The apprehension about Modi originates from the notion that he is bent upon changing the content of India’s politics, not merely its form.
Narendra Modi’s almost certain emergence as BJP’s leading figure in the next parliamentary poll—whenever it happens, next year or later this year—is a reminder of a past and significant chapter in India’s political history. It is the rise of Indira Gandhi as a populist leader, triggered by her splitting the venerable Congress party in 1969. The Congress was never the same again. The foreboding from Modi’s selection as chairman of his party’s campaign committee, and almost overnight marginalization of its established hierarchy, is that the BJP is at a historic cross-roads, like Congress in 1969. Maybe there will be a new BJP now, something like BJP (Modi), just as the new Congress, and the one that mattered in future, carried the sobriquet of Congress (Indira). About BJP’s Goa conclave. the metaphor that comes to my mind is drawn from our national epic, the Mahabharat. It is the Udyog Parva, putting Modi in the leadership position of his side. It is “prelude to the war”, as in the epic. On the winning side, there were many who were pacifists, Fabians, fence sitters, or in secret league with the enemy. Likewise, Modi too has too many dissenters.
The most prominent among them is L. K. Advani, the 84-year-old Bhishma of the saffron family who, like the unlucky granduncle of the epic’s warring cousins, had kingship, or the prime minister’s chair, in the modern context, routinely squeaking past him. He craved for the seat in 1996. But the Hawala scam consumed his ambition and he had to pave way for Atal Bihari Vajpayee. The “lauh Purush” opted to play second fiddle to the “Vikas Purush”. He missed the bus in 2004 again and decisively in 2009 though he turned 180 degrees to project himself as secular, and went to Pakistan to declare that Jinnah was…well…secular.
Advani skipped the Goa meet of BJP’s office bearers and national executive. Some BJP leaders took the cue from him, and stayed away—like the aristocratic Jaswant Singh, film actor Shatrughan Sinha and the mercurial Uma Bharati. But the lure of Modi had become irresistible by them, and no one was willing to wait for Bhishma’s nod. The beach resort at Goa became a platform for battle cry, and everybody wanted none but Modi to lead the charge. Those who nursed doubts about Modi’s image problem, dating from the post-Godhra riots in 2002, had to grin and bear. True that the party could not project him as its PM candidate yet. In the poker game of election, one must play it close to the vest as long as possible. The howl against ‘spoil sports’ like Advani reached its crescendo when a gaggle of Modi-supporters created a ruckus in the veteran leader’s residence on Prithwiraj Road, in the heart of Lutyen’s Delhi. This reminds me of the days when Congress veterans like S K Patil, Nijligappa, Rajni Patel, Morarji Desai were trounced in a prolonged battle with Indira Gandhi. The syndicate thought it will be able to contain the “goongi Gudiya” (read Indira Gandhi). But she showed her mettle and was invincible. The Congress was never the same again, it saw a generational change, shook its status quoits foundations and in the process the country’s polity did not remain the same either.
I can sense why are so many people in his saffron family wary of Modi and why is he a bogey man even to a time-tested BJP ally like Nitish Kumar.
Perhaps the 2002 riots have left so much taint on him that some politicians genuinely fear that his very entry into the electoral arena as a prime ministerial hopeful would instantly polarize the Muslim community, thus influencing the outcome of next Lok Sabha polls. They feel it will be a wind fall gain for the Congress which otherwise is reconciled to a fait accompli. Surely it’s bad news for BJP.
That’s a normal doubt, though, based on electoral calculations. However, I think there is an undercurrent of fear to such electoral doubts that requires probing. The post-Godhra riots are history now: what is of topical interest is the emergence of a new Modi as a stubborn leader, an autocrat unused to listening to the other point of view, and a ruthless administrator. Among India’s prime ministers, only Indira Gandhi showed some of his traits, though Modi is a lot more single-handed and calculative than her. During the hated 1975-77 Emergency, Indira had virtually surrendered power to her son Sanjay Gandhi, something that Modi would never have done. And Indira had plenty of advisors, some good and some bad, from P. N. Haksar and Mohan Kumaramangalam to Dhirendra Brahmachari. But you can’t name anyone known to have Modi’s ear. There is no dearth of leaders who claim that he is the product of corporate houses. But no evidence of it has surfaced yet. Even those who beat his drums on TV channels and newspapers articles, can hardly claim he listens to them. Even Ram Jethmalani who was representing Narendra Modi in court cases and has secured the Rajya Sabha seat due to his support, was shown the door by Rajnath Singh. Modi didn’t save him either.
Post-Independence, India has shown a remarkable continuity. Jawaharlal Nehru departed, but his priorities remained untouched for years. Indira Gandhi took chances, but that wasn’t for too long. Rajiv Gandhi tried to tinker with the establishment. But couldn’t. P. V. Narasimha Rao hired Manmohan Singh, a professional economist, to recalibrate the state’s role in the economy, to some extent, not much. Vajpayee’s NDA government was a continuance of the past in spirit and style. And so has been the nine-year-long pas de deux of Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi.
The apprehension about Modi originates from the notion that he is bent upon changing the content of India’s politics, not merely its form. Over the decades, a soft government, with multiple power centers in the states, and a shocking lack of accountability in every sphere, have turned India into a safe haven of the inefficient and the corrupt. Modi has the reputation of a strict landlord who wouldn’t mind evicting the defaulting tenant. That explains why the M-word leaves so many Indians shivering.
(Harish Gupta is National Editor, Lokmat group of newspapers)
