Election2014: The Modi myth and Indian political reality

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.

Janmohamed, a Ahmedabad-origin Muslim, in

 "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)

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. 

***