The Editorial Board of the venerable New York Times does not want Narendra Modi to become India’s Prime Minister. The paper is, of course, entitled to its view. One only wishes its argument was more sophisticated, and the evidence more compelling.
The simplistic argument is this: “India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr. Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.” The New York Times has a one-dimensional view of Modi.
It cites the Gujarat riots of 2002 as the chief reason for the fear that Modi inspires among India’s religious minorities. Just so that the argument doesn’t seem dated by a decade, NYT picks on the “puppy” metaphor (it calls it incendiary) used by Modi to express pain for the Gujarat riots in a recent interview to Reuters. Of course, it conveniently does not mention that Modi, in the same interview, also said that religious should not be an instrument of state policy.
Let us, just for the moment (for the sake of argument), assume that NYT is correct in its assessment of Modi and minorities. A 360 degree view of Modi also requires an explanation on why he inspires hope among so many Indians. Opinion poll after opinion poll rates him as the most popular choice for Prime Minister. Even if you take opinion polls with ounces of salt, there is no denying Modi’s popularity – just look at the massive turnouts at his political rallies, even in places like Tamil Nadu where his party has a negligible presence.
Now, would NYT argue that his popularity has everything to do with his “denigration” of minorities and muscular, majoritarian Hindu Nationalism? If it did, it would be an unreasonable argument. The fact is that Modi has emerged as a pan-Indian leader because of his message of development, economic growth and jobs which resonate with a nation that is young at its core – 2/3rds of Indians are under 35. The next election will see a record 140 million first time voters (all of whom turned 18 between 2009 and 2014).
These are the children of liberalisation born after 1991. They only look up to the politics of aspiration, not to old-style politics of grievances and divisions. It is to Modi’s credit that he has used the decade since the Gujarat riots to reinvent himself, both as a politician and administrator. Gujarat 2002 is a blot on Modi’s record, but it is worth remembering that at the time it happened he was only five months into his first stint as Chief Minister. He had never held executive office before that.
It is now amply clear from the Supreme Court instituted investigation to the riots that Modi issued no illegal orders during the riots. That still leaves him open to the charge of incompetence in enforcing the law and saving lives. He has at least tried to set that right. Modi has spent all his time in office since shoring up his administrative abilities. They have been no riots in Gujarat for over a decade. Some people, including senior members of his own BJP, responsible for the riots have actually been imprisoned (unlike in the Congress-engineered Sikh riots of 1984).
That is the longest communal violence free period in the state’s volatile history. Unfortunately, Modi’s critics will not even give him credit where it’s due. The NYT tears into his governance record (particularly with regard to Muslims) by peddling a Planning Commission report from 2012 which shows the high level of poverty of Muslims living in Gujarat compared to other Indian states. The NYT failed to do due dilligence. The methodology for calculating poverty used in the report, using the controversial Tendulkar methodology, has been junked by the Union Government’s Planning Commission, which prepared the report in the first place.
Work is in progress on a new methodology. Instead of relying on junked reports, the editorial board of the NYT would have benefitted from reading a piece written by the eminent Indian economist Surjit Bhalla in The Indian Express on October 26, in which he shows (statistically) that Gujarat among all Indian states has actually shown the second fastest relative decline in poverty among Muslims in the decade that Modi has been in office. But what about fear and antipathy, which cannot always be addressed by statistics? Antipathy is omni-present in a democratic polity.
It would be truly frightening if people didn’t have strong likes and dislikes in a free society. In the US, there is a strong minority which is antipathetic to the ‘liberal’ Barack Obama just as there was a strong ‘liberal’ minority that was antipathetic to George W. Bush. That didn’t make either unfit to the rule the nation. In India too, there will always be antipathy to Modi from certain sections of the population (just as there is antipathy to Rahul Gandhi and the Congress dynasty), but that by itself isn’t reason enough to rule someone unfit to lead.
Fear is a more serious issue. But India’s people have never been afraid of their politicians. After all, the hugely popular and autocratic Indira Gandhi was booted out of power when she tried to rule using fear as an instrument. The incumbent UPA was shaken by street demonstrations led by an obscure 70 year old Gandhian when the people at large got fed up with corruption. Modi will face similar public scrutiny.
He too will bite the dust if he uses fear to govern a society that is by nature, free and liberal: the cliché of many religions, languages etc should be taken more seriously! He is too canny a politician not to know that. Note that in his most recent speech in Patna, he reached out to Muslims directly and said that the only battle worth fighting is the battle against poverty and poor Hindus and Muslims must come together to fight it.
Quite clearly, Modi is going to speak the language of economic growth and prosperity, truly secular processes, over the next 6 months.
Only the paranoid would fear that.
No comments:
Post a Comment