Why Modi should be warier of his supporters than his detractors

These days, on social media and in conversations, people who express any reservations about Modi as India’s future PM are invariably accused of being stuck in a time warp, failing to look beyond the 2002 riots. In my opinion, its actually the contrary that is true. A significant proportion of modi supporters, inspite of all the rhetoric about development and progress, still cling to the notion that he is pro-hindu and that is what dictates their allegiance to him. Many others who dish out development stats and the corruption issue were also drawn towards him just because of his pro-majority stance, their grouse being minority appeasement. Prod them a bit and the development plank will quickly give way to veiled minority-bashing. This is precisely the reason the communalism bogey refuses to die down, because even though many of his supporters ostensibly support modi’s development agenda, deep down many of them hope that he will root out the practice of minority appeasement. While no one can deny that minority appeasement has been regressive and counter-productive, the fundamentalists often use this as an excuse for their prejudices. And these fundamentalists, for multiple reasons, somehow see Modi as their messiah, as is evident from statements by Togadia, Girirah and all.

My point is that even though Modi may have turned over a new leaf and may no longer be a religious bigot, his supporters, even more so than his critics, are refusing to acknowledge it. Many still believe that his conciliatory stand is just due to electoral compulsions, and these are not his detractors. That is why a murderer like Bajrangi claims that Modi got three judges transferred to get him bail, a rabble-rouser like Muthalik presumes that he would be welcomed by BJP with open arms and fanatics like Togadia make obnoxious statements in his home state.

Its rather paradoxical that a majority of Modi’s supporters as well as his critics are unwilling to accept that he is no longer anti-muslim, and while the critics are apprehensive about it, his supporters are pleased about his presumed dissemblance.

Narendra Modi as PM?

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.