Pratim Ranjan Bose
She came to power in 1966;
converted the Congress into a family propriety by elbowing out party heavyweights;
was ruthless to her political adversaries and; in June 1975 when she was held guilty
for misusing power for winning election, The Times described it as
"firing the Prime Minister for a traffic ticket".
Sadly for India , Indira Gandhi went on to
announce the Emergency. India
slipped into dictatorship - for the first and the last time in its 65 years of
history.
Two years down the line when democracy
returned, her government was removed from power. The “Empress of India”, as The
Economist once described her, became a target of the nation for gross violation
of civil liberties during the Emergency.
But, just when the elite thought
that it was end of the road for Indira Gandhi, voters decided in favour of her
gritty administration over a bunch of weak and regressive political opponents. She
returned to power in 1980.
By any measure, Narendra Modi,
the popular Chief Minister of the industrially developed state of Gujarat , is no Indira Gandhi. But the stance taken by a section
of intellectuals over his selection as the prime ministerial nominee of nationalist
Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP); brought the corollary into relevance.
Training the Gun
“He will probably become India ’s
next Prime Minister. But, that does not mean he should be,” The Economist
said on April 5, days before India went to a nine-phase poll that will come to
an end on May 16.
A clear favourite for the hot
seat in Delhi ;
Modi is living with the mixed identity of a poster boy of economic growth and
symbol of sectarian politics, since the post-Godhra riots in Ahmedabad in 2002.
Though no amount of judicial scrutiny
could find him guilty, intellectuals stuck to their opinion that Modi was “an
artful faker” - a threat to democracy.
And, the more he was criticised,
Modi’s stock went soaring, especially among the rising share of young Indians
who, as the same publication claims, having more faith on GDP than Hindutva.
The question that comes to mind
therefore, will Indian voters risk the secular contours of the country – which
has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia – for GDP? Or, are they
merely looking for stronger and better government than the existing ones,
within the existing framework of constitution?
The Manmohan Singh government of
Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) was brought in power for a
second term, in 2009, on the back of high economic growth and a huge social
sector initiative, most importantly the employment guarantee scheme, taken in
the first term (2004-2009).
A highly disarranged BJP,
suffering from a leadership crisis, made Congress’s win easier.
But, the UPA simply failed to
live up to the expectations of electorate. While growth rate plummeted to less
than 5 per cent; a series of scams that surfaced in the second term, simply
eroded its credibility, leading to a complete policy paralysis at the Centre.
To make it worse, the economist
Prime Minister, who had limited control on government from the beginning,
completely lost the plot in the second term. The Indian electorate now wanted a
change.
Modi sees opportunity
Modi is of course not the best
Chief Minister in India .
Neither Gujarat is the best in governance. Also
there were also a few other BJP leaders (like Sushil Modi and Shivraj Singh
Chouhan) and who had a decent track record in administration. But they led economically
less important states. Naturally, they are lesser known and have little clout
in Industry circles – that is a prerequisite to hold high offices, anywhere in
the world, in modern times.
Narendra Modi’s incorruptible
image and, his grit and determination to run the show successfully, ignoring
opposition from all sides; opened an opportunity before him. He seized the
opportunity - exactly in the same manner as Indira Gandhi once did in the
1960’s.
In a repetition of history the
yesteryear's BJP heavyweights like L K Advani or Murli Manohar Joshi turned into
mere paperweights - bringing an end to inner party factionalism. They had lost
their relevance long ago. Modi’s arrival confirmed it. The advantage went to
BJP that is now expecting a return to power, after a decade.
Restructuring leadership
The entire approach is vastly
different from BJP’s rise to power in 1996 (for 13 days), 1998 (13 months) and
1999 (for full term); riding high on Advani’s Ram Janamabhoomi campaign beginning
late 1980’s – an agenda that died a natural death, during the party’s stay in
power.
The credit goes to Indian
electorate.
Beginning 1977, voters gave rise
to regional forces. The VP Singh government in end 1980’s disintegrated the
Hindu vote bank paving way for rise of Dalits (lower caste Hindus) as a
distinct political force. The opening up of Indian economy by Narsimha Rao in
1991, made the population upwardly mobile.
Naturally, when a BJP-led
National Democratic Alliance (NDA), finally came to power, it used economic
growth as the common plank. Once a strong critic of opening up Indian economy
to Bideshis (foreigners), the BJP turned the biggest proponents of FDI
and privatisation.
The BJP-led NDA government was
removed from power in 2004 as people felt a Congress-led UPA could ensure more
prosperity. Now that Congress is failing; they want a change. If the baton is
finally transferred to Modi, it would be to ensure prosperity but not to
jeopardise it.
The only thing sacrosanct here
is, prosperity and more prosperity, not ideology. Look at the entire political
spectrum in India
and the move is apparent. Growth and development remained the key factors in
deciding the fate of almost each and every election – either to form State or
Central governments – across the country, since 2004.
The trend is irreversible – Modi
or No Modi. Politics has to adjust to it
Outreach plan
The political reality is clear to
Modi.
“Modi is reaching out toIndia's Muslims – and they may vote for him,” wrote Zahir The Guardian in April 23. Critical to Modi,
the writer notes the Gujarat Chief Minister has an appeal on young and
aspiring Indian Muslims.
"I know about the
riots, I know about the problems Muslims face in this country, but I am going
to vote for Modi. He is good for the economy and if Modi becomes prime
minister, he will be able to improve the economy in time for my graduation in
2016 when I start searching for a job," Janmohamed quotes a first time
voter.
According to some pre-poll
studies about 15 per cent of Muslims in Gujarat
and approximately 8 pert cent in the key state of Uttar Pradesh will vote for
Modi.
Adding to his popularity?
And, that takes us to the next
big question, did a concerted attack by intellectuals ended up improving Modi’s
poll prospects?
I think it did.
For fair part of his rule in
Gujarat, he had to face political adversity from Congress government in Delhi that does not have
any better record when it comes to riots. (The glaring example is 1984 Sikh
riot that took place under Congress rule, right in the national capital)
.png)
Throughout this period Modi was under
the scanner of the central investigation agencies that had not left any stone
unturned to implicate him, albeit unsuccessfully. And, the allegations against
him, often reached frivolous proportions (for example the latest accusation of his
involvement in Prajapati fake encounter case).
By joining the chorus, that too
in a poll season, the intellectuals may have helped Modi to attain mythical
heights, in public eye. More often, negative publicity is a good publicity.
***
