Modi - An Analysis

It was heart-warming to see Narendra Modi attending the swearing-in ceremony of Jayalalitha. It was even more comforting to see him interacting freely and openly with left leaders and Chandrababu Naidu. Nobody complained about it and nobody denounced it. I kind of half expected D Raja of CPI to get up and sit at a different seat.

For Modi has become a political pariah in the past few years. Although many secular media have been rooting for his fall, this political isolation originally started by Nitish Kumar when he barred Modi from campaigning in Bihar and BJP unashamedly complied. Then it became easier for others to turn him into an untouchable. If Shanawaz Hussain speaks about the progress of Muslims in Gujarat, Outlook publishes a study of Muslims in Gujarat. If Anna Hazare praises Modi, Teesta Setalvad and Arundhati Roy are up in arms. Are we being offered ‘incorruptible fascist as an alternative to hopelessly corrupt supposed democrats?’ Roy asks.

It’s not the first time she used the word ‘fascist’ to label Modi or BJP, his party. Ramachandra Guha argues that BJP cannot be termed as fascist as it is a very careless use of that term. Then Roy gets emotional and calls Guha a ‘mere cricket statistician’, as if it’s an insult.

So leaving the emotions aside let’s take this argument further. First off, what’s fascism? Oxford Dictionary defines it as ‘An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government’. BJP fits the definition except ‘Authoritarian’, which could mean dictatorship, which is what Guha meant, taking the roots directly to Mussolini.

The deeply entrenched democratic institutions of our country make it impossible for anyone to think about authoritarianism. In another 200 years, no prime minister can think of clamping down another emergency. But then, should the definition fit perfectly if someone were to use it? Left often hurls an ‘abuse’ calling people ‘CIA Agents’, again only metaphorically, that they are indeed blind supports of America.  We call people ‘westernised’ but they are nowhere near an actual ‘westerner’.

One of the standard defences offered in favour of Modi is that he is a development-oriented Chief Minister and corporate-friendly. They don’t realise that ‘corporatism’ is one of the ideologies of Italy’s Fascist Party. In fact, Mussolini was credited with a lot of development and economic progress in Italy. Hitler brought Germany back from its bankruptcy caused by Weimar Republic and oversaw one of the greatest industrial and economic expansions Germany had ever seen.

So are fascists anti-development? As history reveals, they are more pro-corporate and pro-development than perhaps even capitalist republicans. In addition to their economic outlook, Nazi party encouraged German women to largely stay at home, look after their husbands and bear children, as many as possible. Obviously since other ‘less-important’ races were going to be extinct soon, they needed as many Aryans as possible. Sometime back, RSS were in a controversy over asking Hindus to not practice family planning so that the Muslim population growth could not overtake Hindus’. And the ideology of the RSS towards women emancipation is widely known. Note that I’m not referring to the famous pub attacker of Mangalore here. They are only fringe concubines trying to be more loyal than the king.

So, consolidating the argument of the above paragraph, the term fascism doesn’t appear quite far from what was preached and practiced in the Hindu extremist circles. Guha’s statement stems from his personal love towards democracy and how well it is entrenched in India. Pandering to fascist thoughts when you’re an autocrat is different from nurturing such thoughts whilst being a democrat.

Modi, being a dyed-in-the-wool swayamsevak, could have exhibited these tendencies in the initial years of his tenure before realising we are not living in a pre-War Germany. When the realisation came, was it before or after the riots is a question. There are other questions, however, being asked by the media. Was Bhat present in the meeting? He might or might not have been. Did Modi ask the police to go slow? He may not have. But did Modi ask the police to go full-on against the rioters?

There’s a subtle difference between endorsing something and not condemning it hard enough. Did he endorse it? No. Did he condemn it in unequivocal terms? No, either. Was he complicit? Was he conterminous?

These analyses become important for Indian democracy, especially for the BJP. If the right-wing party were to return to power, they would have to heed to these dialectics. The Congress have never been in such a shambles since Bofors and still, BJP do not look like they are in a position to cash in on that. They have two problems:

Number one: They don’t have a Prime Ministerial candidate. Despite the despicability of the opposition, unless BJP have a national face, they won’t gain from Congress’ woes. Advani had his chance in the field and could not make it. As of now, Narendra Modi is the only national face they have. How much ever contentious or arguable, his development image has a reach, especially among the middle class. But he is a social pariah. Reason: Gujarat Pogrom.

Number two: BJP need alliances. They could win in 1999 because they had Telugu Desam and TRS in Andhra, ADMK in Tamil Nadu, AGP in Assam. They lost all of them. Reason: Gujarat Pogrom.

Modi may show 15% GDP growth in Gujarat whilst the rest of India totters on at 6-7, but unless he clears the air on the riots, he is not going to make it. The counterarguments such as that Godhra was responsible for the riots or people who write articles like this are pseudo-seculars are not going to wash. With the whole of media gunning for you, and the ‘pseudo-secular’ activists poring over your administration with the finest toothcomb, and the Congress eagerly waiting for your fall, it’s not going to be easy. The net result is if you need alliances and your leader acceptance, you have to stop lamenting and start working.

So what should Modi do? He should talk. After the initial bloopers during the riots – gems such as ‘every action has an equal reaction’ – he has been steadfastly refusing to speak about the riots. He even walked out of an interview with Rajdeep Sardesai and pushed the mike away from another reporter. He should call for a formal press conference and clear the air. If there were any lax on the side of his administration, he should declare that and then openly apologise. Britain is preparing to apologise to Mau Mau victims. The Queen expressed her sympathy in her address to Ireland public for the centuries old conflict and the atrocities of Britain. Back home, Congress’ chances among the Sikh community improved after Sonia Gandhi openly apologised for the 1984 riots.

What could be the consequences of Modi’s apology? The media may go berserk. Regional leaders may seek his resignation. The central government may even dismiss his government. But all these will be temporary and will later turn to his favour. A dismissal would be very risky because it may make him a martyr and enhance his chances both in Gujarat and elsewhere.

And then all the artilleries would fall silent and all guns will be laid down. He will have effectively disarmed the media. They will only have his development to write about. If he follows it up with the swift rehabilitation of the victims and refugees of the riots he will be celebrated. How the corrupt, egotistic, arrogant Jayralalitha of 1996 has had a volte-face and being hailed as incorruptible, effective administrator today, Modi’s fortunes too will change. A sympathy wave, a larger acceptance and change of image will have the alliances flocking to the BJP nest.

Then the BJP can use Adarsh, 2G, CWG, and CBI wanted list goof ups as real weapons and activate the triggers.

And of course, give Arundhati Roy’s nerve-racking pen a rest.