014 and 2009 117
5.4 Benefits and Vote Share: Congress and Non-​Congress-​Ruled States 119
5.5 Mixed Evidence of Vote Buying 126
5.6 Mixed Evidence on Turnout Buying 128
5.7 The Relation between Voters and Parties: Ideology or Patronage? 129
6.1 Influence of Religious Leaders on Vote Choice 137
6.2 Follow the Leader: Leadership as Cue for Party and Ideology 141
6.3 Leadership, Ideology and Vote for BJP in 2014 143
6.4 The Modi Effect on Vote Mobilizers and Turnout in 2014 145
6.5 Leadership, Ideology, and Voter Mobilization 146
6.6 Thin Party Penetration in India 149
7.1 Ideological Polarization and Increased Canvassing during Elections 158
7.2 Media Exposure in India 160
7.3 The Liberal Elite and the Politics of Statism 166
xFigures

7.4 Channels of Ideological Transmission 167

8.1 Ideological Positions of Party Activists in 1971 and 1993 173
8.2 The Ideological Divide in 1967 174
8.3 The Ideological Divide in 1996 176
8.4 Distribution of Voters on the Two Ideological Scales in 2004
and 2009 177
8.5 The Ideological Divide in 2004 and 2009 178
8.6 The Ideological Divide in 2017 180
8.7 Ideological Polarization and Decline in the Number
of Late Deciders 183
8.8 Party System Change in India: A Stylized Representation 186
8.9 Shrinking of Congress’s Umbrella Coalition 199
8.10 Who Opposes the Distribution of Freebies? 203
8.11 Increasing Corruption and its Impact on the Legitimacy of Statism 204
9.1 The Great Decline—​Congress’s Vote Share since 1952 209
9.2 Number of Congress MLAs and BJP MLAs 1980–​2017 211
9.3 Difference between Hindu Nationalists and Hindu Traditionalists 215
9.4 Support of Hindu Traditionalists for the Congress in 2004 216
9.5 Types of Party Competition and the Weakening of Congress 219
9.6 Ideological Divide in Tamil Nadu in 2016 225
9.7 Types of Party Competition and Congress’s Shrinking Social Base 231
9.8 Types of Party Competition and Decline in Identification with
Congress 232
10.1 The BJP’s Worry: Delinking of Ideological Coalitions 251
10.2 Liberal Attitude among Indian Youth on Social Norms 252
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Indian party politics is ideological. Deep divisions on the appropriate role of the
state have influenced the changes in the Indian party system since independence.
The different ideas on whether the state should intervene in social norms and
whether it should single out disadvantaged groups for special treatment have
long historic lineages. These have had a lasting influence on the transitions in
the Indian party system from the one-​party-​dominant system to the more frag-
mented system, to the rise of the right in 2014.
We have accumulated multiple debts while writing this book. This is a data-​
intensive book, and our largest debt is to Lokniti—​the finest collection of dedi-
cated social scientists working in India and elsewhere without whom the data
that forms the basis of this book would never have been collected. We specifically
acknowledge Sanjay Kumar for generously sharing the Lokniti-​CSDS datasets
and Himanhsu Bhattacharya for entertaining data requests. The experimental
data that informs key elements of this book was provided to us by Dhananjai
Joshi of Cicero Associates. Not only did he incorporate experimental questions
in his surveys but also offered sage intellectual advice on appropriate question
wording for understanding how ideology informs electoral politics in India.
The second debt is to our colleagues at Berkeley and elsewhere, many of
whom had to suffer through the various incarnations of the argument. Anustubh
Agnihotri, Astitva Chopra, and Pranav Gupta went well beyond the call of duty.
They read the full manuscript and provided detailed comments that have defi-
nitely made this book better. Francesca Jensenius and Susan Ostermann heard
various presentations about the book and helped sharpen the claims we were
making. Susan coauthored a paper with us on conservative political theory in
India, parts of which are central to the claims we make in this book. Harsh Shah
has listened patiently about this book since the day we started thinking about it
and offered quiet but excellent advice.
xiiAcknowledgments

Our third debt is to Pratap Bhanu Mehta and Hilal Ahmed for pointing out
intellectual traditions that we were not aware of. Their suggestions have grounded
our arguments more deeply in Indian intellectual history. The fourth debt is to
many of our friends and colleagues who have encouraged us or provided criti-
cal feedback at particular points: Amit Ahuja, Leo Arriola, Ankita Barthwal,
Pranab Bardhan, Matt Baxter, Kanchan Chandra, Abhishek Choudhary,
Anirvan Choudhary, Poulomi Chakrabarti, Aaditya Dar, Christophe Jaffrelot,
Nirvikar Jassal, K. K. Kailash, Ken Kollman, Tanu Kumar, Tarun Kumar, Adnan
Naseemulah, Irfan Nooruddin, Suhas Palshikar, Rajkamal Singh, Shakti Sinha,
K. C. Suri, Pavithra Suryanarayan, Louise Tillin, Anshuman Tiwari, Ashutosh
Varshney, Gilles Verniers, and Yogendra Yadav.
As we were completing the book, Pranav Gupta’s help with bibliography was
critical. The graphs in this book are cleaner thanks to Aaditya Dar. We owe special
gratitude to him. Shakti Sinha, Director of the Nehru Memorial Museum and
Library (NMML), Delhi, helped us in locating the cover image from the archives.
The argument and data in the book were sharpened by the many presenta-
tions we made across the world and invitations from colleagues at various think
tanks and universities provided good venues for us to test our arguments. We
have presented this work at the Center for the Study of Developing Societies
(Sanjay Kumar), Jain University (Sandeep Shastri), Jindal Global University
(Satya Prateek), the London School of Economics (Mukulika Banerjee), Oxford
University (Maya Tudor), the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (Ashwani Kumar),
and the University of California at Santa Barbara (Amit Ahuja). The comments
and feedback during these presentations were very helpful. Finally, we thank the
opinion page editors at The Hindu and The Indian Express for publishing op-​eds
that gave us the chance to test our initial ideas in print.
The work has benefited enormously from the editorial work by Xavier Callahan
and Karen Fien. The comments of reviewers at Oxford University Press have defi-
nitely made this book better. The encouragement and stewardship of our editor,
David McBride, were most helpful.
Kaja, Anuka, and Neela provided Pradeep with daily joie de vivre while this
book was being written. Meenakshi and Meenu’s love and support carried Rahul
through this period. This is for all of them—​with love.
Ideology and Identity
Introduction
Ideology in India’s Electoral Politics

India’s first cabinet, seen in the cover photo of this book, seems ideologically
arrayed. Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister is flanked at one end by Dr. Bhimrao
Ambedkar, the architect of India’s constitution and a fervent advocate for the state
taking a leading role in addressing social inequities. Ambedkar argued in favor of
a modified form of state socialism in industry, and warned against the dangers of
Hindu majoritarianism and Muslim communalism. Seated at the opposite end is
Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, who went on to form the Bharatiya Jana Sangh—​
the precursor of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)—​a right-​wing nationalist party
that advocated for Hindu interests and a less interventionist state. Seated between
Dr. Ambedkar and Nehru are Rafi Ahmed Kidwai (an Islamic socialist), Sardar
Baldev Singh (representing the Sikhs), and Maulana Kalam Azad (a Muslim
leader who advocated secularism and socialism). The cabinet members seated
between Nehru and Mukherjee are Dr. Rajendra Prasad (India’s first President
and a Hindu traditionalist), Sardar Patel (an ardent nationalist), Dr. John Mathai
(who resigned from the cabinet because of the power delegated by Nehru to
an unelected planning commission), Jagjivan Ram (a dalit leader from Bihar),
and Rajkumari Amrit Kaur (a consistent voice for classic liberal ideas who did
2 I deology and I dentity

not want special recognition for any community in the Constituent Assembly
debates).
Contemporary Indian party politics is, however, commonly viewed as chaotic,
centered around leaders, corrupt, volatile, and nonideological in nature. What
accounts for this perception, and for the corollary view that elections in India are
rarely if ever genuine contests of ideas, policies, and visions? For one thing, the
institutions of the state have become subjugated to individual interests, as Indian
politicians have made and unmade coalitions, seemingly without regard to the
partners with whom they have aligned. For another, the notion that strong, stable
commitments to sets of ideas are absent from Indian party politics has been rein-
forced by the fragmentation of India’s party system over the past two decades, and
by the subsequent decline of the once dominant Indian National Congress (INC,
also known as the Congress Party and often simply called the Congress). And
yet this perception is also based in no small part on the standard paradigm for
what constitutes ideological debate, and on the somewhat uncritical application
of that paradigm to Indian party politics. That paradigm, memorably established
in western Europe over half a century ago, identifies the dimensions of ideologi-
cal space as those associated with party politics in western Europe, where the
rise of nation-​states coincided with conflict between labor and capital, between
the center and the periphery, between cities and rural areas, and between church
and state.
In this book, we claim that what constitutes the standard paradigm of state for-
mation is not entirely applicable to many multiethnic countries in the twentieth
century, a period when the process of state formation has been setting up very
different axes of conflict. In much more diverse countries, the most important
debates center on the extent to which the state should dominate society, regulate
social norms, and redistribute private property (in what we call the politics of stat-
ism) as well as on whether and how the state should accommodate the needs of
various marginalized groups and protect minority rights from assertive majori-
tarian tendencies (in what we call the politics of recognition). These two issues—​
the state’s role in transforming social traditions, and its role as accommodator of
various social groups—​we argue, constitute the dimensions of ideological space
as it exists in Indian party politics today.
In delineating the parameters of this ideological space, we challenge the domi-
nant view that party politics and elections in India are far removed from ideas.
Indeed, we see our identification of this ideological space as the book’s major
theoretical contribution, as we offer a new way to examine ideological conflict
in multiethnic societies. This innovation also affords insights into the changing
party systems of India, the rise of regional parties, the precipitous decline of the
Congress, and the success of the right-​wing BJP. In addition, our perspective illu-
minates the question of why leadership is so important in Indian politics. Using
Ideology in India’s Electoral Politics 3

survey data from the Indian National Election Studies (NES) and from smaller
but more focused surveys in addition to historical data from the Constituent
Assembly debates, we show that Indian electoral politics, as represented by politi-
cal parties, their members, and their voters, taking distinct positions on the two
themes—​statism and recognition—​that we identify as constituting the ideologi-
cal space of party politics in India.

OVERVIEW OF THE BOOK

In c­ hapter 1, we develop our argument that ideological divisions exist in India
around whether the state should regulate social norms and redistribute prop-
erty, and around whether and how the state should accommodate marginalized
groups and protect them from the majoritarian impulse among sections of the
Indian population. We argue that these divisions have their roots in the process of
state formation that occurred in India during the years around Independence. We
also claim that state formation in India took place in very different circumstances
from those that governed state formation in western Europe in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries. We show that debates around class conflict, along
with debates around divisions between church and state, cities and rural areas,
and the center and the periphery, were less central to the formation of the Indian
state than were the state’s role in development (especially with respect to chang-
ing social norms) and its efforts to accommodate marginalized groups. Engaging
with the literature on party systems as well as with the literature on state for-
mation, we develop the theoretical and historical basis for what we have already
described as the ideological conflict in Indian party politics on the politics of
statism and the politics of recognition. In addition, we claim that an ideologi-
cal divide should not merely be the province of a political elite and should also
be stable over time, which is to say that the ideological divide must be found in
partisan differences across decades and that there must be a mechanism by which
the ideas associated with this divide are transmitted from the elite to the voters.
In ­chapter 2, we present empirical evidence, drawn from the 2014 NES, show-
ing a clear ideological divide in India regarding the role of the state; that is, politi-
cal parties and their supporters can be distinguished by the positions they take
on the politics of statism and the politics of recognition, and the major social
groups in India also display a deep ideological cleavage along these two dimen-
sions. Nevertheless, in the 2014 national elections, the BJP registered a historic
victory by creating an unprecedented coalition of social groups. In other words,
the BJP, in addition to energizing its traditional base of voters (who oppose
the politics of recognition), built its 2014 winning coalition by also mobilizing
voters who wanted to limit the politics of statism, as we show on the basis of a
series of public opinion polls. How did the BJP manage to do that? The BJP was
4 I deology and I dentity

able to assemble this coalition at least in part because the Congress-​led United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) not only lacked a distinct ideological vision in the
years leading up to 2014 but also relied too much on the politics of patronage
as an electoral strategy. Another finding, consistent with our theoretical expec-
tations, is that voters who are ideologically engaged are more likely to partici-
pate in political activity around election time and are able to distinguish among
parties and coalitions when it comes to issues of governance and governmental
performance in general. Indian society and Indian voters have distinct ideas on
the role of the state regarding social issues, and this divide has direct and measur-
able consequences for electoral politics in India and for the assessment of the
government’s performance. Accordingly, we conclude that ideology is central to
the Indian party system.
In ­chapter 3, we make extensive use of political theory in the Indian subconti-
nent, and we refer to Constituent Assembly debates showing that the ideological
dimensions we have identified were reflected in the concerns of those who framed
the constitution of the Indian Republic. Using texts such as the Arthashastra and
many other sources, we show that the intellectual lineage of the debates around
the politics of statism is long and precedes party politics in India. We also show
that in Indian political thinking the dominant position has been for a limited state,
one that does not intervene in social norms and redistribute wealth (although,
this position was challenged by some of the leaders of the Indian independence
movement and the framers of the Indian constitution, most notably Ambedkar
and Jawaharlal Nehru). Further we also show that the politics of recognition, too,
has roots in the debates that took place among the founding fathers of modern
India (and Pakistan). There was a major divide in pre-​Independence India, and
the debates in the Constituent Assembly were over how different groups, espe-
cially historically marginalized groups like Dalits (the Scheduled Castes), the
Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Muslims, were to be incorporated into the Indian
state as full citizens. The consensus was that all citizens should be treated equally,
but there was much disagreement over how this goal was to be reached. The
Indian constitution settled on quotas for the SCs and the STs as the best way to
redress historic social inequities, and it expressly rejected quotas on the basis of
religion. Finally, we link the debate on quotas to majoritarian nationalism—​that
is, the demand from elements of the Hindu majority that in a democracy the will
of “the majority” (meaning, in this case, Hindus) should prevail. We show that
opposition to quotas came from two groups of people: opponents who believed
in liberal values, and who saw the nation-​state as obliged to treat everyone simi-
larly and not make special provisions for any group, and opponents who stressed
Hindu nationalism as central to the Indian state.
In ­chapter 4, we discuss whether opposition to the politics of recognition rep-
resents an actual ideological dimension of Indian politics or is instead largely a
Ideology in India’s Electoral Politics 5

reflection of upper-​caste Hindus’ prejudices against Muslims, Dalits, and India’s

tribal population. Using election surveys conducted in Delhi and a large survey
experiment conducted in Uttar Pradesh, we show that prejudice does play a
role in the attitudes of the upper castes toward reservations (that is, guaranteed
access to education, employment, and legislative representation for historically
marginalized groups) but that the upper castes also have specifically ideologi-
cal objections to the politics of recognition. Moreover, although we found that
upper-​caste attitudes toward reservations may be attributable to the fact that res-
ervations can influence the life chances of upper-​caste individuals, we also found
that support for reservations dropped among the members of other castes, too,
when they were prompted to consider that the life chances of others might be
hurt by reservations for SCs, Other Backward Classes (OBCs), and Muslims.
When it comes to contemporary Indian politics, a common refrain is that
India is a patronage-​based democracy where voters, middlemen, and politicians
conduct a lively exchange of votes for jobs, cash, or favors. This is the clientelism
thesis, and it has acquired such iconic status among political scientists that many
of them all but ignore the role of ideas in India’s competitive electoral politics. By
contrast, we show in ­chapter 5 that the claim of widespread clientelistic behavior
in Indian politics has very little empirical basis, and we conclude the chapter by
arguing that ideology, not patronage, is what influences Indian voters’ choices in
elections.
An extension of patronage and clientelism thesis argument has been to focus
on the role of transactional leaders, those who win support by helping citizens
to navigate the Indian state or by promising access to private or club goods. In
­chapter 6, we show that although such transactional leaders may continue to
retain their importance as a bridge between citizens and the state, major shifts
in Indian party politics have been largely driven by leaders who have succeded
in projecting themselves as transformational. Leaders such as Nehru, Indira
Gandhi, Jayalalitha, Mayawati, Lalu Prasad Yadav, Narendra Modi, and many
others who have offered clear and distinct ideological visions with respect to
the politics of statism and the politics of recognition have had great influence on
Indian politics. The presence of such leaders has acted as a heuristic device for
voters, a short cut to understand the ideological position of the party they rep-
resent. Using a survey experiment from Delhi, we show how ideology influences
Indian citizens’ perceptions of their leaders, who motivate the vote mobilizers to
work for their respective parties and in turn help increase turnout and a party’s
vote share.
The assertion that India’s political and intellectual elites have had distinct ideo-
logical visions is not enough to form the basis of a claim that the country’s party
politics has been shaped primarily by ideas. Therefore, in c­ hapter 7, we discuss
how the ideas carried by these elites are transmitted to voters. In absence of a
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Edward Rowland Sill, writing of the West for many years, wrote
delightful humor on other subjects as well.
EVE’s DAUGHTER
I waited in the little sunny room:
The cool breeze waved the window-lace at play,
The white rose on the porch was all in bloom,
And out upon the bay
I watched the wheeling sea-birds go and come.
“Such an old friend—she would not make me stay
While she bound up her hair.” I turned, and lo,
Danæ in her shower! and fit to slay
All a man’s hoarded prudence at a blow:
Gold hair, that streamed away
As round some nymph a sunlit fountain’s flow.
“She would not make me wait!”—but well I know
She took a good half-hour to loose and lay
Those locks in dazzling disarrangement so!

Newspaper humor of this period included the Danbury News Man,

Peck’s Bad Boy and Eli Perkins (Melville D. Landon).
Charles E. Carryl, though his books are called Juveniles, wrote
delicious nonsense, approaching nearer to Lewis Carroll than any
other American writer.
THE WALLOPING WINDOW-BLIND
A capital ship for an ocean trip
Was the “Walloping Window-blind”—
No gale that blew dismayed her crew
Or troubled the captain’s mind.
The man at the wheel was taught to feel
Contempt for the wildest blow,
And it often appeared, when the weather had cleared,
That he’d been in his bunk below.

The boatswain’s mate was very sedate,

Yet fond of amusement, too;
And he played hop-scotch with the starboard watch,
While the captain tickled the crew.
And the gunner we had was apparently mad,
For he sat on the after rail,
And fired salutes with the captain’s boots,
In the teeth of the booming gale.

The captain sat in a commodore’s hat

And dined in a royal way
On toasted pigs and pickles and figs
And gummery bread each day.
But the cook was Dutch and behaved as such:
For the food he gave the crew
Was a number of tons of hot-cross buns
Chopped up with sugar and glue.

And we all felt ill as mariners will,

On a diet that’s cheap and rude;
And we shivered and shook as we dipped the cook
In a tub of his gluesome food.
Then nautical pride we laid aside,
And we cast the vessel ashore
On the Gulliby Isles, where the Poohpooh smiles,
And the Anagazanders roar.

Composed of sand was that favored land,

And trimmed with cinnamon straws;
And pink and blue was the pleasing hue
Of the Tickletoeteaser’s claws.
And we sat on the edge of a sandy ledge
And shot at the whistling bee;
And the Binnacle-bats wore water-proof hats
As they danced in the sounding sea.

On rubagub bark, from dawn to dark,

We fed, till we all had grown
Uncommonly shrunk,—when a Chinese junk
Came by from the torriby zone.
She was stubby and square, but we didn’t much care,
And we cheerily put to sea;
And we left the crew of the junk to chew
The bark of the rubagub tree.

Robert Jones Burdette, known as the Burlington Hawkeye Man,

was one of the prototypes of our present day newspaper columnists.
 His witty verse and prose has lived, and he ranks with the
humorists of our land.
WHAT WILL WE DO?
What will we do when the good days come—
When the prima donna’s lips are dumb.
And the man who reads us his “little things”
Has lost his voice like the girl who sings;
When stilled is the breath of the cornet-man,
And the shrilling chords of the quartette clan;
When our neighbours’ children have lost their drums—
Oh, what will we do when the good time comes?
Oh, what will we do in that good, blithe time,
When the tramp will work—oh, thing sublime!
And the scornful dame who stands on your feet
Will “Thank you, sir,” for the proffered seat;
And the man you hire to work by the day,
Will allow you to do his work your way;
And the cook who trieth your appetite
Will steal no more than she thinks is right;
When the boy you hire will call you “Sir,”
Instead of “Say” and “Guverner”;
When the funny man is humorsome—
How can we stand the millennium?

“SOLDIER, REST!”
A Russian sailed over the blue Black Sea
Just when the war was growing hot,
And he shouted, “I’m Tjalikavakeree—
Karindabrolikanavandorot—
Schipkadirova—
Ivandiszstova—
Sanilik—
Danilik—
Varagobhot!”

A Turk was standing upon the shore

Right where the terrible Russian crossed;
And he cried, “Bismillah! I’m Abd el Kor—
Bazaroukilgonautoskobrosk—
Getzinpravadi—
Kilgekosladji—
 Grivido—
Blivido—
Jenikodosk!”

So they stood like brave men, long and well,

And they called each other their proper names,
Till the lockjaw seized them, and where they fell
They buried them both by the Irdosholames—
Kalatalustchuk—
Mischaribustchup—
Bulgari—
Dulgari—
Sagharimainz.

Marietta Holley wrote with shrewd observation and much homely

common sense. Her books about Betsey Bobbet and Josiah Allen’s
Wife were best sellers in the seventies or thereabouts.
Like many of her contemporaries for her fun she depended largely
on misspelling.

Here Betsey interrupted me. “The deah editah of the Augah has
no need to advise me to read Tuppah, for he is indeed my most
favorite authar. You have devorhed him haven’t you, Josiah Allen’s
wife?”
“Devoured who?” says I, in a tone pretty near as cold as a cold
icicle.
“Mahtan Fahqueah Tuppah, that sweet authar,” says she.
“No, mam,” says I shortly; “I hain’t devoured Martin Farquhar
Tupper, nor no other man. I hain’t a cannibal.”
“Oh, you understand me not; I meant, devorhed his sweet tender
lines.”
“I hain’t devoured his tenderlines, nor nothin’ relatin’ to him,” and I
made a motion to lay the paper down, but Betsey urged me to go on,
and so I read:
 GUSHINGS OF A TENDAH SOUL
“‘Oh, let who will,
Oh, let who can,
Be tied onto
A horrid male man.’

“Thus said I ere

My tendah heart was touched;
Thus said I ere
My tendah feelings gushed.

“But oh, a change

Hath swept ore me,
As billows sweep
The ‘deep blue sea.’

“A voice, a noble form

One day I saw;
An arrow flew,
My heart is nearly raw.

“His first pardner lies

Beneath the turf;
He is wondering now
In sorrow’s briny surf.

“Two twins, the little

Death cherub creechahs,
Now wipe the teahs
From off his classic feachahs.

“Oh, sweet lot, worthy

Angel arisen,
To wipe teahs
From eyes like hisen.”

“What think you of it?” says she, as I finished readin’.

I looked right at her ’most a minute with a majestic look. In spite of
her false curls and her new white ivory teeth, she is a humbly critter.
I looked at her silently while she sot and twisted her long yellow
bunnet-strings, and then I spoke out. “Hain’t the editor of the Augur a
widower with a pair of twins?”
 “Yes,” says she, with a happy look.
Then says I, “If the man hain’t a fool, he’ll think you are one....
There is a time for everything, and the time to hunt affinity is before
you are married; married folks hain’t no right to hunt it,” says I
sternly.
“We kindred soles soah above such petty feelin’s—we soah far
above them.”
“I hain’t much of a soarer,” says I, “and I don’t pretend to be; and
to tell you the truth,” says I, “I am glad I hain’t.” “The editah of the
Augah,” says she, and she grasped the paper offen the stand and
folded it up, and presented it at me like a spear, “the editah of this
paper is a kindred sole; he appreciates me, he undahstands me, and
will not our names in the pages of this very papah go down to
posterety togathah?”
“Then,” says I, drove out of all patience with her, “I wish you was
there now, both of you. I wish,” says I, lookin’ fixedly on her, “I wish
you was both of you in posterity now.”
—My Opinions and Betsey Bobbet’s.
George Thomas Lanigan wrote clever verse, of which The
Akhoond of Swat is among the best.
A THRENODY
“The Akhoond of Swat is dead,”—London Papers of January 22, 1878.

What, what, what,

What’s the news from Swat?
Sad news,
Bad news,
Cometh by cable led
Through the Indian Ocean’s bed,
Through the Persian Gulf, the Red
Sea and the Med-
Iterranean: he’s dead,—
The Akhoond is dead!

For the Akhoond I mourn.

Who wouldn’t?
He strove to disregard the message stern,
 But he Akhoondn’t.

Dead, dead, dead;

(Sorrow, Swats!)
Swats wha hae wi’ Akhoond bled,
Swats wham he hath often led
Onward to a gory bed,
Or to victory,
As the case might be,—
Sorrow, Swats!
Tears shed,
Shed tears like water,
Your great Akhoond is dead!
That’s Swat’s the matter!

Mourn, city of Swat,

Your great Akhoond is not,
But laid ’mid worms to rot,—
His mortal part alone: his soul was caught
(Because he was a good Akhoond)
Up to the bosom of Mahound.
Though earthly walls his frame surround
(Forever hallowed be the ground),
And sceptics mock the lowly mound
And say, “He’s now of no Akhoond!”
His soul is in the skies,—
The azure skies that bend above his loved metropolis of Swat;
He sees, with larger, other eyes,
Athwart all earthly mysteries;
He knows what’s Swat.

Let Swat bury the great Akhoond

With a noise of mourning and of lamentation!
Let Swat bury the great Akhoond
With the noise of the mourning of the Swattish nation!
Fallen is at length
Its tower of strength.
Its sun is dimmed ere it had nooned,
Dead lies the great Akhoond,
The great Akhoond of Swat,
Is not!
 Lanigan also wrote Fables, which he signed G. Washington
Æsop.

THE OSTRICH AND THE HEN

An Ostrich and a Hen chanced to occupy adjacent apartments,

and the former complained loudly that her rest was disturbed by the
cackling of her humble neighbor. “Why is it,” she finally asked the
Hen, “that you make such an intolerable noise?” The Hen replied,
“Because I have laid an egg.” “Oh, no,” said the Ostrich, with a
superior smile, “it is because you are a Hen and don’t know any
better.”
Moral.—The moral of the foregoing is not very clear, but it
contains some reference to the Agitation for Female Suffrage.

THE KIND-HEARTED SHE-ELEPHANT

A kind-hearted She-Elephant, while walking through the Jungle

where the Spicy Breezes blow soft o’er Ceylon’s Isle, heedlessly set
foot upon a Partridge, which she crushed to death within a few
inches of the Nest containing its Callow Brood. “Poor little things!”
said the generous Mammoth. “I have been a Mother myself, and my
affection shall atone for the Fatal Consequences of my neglect.” So
saying, she sat down upon the Orphaned Birds.
Moral.—The above Teaches us What Home is Without a Mother;
also, that it is not every Person who should be entrusted with the
Care of an Orphan Asylum.

James Jeffrey Roche wrote delightful verse, which is properly

classed as Vers de Société, but which shows more wit than much of
that type.
THE V-A-S-E
From the madding crowd they stand apart,
The maidens four and the Work of Art;
And none might tell, from sight alone,
In which had Culture ripest grown—

The Gotham Million, fair to see,

The Philadelphia Pedigree,

The Boston Mind of azure hue,

Or the soulful Soul from Kalamazoo—

For all loved Art in a seemly way,

With an earnest soul and a capital A.

* * * * *

Long they worshiped; but no one broke

The sacred stillness, until up spoke

The Western one from the nameless place,

Who blushing said, “What a lovely vace!”

Over three faces a sad smile flew,

And they edged away from Kalamazoo.

But Gotham’s haughty soul was stirred

To crush the stranger with one small word.

Deftly hiding reproof in praise,

She cries, “’Tis, indeed, a lovely vaze!”

But brief her unworthy triumph when

The lofty one from the house of Penn,

With the consciousness of two grandpapas,

Exclaims, “It is quite a lovely vahs!”

And glances round with an anxious thrill,

Awaiting the word of Beacon Hill.

But the Boston maid smiles courteouslee,

And gently murmurs, “Oh, pardon me!

“I did not catch your remark, because

I was so entranced with that lovely vaws!”

Dies erit praegelida

 Sinistra quum Bostonia.

A BOSTON LULLABY
Baby’s brain is tired of thinking
On the Wherefore and the Whence;
Baby’s precious eyes are blinking
With incipient somnolence.

Little hands are weary turning

Heavy leaves of lexicon;
Little nose is fretted learning
How to keep its glasses on.

Baby knows the laws of nature

Are beneficent and wise;
His medulla oblongata
Bids my darling close his eyes,

And his pneumogastrics tell him

Quietude is always best
When his little cerebellum
Needs recuperative rest.

Baby must have relaxation,

Let the world go wrong or right.
Sleep, my darling, leave Creation
To its chances for the night.

Joel Chandler Harris is in a class by himself. Although he wrote

other things, he will always be remembered for the immortal Uncle
Remus stories. The Tar Baby and Brer Rabbit are known and loved
of all American families. A short bit is given from:

THE SAD END OF BRER WOLF

“Bimeby, one day w’en Brer Rabbit wuz fixin’ fer ter call on Miss
Coon, he heered a monst’us fussen clatter up de big road, en ’mos’
’fo’ he could fix his years fer ter lissen, Brer Wolf run in de do’. De
little Rabbits dey went inter dere hole in de cellar, dey did, like
blowin’ out a cannle. Brer Wolf wuz far’ly kiver’d wid mud, en mighty
nigh outer win’.
 “‘Oh, do pray save me, Brer Rabbit!’ sez Brer Wolf, sezee. ‘Do,
please, Brer Rabbit! de dogs is atter me, en dey’ll t’ar me up. Don’t
you year um comin’? Oh, do please save me Brer Rabbit! Hide me
some’rs whar de dogs won’t git me.’
“No quicker sed dan done.
“‘Jump in dat big chist dar, Brer Wolf,’ sez Brer Rabbit sezee;
‘jump in dar en make yo’se’f at home.’
“In jump Brer Wolf, down come de lid, en inter de hasp went de
hook, en dar Mr. Wolf wuz. Den Brer Rabbit went ter de lookin’-
glass, he did, en wink at hisse’f, en den he draw’d de rockin’-cheer in
front er de fier, he did, en tuck a big chaw terbarker.”
“Tobacco, Uncle Remus?” asked the little boy incredulously.
“Rabbit terbarker, honey. You know dis yer life ev’lastin’ w’at Miss
Sally puts ’mong de cloze in de trunk; well, dat’s rabbit terbarker.
Den Brer Rabbit sot dar long time, he did, turnin’ his mine over en
wukken’ his thinkin’ masheen. Bimeby he got up, en sorter stir ’roun’.
Den Brer Wolf open up:
“‘Is de dogs all gone, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘Seem like I hear one un um smellin’ roun’ de chimbly cornder
des now.’
“Den Brer Rabbit git de kittle en fill it full er water, en put it on de
fier.
“‘W’at you doin’ now, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘I’m fixin’ fer ter make you a nice cup er tea, Brer Wolf.’
“Den Brer Rabbit went ter de cubberd, en git de gimlet, en
commence for ter bo’ little holes in de chist-lid.
“‘W’at you doin’ now, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘I’m a-bo’in’ little holes so you kin get bref, Brer Wolf.’
“Den Brer Rabbit went out en git some mo’ wood, en fling it on de
fier.
 “‘W’at you doin’ now, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘I’m a-chunkin’ up de fier so you won’t git cole, Brer Wolf.’
“Den Brer Rabbit went down inter de cellar en fotch out all his
chilluns.
“‘W’at you doin’ now, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘I’m a-tellin’ my chilluns w’at a nice man you is, Brer Wolf.’
“En de chilluns, dey had ter put der han’s on her moufs fer ter
keep fum laffin’. Den Brer Rabbit he got de kittle en commenced fer
to po’ de hot water on de chist-lid.
“‘W’at dat I hear, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘You hear de win’ a-blowin’, Brer Wolf.’
“Den de water begin fer ter sif’ thoo.
“‘W’at dat I feel, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘You feels de fleas a-bitin’, Brer Wolf.’
“‘Dey er bitin’ mighty hard, Brer Rabbit.’
“‘Tu’n over on de udder side, Brer Wolf.’
“‘W’at dat I feel now, Brer Rabbit?’
“‘Still you feels de fleas, Brer Wolf.’
“‘Dey er eatin’ me up, Brer Rabbit,’ en dem wuz de las’ words er
Brer Wolf, kase de scaldin’ water done de bizness.
“Den Brer Rabbit call in his nabers, he did, en dey hilt a reg’lar
juberlee; en ef you go ter Brer Rabbit’s house right now, I dunno but
w’at you’ll fine Brer Wolf’s hide hangin’ in de back-po’ch, en all
bekaze he wuz so bizzy wid udder fo’kses doin’s.”
—From Uncle Remus, His Songs and His Sayings.
Eugene Field, beside being the greatest of newspaper
paragraphers was a versatile writer of all sorts, from Christmas
Hymns to the most flippant themes.
 His own personal charm imbued his work, and whether writing
Echoes of Horace or appalling tales of Little Willie, he was always
original and truly funny.
THE DINKEY-BIRD
In an ocean, ’way out yonder
(As all sapient people know),
Is the land of Wonder-Wander,
Whither children love to go;
It’s their playing, romping, swinging,
That give great joy to me
While the Dinkey-Bird goes singing
In the Amfalula-tree!

There the gum-drops grow like cherries,

And taffy’s thick as peas,—
Caramels you pick like berries
When, and where, and how you please:
Big red sugar-plums are clinging
To the cliffs beside that sea
Where the Dinkey-Bird is singing
In the Amfalula-tree.

So when children shout and scamper

And make merry all the day,
When there’s naught to put a damper
To the ardor of their play;
When I hear their laughter ringing,
Then I’m sure as sure can be
That the Dinkey-Bird is singing
In the Amfalula-tree.

For the Dinkey-Bird’s bravuras

And staccatos are so sweet—
His roulades, appogiaturas,
And robustos so complete,
That the youth of every nation—
Be they near or far away—
Have especial delectation
In that gladsome roundelay.

Their eyes grow bright and brighter,

Their lungs begin to crow,
Their hearts get light and lighter,
And their cheeks are all aglow;
For an echo cometh bringing
The news to all and me.
That the Dinkey-Bird is singing
In the Amfalula-tree.

I’m sure you’d like to go there

To see your feathered friend—
And so many goodies grow there
You would like to comprehend!
Speed, little dreams, your winging
To that land across the sea
Where the Dinkey-Bird is singing
In the Amfalula-Tree!

THE LITTLE PEACH

A little peach in the orchard grew,
A little peach of emerald hue:
Warmed by the sun, and wet by the dew,
It grew.

One day, walking the orchard through,

That little peach dawned on the view
Of Johnny Jones and his sister Sue—
Those two.

Up at the peach a club they threw:

Down from the limb on which it grew,
Fell the little peach of emerald hue—
Too true!

John took a bite, and Sue took a chew,

And then the trouble began to brew,—
Trouble the doctor couldn’t subdue,—
Paregoric too.

Under the turf where the daisies grew,

They planted John and his sister Sue;
And their little souls to the angels flew—
Boo-hoo!

But what of the peach of emerald hue,

Warmed by the sun, and wet by the dew?
Ah, well! its mission on earth is through—
Adieu!

GOOD JAMES AND NAUGHTY REGINALD

Once upon a Time there was a Bad boy whose Name was
Reginald and there was a Good boy whose Name was James.
Reginald would go Fishing when his Mamma told him Not to, and he
Cut off the Cat’s Tail with the Bread Knife one Day, and then told
Mamma the Baby had Driven it in with the Rolling Pin, which was a
Lie. James was always Obedient, and when his Mamma told him not
to Help an old Blind Man across the street or Go into a Dark Room
where the Boogies were, he always Did What She said. That is why
they Called him Good James. Well, by and by, along Came
Christmas. Mamma said, You have been so Bad, my son Reginald,
you will not Get any Presents from Santa Claus this Year; but you,
my Son James, will get Oodles of Presents, because you have Been
Good. Will you Believe it, Children, that Bad boy Reginald said he
didn’t Care a Darn and he Kicked three Feet of Veneering off the
Piano just for Meanness. Poor James was so sorry for Reginald that
he cried for Half an Hour after he Went to Bed that Night. Reginald
lay wide Awake until he saw James was Asleep and then he Said if
these people think they can Fool me, they are Mistaken. Just then
Santa Claus came down the Chimney. He had lots of Pretty Toys in a
Sack on his Back. Reginald shut his Eyes and Pretended to be
Asleep. Then Santa Claus Said, Reginald is Bad and I will not Put
any nice Things in his Stocking. But as for you, James, I will Fill your
Stocking Plumb full of Toys, because You are Good. So Santa Claus
went to Work and Put, Oh! heaps and Heaps of Goodies in James’
stocking but not a Sign of a Thing in Reginald’s stocking. And then
he Laughed to himself and Said, I guess Reginald will be sorry to-
morrow because he Was so Bad. As he said this he Crawled up the
chimney and rode off in his Sleigh. Now you can Bet your Boots
Reginald was no Spring Chicken. He just Got right Straight out of
Bed and changed all those Toys and Truck from James’ stocking into
his own. Santa Claus will Have to Sit up all Night, said He, when he
Expects to get away with my Baggage. The next morning James got
out of Bed and when He had Said his Prayers he Limped over to his
Stocking, licking his chops and Carrying his Head as High as a Bull
going through a Brush Fence. But when he found there was Nothing
in his stocking and that Reginald’s Stocking was as Full as Papa Is
when he comes home Late from the Office, he Sat down on the
Floor and began to Wonder why on Earth he had Been such a Good
boy. Reginald spent a Happy Christmas and James was very
Miserable. After all, Children, it Pays to be Bad, so Long as you
Combine Intellect with Crime.
—From the Tribune Primer.
Edgar Wilson Nye, known commonly as Bill Nye, wrote in prose
and also made a success on the lecture platform, as well as in his
newspaper work.

THE GARDEN HOSE

It is now the proper time for the cross-eyed woman to fool with the
garden hose. I have faced death in almost every form, and I do not
know what fear is, but when a woman with one eye gazing into the
zodiac and the other peering into the middle of next week, and
wearing one of those floppy sun-bonnets, picks up the nozzle of the
garden hose and turns on the full force of the institution, I fly wildly to
the Mountains of Hepsidam.
Water won’t hurt any one, of course, if care is used not to forget
and drink any of it, but it is this horrible suspense and uncertainty
about facing the nozzle of a garden hose in the hands of a cross-
eyed woman that unnerves and paralyzes me.
Instantaneous death is nothing to me. I am as cool and collected
where leaden rain and iron hail are thickest as I would be in my own
office writing the obituary of the man who steals my jokes. But I hate
to be drowned slowly in my good clothes and on dry land, and have
my dying gaze rest on a woman whose ravishing beauty would drive
a narrow-gage mule into convulsions and make him hate himself
t’death.
 Richard Kendall Munkittrick wielded a graceful pen and his verses
show an original wit.
 WHAT’S IN A NAME?
In letters large upon a frame,
That visitors might see,
The painter placed his humble name,
O’Callaghan McGee.

And from Beersheba unto Dan,

The critics with a nod
Exclaimed: “This painting Irishman
Adores his native sod.

“His stout heart’s patriotic flame

There’s naught on earth can quell
He takes no wild romantic name
To make his pictures sell!”

Then poets praised in sonnets neat

His stroke so bold and free;
No parlor wall was thought complete
That hadn’t a McGee.

All patriots before McGee

Threw lavishly their gold;
His works in the Academy
Were very quickly sold.

His “Digging Clams at Barnegat,”

His “When the Morning Smiled,”
His “Seven Miles from Ararat,”
His “Portrait of a Child,”

Were purchased in a single day

And lauded as divine.

* * * * *

That night as in his atelier

The artist sipped his wine,

And looked upon his gilded frames,

He grinned from ear to ear:
“They little think my real name’s
V. Stuyvesant De Vere!”
 Edward Waterman Townsend, varied the time-honored tradition of
misspelling by introducing an example of Bowery slang. His Chimmie
Fadden took a firm hold on the public notice and the vogue lasted for
many years.

“Naw, I ain’t stringin’ ye. ‘Is Whiskers is de loidy’s fadder. Sure!

“’E comes ter me room wid der loidy, ’is Whiskers does, an’ he
says, says ’e, ‘Is dis Chimmie Fadden?’ says ’e.
“‘Yer dead on,’ says I.
“‘Wot t’ell?’ ’e says, turning to ’is daughter. ‘Wot does de young
man say?’ ’e says.
“Den de loidy she kinder smiled—say, ye otter seed ’er smile. Say,
it’s outter sight. Dat’s right. Well, she says: ‘I t’ink I understan’
Chimmie’s langwudge,’ she says. ‘‘E means ’e’s de kid youse lookin’
fer. ’E’s de very mug.’
“Dat’s wot she says; somet’n like dat, only a felly can’t just
remember ’er langwudge.
“Den ’is Whiskers gives me a song an’ dance ’bout me bein’ a
brave young man fer t’umpin’ der mug wot insulted ’is daughter, an’
’bout ’is heart bein’ all broke dat ’is daughter should be doin’
missioner work in de slums.
“I says, ‘Wot tell’; but der loidy, she says, ‘Chimmie,’ says she, ‘me
fadder needs a footman,’ she says, ‘an’ I taut you’d be de very mug
fer de job,’ says she. See?
“Say, I was all broke up, an’ couldn’t say nottin’, fer ’is Whiskers
was so solemn. See?
“‘Wot’s yer lay now?’ says ’is Whiskers, or somet’n’ like dat.
“Say, I could ’ave give ’im a string ’bout me bein’ a hard-workin’
boy, but I knowed der loidy was dead on ter me, so I only says, says
I, ‘Wot t’ell?’ says I, like dat, ‘Wot t’ell?’ See?
 “Den ’is Whiskers was kinder paralized like, an’ ’e turns to ’is
daughter an’ ’e says—dese is ’is very words—’e says:
“Really, Fannie,’ ’e says, ‘really, Fannie, you must enterpret dis
young man’s langwudge.’
“Den she laffs an’ says, says she:
“Chimmie is a good boy if ’e only had a chance,’ she says.
“Den ’is Whiskers ’e says, ‘I dare say,’ like dat. See? ‘I dare say.’
See? Say, did ye ever ’ear words like dem? Say, I was fer tellin’ ’is
Whiskers ter git t’ell outter dat, only fer der loidy. See?
“Well, den we all give each odder a song an’ dance, an’ de end
was I was took fer a footman. See? Tiger, ye say? Naw, dey don’t
call me no tiger.
“Say, wouldn’t de gang on de Bow’ry be paralized if dey seed me
in dis harness? Ain’t it great? Sure! Wot am I doin’? Well, I’m doin’
pretty well. I had ter t’ump a felly dey calls de butler de first night I
was dere for callin’ me a heathen. See? Say, dere’s a kid in de
house wot opens de front door when youse ring de bell, an’ I win all
’is boodle de second night I was dere showin’ ’im how ter play
Crusoe. Say, it’s a dead easy game, but de loidy she axed me not to
bunco de farmers—dey’s all farmers up in dat house, dead farmers
—so I leaves ’em alone. ’Scuse me now, dat’s me loidy comin’ outter
der shop. I opens de door of de carriage an’ she says, ‘Home,
Chames.’ Den I jumps on de box an’ strings de driver. Say, ’e’s a
farmer, too. I’ll tell you some more ’bout de game next time. So long.”
—Chimmie Fadden.
Sam Walter Foss added to his misspelling a certain understanding
of human nature and produced many mildly satirical verses.
A PHILOSOPHER
Zack Bumstead useter flosserfize
About the ocean and the skies,
An’ gab an’ gas f’um morn till noon
About the other side the moon;
An’ ’bout the natur of the place
Ten miles beyend the end of space.