With the dust having
finally settled down on Modi’s ‘ascension’ – as against Rahul baba’s
‘coronation’ – and with the tireless NaMo running across length and breadth of
the country with his vision of India and ‘India First’ homilies in a manner
which makes you wonder if Gujarat government is running on autopilot, I have
finally overcome my inertia and decided to finish this blogpost which has been
a work-in-progress since quite some time. Since my views on Modi and most of
the things that he stands for – starting from economy to Hindutva – is quite
well known to my Facebook friends, let me start with a cliché.
Modi’s
detractors on the left, liberal side of the spectrum accuse him being a highly
polarizing and divisive figure – someone who inspires either extreme admiration
or extreme loathing. No one can really have a proverbial love-hate relationship
with him. To a large extent, I am in agreement with this based on what I have
come across amongst people. This image of being polarizing is not just based on
his baggage from 2002 – wherein tried and tested antics of Hindu right won him
handsome electoral dividends – but is also reinforced by his legions of
supporters on the internet. Any criticism of Modi or his ‘Gujarat model of
development’ is met with scorn and abuse. Any reference to Gujarat’s less than
impressive human development index (states like Tamilnadu, Kerala and
Maharashtra fare much better) makes you a Congressi (They spell it as
‘Con-gressi’ with ‘con’ in bold type). Any mention of 2002, immediately brings
about standard responses of ‘What about 1984’. The message is this: you are
either with us or against us. You are either an admirer (if not worshipper of
NaMo) or you are a consumer of ‘Congress-wadi, paid media’ run by the likes of
Barkha Dutt and Sagarika Ghose. There is no scope of a discussion or debate.
You must choose. A natural extension of such a stunted view is that India’s
politics has only 2 alternatives – Congress’ family-run franchisee model
patronage networks supported by socialist-era mai-baap Sarkari doles for
pre-identified vote banks and Modi’s model of ‘getting things done and
delivering’ which is comfortable with trampling rights of a many for ‘greater
common good’ of a few. It is this binary which is most appealing to India’s
middle class, the typical FB-crawling guy who calls himself politically aware
but is short on both patience and critical thinking to understand how politics
in this country works. Thankfully, elections are not fought on Facebook.
To me (and there
are many others), it is this divisiveness of Modi which makes him unsuitable to
govern a country as heterogeneous as India. This was precisely the reason which
made AB Vajpayee the PM in the NDA government and not LK Advani, to whom BJP
actually owed its victory. Moreover, in past 2 decades India’s politics has
become highly localized – and will continue to be so – where a DMK more
concerned with stoking Tamil sentiments and quasi-nationalisms, shows a middle
finger to the diplomatic costs associated with alienating an otherwise friendly
Sri Lanka. Considering India’s diversity and this age of coalition politics, I
am curious how Modi’s ‘India First’ (putting countries interest ahead of
regional, linguistic, religious and other parochial interests) hyperbole is
going to work in practice. This brings me to the subject of Nationalism. BJP
has always identified itself as a nationalist party, never mind that with a
support base restricted to the Hindi heartland that too primarily amongst the
upper caste, upper class Hindus, it probably can’t even speak for 40% of the
populace. Now, in a nation where another 40% of the people can’t think beyond
mere survival, it is a bit rich to expect a coal scavenger working in subhuman
conditions in Lalmatiya, Bihar to believe that Kashmir is an inalienable part
of India (whose territorial idea of India itself may be a bit fuzzy) or expect
a tribal rendered homeless as a result of a big dam to believe that electricity
from the consequent hydel power will lessen India’s crippling power shortage.
(You may say that the electricity will also light up his home and enable his
son to finish high school but you need to have homes and schools to begin with).
These (Kashmir, dams, power plants) are things which capture the imagination of
the middle classes who become all red in face with faux-indignation because
sovereignty of their country has been affronted when a foreign country, which
doesn’t care about how well-connected you are back home, follows their due
process of law against an erring diplomat. These are the issues on which Arun
Jaitleys and Ravi Shankar Prasads make the right noises on prime time telly
watched by people who are purportedly potential customers of platinum love
bands and Swarovski crystals. Keep an unsmiling and austere looking face and
you give a message that we mean business, no pussyfooting when it comes to
questions of sovereignty, national security, yada, yada.
A decade back
BJP used to call itself a party-with-a-difference, though the larger party
hardly seems to matter in this election. (Here again if BJP rightly claims that
Congress is nothing but one family, then BJP is also a party run by proxies who
are in turn remote-controlled by the khaki knickers of Nagpur). For all their
accusations of Congress, can they truly claim to have played the role of a
constructive opposition in last 10 years? Instead of fielding their key leaders
on 9 pm telly, can’t they have formed a shadow cabinet on the lines of what
they have in the UK and played a more constructive role? But, that is more difficult
than simple hectoring and walkouts.
Another issue
with Modi, which is related to being-acceptable-to-most-if-not-all is his
autocratic style of functioning. For those who doubt that his style is not one
of that of either-my-way-or-highway, just try to recall the names of a couple
of his Cabinet colleagues (That rogue named Amit Shah doesn’t count). In all
probability, Gujarat Cabinet is a rubber stamp which just endorses whatever the
Chief Minister has already made up his mind on. To be charitable to Modi, there
are other autocratic CMs like Jayalalitha and Mamata Banerjee in the country.
An autocratic style of functioning often leads to creation of a personality
cult. Today, in minds of most non-Gujarati, middle class Indians, Gujarat is
synonymous with Modi – Gujarat is Modi and Modi is Gujarat (Remember Indira is
India and India is Indira?). From Mr. Bachchan promoting Gujarat Tourism, to
Sabarmati Waterfront, to expressways of Gujarat, it all begins and ends with
one man. Here is another example. To prove the point that Modi is non-partisan,
his supporters will say that he has demolished many unauthorized temples within
Ahmedabad city limits. What they probably don’t know is that such demolitions
fall under the jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and not their beloved
leader’s state government. So, anything good happening in Gujarat automatically
gets attributed to Modi. Next time a Gujarati scales the Mt. Everest, they will
say it was Modi’s vision of putting Gujarati on Everest to begin with. And Modi
himself has done nothing to demolish such a cult – from Modi masks being worn
by thousands who throng his rallies to 3D Images to NaMo TV to using social
media and websites like Niti Central to promote blatant lies, all such gestures
by ‘Modi fan boys’ have the man’s tacit endorsement. While you can brush aside
tall claims of uninterrupted power supply, Rambo-style evacuation of Gujjus during
Uttarakhand floods and photos of I-am-happy-with-Gujarat’s-development Muslims
as pushing the agenda by partisans, how can one ignore Modi’s own intellectual
dishonesty? While he (and BJP) has rightly pilloried the Congress for promoting
a cult around a particular family as long as one can remember, now he himself is
guilty of the same error.
Another halo
conjured up by Modi’s supporters is his perceived incorruptibility and how his
Gujarat example shows that development can happen without the bane of
corruption. While he rightly pillories Congress for the rise of crony capitalism
of the sort which we have seen during last decade or so, it is only the naïve who
will believe that doing business in Gujarat doesn’t need political patronage.
While Adani is in news these days for his perceived closeness to Modi, a little
investigation reveals that Modi government is guilty of all the crimes which he
blames Congress and other parties for – handing over land to business houses at
throwaway prices, turning a blind eye to violation of environmental norms,
making cheap gas available to his favoured business groups etc. Behind all the
glitter of Modi’s Gujarat, there are stories of farmers protest in Bhavnagar
against a proposed nuclear plant and pollution of coastal ecosystem due blatant
violation of green norms by Adani’s Mundhra port.
Then there is
the message of the man. His message is something which strikes a chord with
loath-to-pay-taxes middle classes who can afford that1.6 litre sedan but don’t
have the roads to drive it. A minimal government (His slogan is Minimum
Government, Maximum Governance), top-notch infrastructure which will tell the goras visiting ‘Incredible India’ that
India has indeed arrived, functioning public services (he doesn’t tell you that
you will be expected to pay at ‘private’ rates to avail these ‘public’
services. Well, if you can’t, tough luck, chote.), rapid industrialization and
so on.
I have two
issues with this so-called vision of development – actually one should ideally
spend some time to define what exactly is this beast called ‘development’. To
most minds rooting for Modi, it starts and ends at infrastructure – water
supply, power, rapid transit systems, metros for urban transport, roads, ports,
highways, airports. It doesn’t talk about environment, agriculture, schools,
primary health centres and other such non-glamorous stuff. After all people who
have their bellies full hardly need to bother about where will be the land left
to grow food if all the land is handed over to Adanis and Ambanis. Firstly, while
Modi talks about how this and that inefficient government service should be
privatized starting from Railways to Ordnance Factories to public Utilities, I
am a bit hard-pressed to recall how he intends to provide universal education
and healthcare – two most basic components of human development index – probably,
by letting apro Mukesh-bhai to run a
series of Dhirubhai Ambani International schools and hospitals.
My second issue
with NaMo’s so-called vision is in its lack of details. He roars – his rallies
have names like ‘hunkaar’ and ‘lalkaar’ to further reinforce his machismo – about
giving a befitting reply to China’s intransigence by mobilizing the armed
forces (that makes him decisive) but doesn’t explain how roads and associated
infrastructure will be built overnight in a terrain which is mostly
disadvantageous to India. He talks about indigenizing defence production to cut
down corruption in defence deals. He doesn’t say how he manages to do something
which DRDO and nine Defence PSUs have failed to do in past 50 years. (Privatise
DRDO perhaps? J) He talks about eliminating poverty
and creating jobs and by extension harps on how Congress has fooled and kept
people deliberately poor for 65 odd years. He doesn’t explain how a population
lacking basic skills and education will be absorbed in the job market.
(assuming such a job market indeed gets created by industries brought about by his
regime’s intense wooing, land offered at low prices by booting out farmers and
emasculation of trade unions by relaxed labour laws. Remember, most of the
investment claims touted from Vibrant Gujarat summits are just that, claims.)
He doesn’t tell you that unleashing entrepreneurial energy by cutting red-tape
may create jobs but will also give rise to crony-capitalism of the sort that
has flourished under Congress. This is exactly the strategy which Congress has
played around since years – so you have a Right to Food program which intends
to eliminate something as dehumanizing as hunger but its foremost advocates are
hazy on where the whereabouts of 1,60,000 Crore rupees will come from to
eliminate malnutrition from this country and ensuring that hunger shouldn’t
keep kids out of school. But Modi’s core constituency doesn’t have the time and
patience for such details. They want quick, neat and decisive solutions as long
as they themselves don’t have to bear the cost of such solutions. What they don't understand is the state - however inefficient and corrupt it may be - simply cannot abdicate its responsibilities in certain areas, particularly social sector. To offer a simplistic example, I doubt if any mobile service apart from BSNL works in Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh.
There is a
reason after all why so little scholarship, literature, art has come out of
this country’s right. They are at the forefront to attack researchers and
artists and burning books and effigies but when was the last time they produced
or created something which this country could be proud of. But that is story
for another day.
Modi’s one great
strength is his oration. In a nation used to seeing geriatric dhoti-wallahs
reading out prepared speeches, answering to pre-screened questions from tutored
journalists in stage-managed press briefings and sighing at the speeches of
Obama and other sharply-dressed Western leaders, it is refreshing to see
someone who exudes energy while speaking impromptu with the right intonation,
voice modulation and connects with the audience all the while (never mind his
latest gaffes with historical facts). Pepper the speech with personal attacks
like calling the Prime Minister a night watchman; referring to his potential
opponent for PM post as shehzada and
head of current coalition government as Pardesi
Bahu, you know that your speech will be even more appealing to your equally
uncouth supporters. It seems that name calling automatically makes you a strong
leader. While this little man doesn’t have the stature or statesmanship of
Vajpayee, it seems that he hasn’t even inherited the values of the previous
generations of BJP/Jana Sangh leaders.
In his bid to create
a strong leader image with chappan ki
chaati (56" chest) he has very smartly hijacked the legacies of leaders like Sardar
Patel and Netaji Subash Bose. In Gujarat, he has been long known as ‘chote
Sardar’ and his so-called ‘Vikas Purush’
image borrows more than a few things from Sardar Patel’s ‘Louh Purush’.
A lot has been
said about how Modi has changed the face of Gujarat but the fact of the matter
is Gujarat has been more urbanized, industralised and developed than most other
states even when Modi was a nobody. My parents arriving in an industrial
township of South Gujarat in early eighties could out rightly see the stark
differences from their native Bengal. So, Gujarat’s development has much less
to do with Modi than it has to with that legendary entrepreneurial spirit of
Gujaratis. Gujaratis as a race have done extremely well for themselves wherever
they have gone – starting from trading with Arabs since the middle of second
millennium to establishing trading posts in East Africa to pickle and papad manufacturers of the UK to ‘Potels’
of small-town America to young, educated professionals at London’s Canary Wharf
financial district. Still one must say that state’s leadership did have a role
to play in making Gujarat what it is today. But here again monopolizing Modi’s
leadership for claiming all the great things about Gujarat today – and there
are plenty – will be belittling the achievements of many others who preceded
him. So, these days when I see the outrage of my Gujarati friends on slightest
criticism of Modi, I find it strange that the people who gave leaders like
Gandhi and Patel have to look up to a demagogue for their asmita.
But Gujarat is
not India and more than anyone else, Modi knows this. What has worked in
Gujarat won't work in rest of the country. Just like AAP’s success in an urban
setup like Delhi doesn’t mean that they are going to bring in a revolution in
this country’s politics. That is also the reason why his "hum paanch humare panchis" (sloganeering
in the run-up to 2002 elections which he won by a landslide in a highly
polarized environment) is being toned down to "Devalaya se pehle shauchalaya". (Anyone who thinks that Modi is fighting this election purely on the agenda of development need look no further than the recent Muzzaffarnagar riots and the fact that his man Friday Amit Shah is further burnishing his Hindutva credentials as campaign-in-charge of UP, the most critical state in any general election) This is why a Rajnath Singh is
attempting to apologise to the largest religious minority of this county.
Modi’s rise has
inevitably made his detractors to bring back the ghosts of 2002 and by
extension, the accompanying cries of ‘Courts have exonerated Modi’ and ‘What
about 1984’ from his supporters. Here’s is what I will say in response to the
first comment of his supporters. I have no idea whether he personally ordered
the police to stand back and let ‘Hindus vent their anger’ but I will narrate 2
examples of what happened during and after the riots which suggest that there
is no smoke without fire. During Feb-March 2002, I was in my 6th
semester of engineering at a small town in central Gujarat around 60 kms from
Ahmedabad. While I never saw actual rioting and killing, I had seen petrol
bombs being assembled, mobs armed with lathis, cricket bats, stumps, sickles
assembling in parking lots of middle class apartments and Muslim shops being
burnt in our mostly Hindu neighbourhood. In one instance, the local police
threw teargas to disperse a reasonably armed Hindu mob. In response to that, a
VHP goon called up the local DSP and swore at him with loaded expletives.
Having personally seen such sheer impudence to authorities, one can’t help but
think that these folks had blessings from many higher-ups in the administrative
hierarchy. The second example is a matter of record about how most of the IPS
officers who considered maintenance of law and order as their foremost duty and
tried controlling the spread of riots by making proactive arrests and clamping
strict curfews were punished by the Modi administration after the riots by
initiating disciplinary proceedings, transfers etc. It was largely due to
proactive steps taken by people like VK Gupta (then Commissioner of Surat),
that communally sensitive cities like Surat saw minimal casualties due to
riots.
Yes, one of the lower
courts in Gujarat has exonerated Modi and his guilt may never be proven beyond reasonable
doubt because our justice system requires evidence and deposition by
independent witnesses. In a system where sitting judges have their rates fixed
and where the rich and powerful routinely manipulate hearings of commissions, coerce
witnesses, tamper with evidence and eventually get scot-free, Modi is bound to
be exonerated simply because there is very little against him which will stand
the scrutiny of court. Let’s for the sake of argument forget that Supreme Court
appointed an amicus curie to monitor the SIT investigation into Gulberg Society
massacre, that Haren Pandya’s didn’t die a mysterious death which had something
to do with his secret deposition to Nanavati Commission. But what about Modi’s
own moral pretensions? At the end of the day, he, as an elected representative
of people, failed to protect their life and property. That is a sufficient
reason for his head to have rolled – the way heads rolled starting from Home
Minister to Maharashtra CM in the aftermath of 26/11. In any western democracy,
an insensitive remark of the likes of every action has an equal and opposite
reaction would have been sufficient for a leader to lose his job. This brings
me to ‘What about 1984’. Let me unequivocally state here that I believe Rajiv
Gandhi’s ‘Fall of a big tree shakes up the earth’ was equally insensitive for
him to lose his job. But while Congress at least put up the sham of not
giving tickets to the likes of Tytler and Sajjan Kumar (mostly due to electoral
exigencies), Modi appointed Maya Kodani, who was eventually convicted with life
imprisonment for leading riots, to his cabinet. I won’t compare Manmohan
Singh’s apology in parliament with Rajnath Singh’s ‘offer’ of apology because
in a modern democracy only, and only, the law of the land should prevail.
Apologies are meaningless.
Reasons for Modi
to be able to ride rough shod over such moral pretensions and electoral
exigencies lie in the demographic composition and social make-up of his
Gujarati electorate. Muslims constitute only 8% of Gujarat’s population which
allows Modi to care two hoots about Muslim votes (this is another point where
Modi knows India is not Gujarat). Moreover, the most Dawoodi and Bohra Muslim
communities of Gujarat are successful entrepreneurs and reasonably well-off
when compared to their brethren elsewhere in the country. They are pragmatic
enough to understand that endless confrontations won’t yield much and they need
to make the best in the given circumstances and so have made their peace. This
helps Modi to put across the narrative of ‘people have moved on’ to the rest of
the world.
Another factor
is the social polarization of the Gujarati society and this has got little to
do with Modi. Communalisation of the state started mostly in mid-80s when
Congress tried to implement the KHAM (Khsatriya, Harijan, Adivasi, Muslim)
formula. The result is that today the average Gujarati society is so polarized that a middle-of-the-road party doesn’t stand a candle's chance in a cyclone. While all major Indian
cities have Muslim ghettoes and so-called mini-Pakistans, you will see the
polarization a notch higher in larger and reasonably cosmopolitan Gujarati
cities like Ahmedabad, Vadodara and Surat. I am not aware how things are in small
towns. There are entire Gujarati colonies in Bombay where Muslims can’t rent
apartments, where builders refuse to sell apartments to Muslims. And this has
got nothing to do with Modi. But the fact remains that the home state of the
man who fought his whole life and eventually gave it up for the sake of
communal harmony had become fertile enough – since mid-80s or latest by 1992
Ram Janmabhoomi mobilization – for the rise of a man like Modi.
There is one
more thing which my friend A was talking about sometime back. Indians have
traditionally looked up to one person to set things right. They keep wondering
how things would have been different if a Sardar Patel or Subhash Bose had
their time at the helm. It is the same idea which makes Modi appealing as a
modern-day Messiah, who will clear up the mess, set everything right and bring
back the glorious old days for India to take her rightful place on world stage.
I personally believe that power of one man or woman to change the course of
history has been over-stated. Some of the greatest achievements of modern
mankind have been incessant, incremental efforts of thousands of men and women
who wanted to make a difference in face of insurmountable odds. Even the vision
wouldn’t have been of just one man.
Ascent of a man
like Modi has a lot to do with India’s Middle Class about which I have written
earlier. Modi knows – more than me and you – that perception is reality. He is
aware of the gullibility and hypocrisy of the middle classes in all spheres of
public and private life – from corruption to sexuality. For all their professed
political awareness and so-called education, they are too lazy to look beyond
the rhetorical bullshit dished out in what passes as media in this country -
both print and electronic. So, they tell themselves that they pay all the
income tax while the slum dwellers ride free but are not wont to acknowledge
that slum dwellers not only pay taxes when they buy a packet of bidi or Parle-G but also contribute to an
informal economy which provides them cheap labour.
Another issue
with us (this country's middle class) is the absence of engagement with the
larger community. Hinduism actually rationalizes poverty and suffering as
fruits of bad karma from past lives.
The poverty exists next door, cheek-by-jowl with my air-conditioned sedan but
it has nothing to do with me but everything to do with govt., state, sarkar,
that imaginary Bhup Singh sitting in Delhi. So, we will curse everything from
Nehruvian socialism to populist handouts. Middle class will cringe at paying
higher taxes but doesn't realize that their spending (aka consumerist hedonism)
is not really trickling down but fattening the few fat cats of this country's
oligarchy (Whatever the unleashing of entrepreneurial energy may mean - wealth has
simply not trickled down). A natural extension is refusal to accept that the
state does have a redistributive responsibility. All this makes it easier for a
man like Modi to sell his prescription of decisive leadership all the while
knowing that on-the-ground achievement of most of it is a pipe dream. Why the implementation
is a pipe-dream?
To my mind, in a
setup like ours, inability of a leader to take concrete steps for progress of
the country has little to do with his indecisiveness but a lot to do with
inherent contradictions in our country’s social and economic life and the
ever-widening gulf in wealth distribution. Any decision will always be
detrimental to one or other group and implementation of such decisions will be
mostly fraught with vociferous opposition which can be overcome only by means
of force backed by the power of state machinery. Such an approach may work as
they do in China but as long as India remains a moderately functioning
democracy anchored by a liberal Constitution such uses of force by the state will
only result in further unrest, instability and resentment.
Listening to
Modi’s fiery speeches often makes me think of today’s India’s parallels with
the Weimar Germany. While Modi is no Fuhrer, there are some inescapable similarities
between today’s India and Germany of 1920s – chronic political instability,
sky-rocketing inflation and unemployment, a nose diving economy, a disenchanted
middle class. In short, a situation ripe for a Messiah-like leader to rise from
the ashes. To that extent, Congress has only made rise of Modi easier. In Germany
before WW II, many otherwise sane and reasonable Germans were disenchanted
enough to buy into Hitler’s strong-arm, nationalist rhetoric. While it will be
a little too far-fetched to imagine that Indian public is at a similar point of
history (for this we must thank this country’s pluralism), we can do with saner
voices.
Democracies, by nature are messy. Dreams of an
orderly society where everything works with a clockwork precision are tempting
but we need to keep in mind that the desire to achieve order and efficiency
should not be at the cost of individual liberty – a cherished gift for which
mankind has fought long and hard. Being subjected to long periods of
colonisations, Indians still have a tendency for mob justice and are used to
tyranny of one man with a caveat. The caveat is that it is fine to wield the danda as long as I am not at its
receiving end. So, AFSPA can continue in J&K in the sacrosanct name of
national security as long as armed soldiers don’t barge into my home in the
middle of night. Despotic tyranny may build world class infrastructure but
there is always a cost involved. The question today is whether that cost is acceptable to us – environmental destruction, trampling of individual
liberties and a deeply fractured and unequal society – just to chase a
development which itself may be a chimera.