A friend recently suggested that I pen my opinion regarding
Narendra Modi as a potential prime ministerial candidate. I’m sure most of us
have thought on those lines and have formed our opinions. For me, I didn’t find
it easy to reach a conclusion, pretty much like my predicament regarding
voting. I’ve stayed in Gujarat for more than six years and there can be no
denying the fact that it is one of the most comfortable states in India to live
in. And it’s been more than five years since I left Gujarat and by all
accounts, it seems to have become even better, at least in terms of
infrastructure such as roads, public transport, low crime rates etc. For the
educated urban middle and upper classes, the only yardstick for development is
how convenient their lives have become, and roads and industries are visible
and obvious manifestations of development, according to them. And it is this chosen
few that controls as well as consumes popular messaging through mass media. Hence,
this sudden clamor among TV channels (particularly English language) and social
media regarding how Narendra Modi can be the panacea for the country, once he
is at the helm.
It will be foolhardy to state that Narendra Modi has not
done anything positive in terms of development, even though it is debatable if
the development is inclusive across social, economic and religious strata. For
the sake of simplicity, and for want of contradictory facts, let us accept that
Modi has transformed Gujarat over the past decade or so, as his followers would
like to believe. Anyway, the point is, even if we assume that Gujarat’s
development has accelerated over the past decade, isn’t it a case of
oversimplification to attribute it to one individual? I’m sure everyone would
agree that Gujarat has never been a backward state, right from its inception in
1960. Finding reasons for it would necessitate making generalizations about the
entrepreneurship of Gujaratis, the influx of NRI money etc. Popular opinion
seems to imply that Modi has a somewhat hard-nosed approach towards governance,
and quite evidently, he is a strong-willed persona, essential traits for a
leader. By that reasoning, Modi does seem to have played a big part in
Gujarat’s road to prosperity.
This assumption brings us to the proverbial thorn in the flesh
for Modi and his supporters, the riots of 2001. If he is such an able leader
who is always in command, why did he allow the riots to continue unabated
across the state for weeks? As in, if Modi is the single entity responsible for
Gujarat’s ostensible development, how can he not be responsible for the heinous
carnage? Isn’t it scary that a reprehensible character like Babu Bajrangi
boasts about how Modi got ‘three judges transferred just to secure bail for
him’? Doesn’t it bother us that shady characters like Amit Shah wield such huge
influence? Doesn’t the experience of someone like Mallika Sarabhai, whose
Darpan academy was not allowed to run in Gujarat because of her open opposition
to Modi reek of intolerance bordering on fascism? Isn’t it alarming that any
criticism of Modi brings out vitriolic and abusive reactions from his
supporters, who have this ‘you’re either with us or you are our enemy’
attitude? And aren’t those who deride Congress’s dynastic and personality cult
indulging in an equally sycophantic hero-worship? And what about the undeniable
fact that a significant proportion of the country’s population will feel
insecure and threatened by Modi’s presence at the helm?
Personally, I would be happy if the roads of Bangalore were
to become even a fraction as good as those in Ahmedabad, and if Modi can do it,
fine with me. But again, I and people like me aren’t the only residents of this
country, in fact, we are just a miniscule. If we go by socio-economic
indicators available in public domain, Gujarat hasn’t fared much better than
other Indian states in terms of inclusive development. In terms of public
expenditure on health and education, Gujarat is below 14 other states in India,
one-thirds of Gujarat lives below the poverty line. Closer scrutiny reveals
considerable lacunae in the growth story as well, projects implemented or under
implementation have fallen from 73 per cent in 2003 to 13 per cent in 2011. I
agree that statistics are not a sure-fire indicator but Modi supporters often
make tall claims based on stats. In fact, Narendra Modi himself has claimed on
numerous occasions that the milk we drink comes from Gujarat, which really
doesn’t make much sense because in terms of milk production, Gujarat is a distant
seventh in the country.
Again, statistics don’t help much because for each one I
place here, someone else might come up with two others to prove their point.
The point I’m trying to make is that things aren’t always as black and white as
Modi supporters like to believe. Maybe Modi as PM could be a positive
development, but being so smugly certain about it is naivete.
4 comments:
what options do we hav then. i mean we all know that after having a weak primeminister for such a long time people want someone with strong persona.i don'tlike watever modi says but i know that next year again i will vote for him as i hav done in the past.becoz of the want of n e better option.
Vishal - Nicely put.Things are definitely not black and white. Also the mainstream media is always catering to their audience -the middle class indian. The middle class indian is selfish and forms his opining based on how his convenience are met(remember his necessities are already met). Though I see some flashes of brilliance in Modi, I am not sure if he coming to power will polarize the nation and even the world's attitude towards india. I may be wrong,once in power he may see the big picture.
it is the missing arrogance required in a PM which goes in favor of him & arrogance needs facts which he has..
I think this is a very foolhardy discussion. For multitude of reasons:
A. As if any of the person posting a comment here has any say in selecting the polity of the country.
B. As if any one who's has posted here has ever gone beyond words to straighten up the matters in this country.
C. We have tolerated far bigger idiots as PMs (we already have one going strong for the last decade or so) and there's practically not a shit that we have done about it, or could do about it.
Fact is, if there's better that can happen to our countries politics, the so called urban, middle, upper middle and affluent Indians will have to rise and give around 4-5 decades to this country, selflessly to change all this that we call our misery today.
Also, we are just 68 years old as a country, post independence and we need more time to catch up with out better global siblings (let me assure you we are doing this at a singing pace and world over vouches for this).
Post a Comment