Let Indian decide Modi's fate

by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group

Let Indian decide Modi's fate

The Economist magazine, which is bible to generations of English-educated Indians, has long historical ties with India. Its founder, James Wilson, businessman and former secretary to the Treasury in Britain, died in Calcutta in 1860 while drafting,

as Finance Member of the Council of India, the outlines of the colony's tax system. Over the centuries, the fuzzy liberalism of his publication typical of the age evolved into a distinct right-of-the-centre entity on public issues, coupled with strong anti-authoritarian views. In 1975, when the media in India was gagged under Indira Gandhi's Emergency and thousands of opposition leaders were detained without trial, The Economist was far from mealy mouthed in its protest. "The son also rises", ran the headline to its article on Sanjay Gandhi, the Prime Minister's son and the acknowledged power behind the throne.

With such a reputation of its being on the side of fairness, it is perplexing therefore that the current issue of The Economist virtually pleads with India's voters not to vote Narendra Modi to prime minister's chair. "Can anyone stop Narendra Modi", asks its leader of the May 5 issue, adding that "He will probably become the next prime minister. That does not mean he should be". Those who have the patience to search the magazine's archive and read again the magazine's comments on the 1975 Emergency may find that, despite its clever headline, its tone was a lot more reserved than that of the current one. The issue then was grave indeed, with the world's largest democracy actually being throttled in its infancy. Now, the threat to India's pluralistic character which the magazine feels is imperilled by the rise of Modi can well be its genuine fear, but it is not a real-time horror as the Emergency was. The Economist castigates Modi for his alleged role in the post-Godhra riots and pitches that he hasn't been convicted because he and his supporters managed to destroy evidence. But it is not willing to consider the elephant in the room that investigation of his role during the 2002 riots was conducted under orders of the Supreme Court, an institution not regarded as biddable.

Being thus the judge and the jury, the magazine goes on to wail that Modi hasn't expiated for the killing of Muslims in Gujarat and therefore he should not be the prime minister. It does not clearly state why he should apologize for a crime in which he had neither legal nor moral responsibility. It is true that the carnage took place when Gujarat was under his charge, but can this alone be the ground for him to apologise to a single community. If it were so, the trigger of the riots, which was the killing of 59 Hindus by torching the train compartment in which they were travelling, would have required approaching the majority community with folded hands. It is public ethics at its puerile worst. By extending this logic, Britain should expiate for plundering India, including killing thousands of mutineers and ordinary people in the 1857 Mutiny following which The Economists' founder set his foot on India to write its tax laws. As a token of remorse for its guilt, Britain should return to India the Koh-i-noor it stole from her. And, in a fit of guilt-ridden journalism, The Economist must write a strong editorial in its support.

Levity apart, there is no doubt that a section of Western diplomats, policy wonks and journalists are unduly perturbed at the prospect of Modi stepping into the first floor office at South Block. The fear is somewhat cussedly described in the concerned article: "Mr. Modi might start well in Delhi but sooner or later he will have to cope with a sectarian slaughter or a crisis with Pakistan—and nobody, least of all the modernisers praising him now, knows what he will do...".

This is fiddle-faddle. It is most unbecoming of a publication that is taken seriously by most countries, including the information-starved poor ones. It disregards the obvious fact that there has not been a single instance of communal violence in Modi-governed Gujarat since 2002. It couldn't be the result of majority terror as successive surveys have shown that the Gujarati Muslims are a contented lot who are economically prospering more than their co-religionists in other states. In other words, Modi's Western critics are not prepared to factor in the key reality of human character that it does change. Instead, as the lines cited above show, they're obsessed with the possibility of a nuclear showdown between India and Pakistan and the fear that it may engulf the world in an international crisis next to none since the Second World War.

The West prefers to have risk-free engagements with the developing countries. It wants them to stay as market and as suppliers of raw material (and smart CEOs), just as they were in the colonial era. No wonder the rise of Deng Hsiaobing in China caused trepidation in Washington and European capitals. In a way, India’s 67 years long history of politics of compromise—social, economic and military—served as a hedge for the West against the emergence of a new competitor for power and resources. Hence the litany of Modi being divisive and a bad choice for India.

It is to be noted that the government of the United Kingdom is a pragmatic entity. Its representatives have maintained regular lines of communication with all Indian leaders including Modi and nobody in Westminster is unduly jittery about a fictional Indo-Pakistan war. The Economist should understand that it is the business of Indian voters—not that of an ex-colonial gadfly—to decide which kind of party or parties should rule India and what sort of a person should head the government. During the Vietnam war, it defended the Nixon administration till the last moment. It was silent when the Pakistan army cracked down on East Pakistan, killing millions of Bengalis. Time it should desist from playing the transnational grandfather.

(The author is 

national editor of the Lokmat group 

and based 

in Delhi)