|
|
|
 |
Note: The original e-mail sent to Mint has been corrected for the more visible typos. The article, in response to which this e-mail was written, can be accessed at Narendra Modi, autocrat?.
For, as the mass of mankind remains always at about the same pitch of misery, it never assents long to any one remedy, but is always best pleased by a novelty which has not yet proved illusive.
~ Theologico-Political Treatise - Part 1, Spinoza
Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.
~ Phrase from the song Mrs. Robinson by Simon & Garfunkel (1968)
"Most issues in politics are complicated. Unfortunately, many voters want simple answers, preferably slogans not exceeding three words, and one-syllable ones at that. So we get the politicians we deserve. "Free world" and "democracy" are about as useful and descriptive as a smiley emoji, but woe betide any politician who doesn't utter them at least fives times in any speech."
~ Comment by 'Henalltud' on The Guardian website under the article Heated debate sees Clinton and Sanders spar on Middle East policy and taxes, December 19, 2015.
In the run-up to the May 2014 national elections in India, the three-word slogan of "Gujarat Model of Administration" was an admirable example of the above. It goes without saying that the saving grace was that these were three intelligble words. The fact that they were uncorrelated with each other leading to an inchoate meaning was a matter of insignificance for the mainstream business (and larger english media) press. Given that a third of the electorate reposed their heart-warming faith in the enticingly gullible meaning of these three words ensured that such productive exercises (of conjuring three words) continued post the election. However when anything is done beyond a certain point (such as the not too hidden sacrasm in this paragraph) it leads to diminution of any latent power that any phenomenon holds, including a dangerous one. Indeed the continuation post May 2014 has been inching closer from the exertion of three words to the ideal of three syllables. Some clap every such syllable, while others shake their heads in despair. The majority, though, does not give a damn because they are in love with TINA (There is No Alternative) rather than make effort to court LUCAA (Let Us Create Another Alternative). In the meantime, news of rural distress is simply to be treated as an avoidable inconvenience which may cause some momentary disruptions in the Nifty leading to a temporary feeling of 'feeling not as well-protected as one needs to be'.
From merchant.kushagra@gmail.com Wed Dec 18 12:43:14 2013
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2013 12:43:14 +0530
From: Kushagra
To: siddharth.s@livemint.com
Subject: On "Narendra Modi, Autocrat?"
Dear Siddharth,
Your question allows for jumping through the foreword and to the main text. So,
1. To the question there can be four answers (to keep things manageable): yes, no, weakly yes, weakly no. The column argues that even if it is yes, Mr Modi offers a better choice than current dispensation.
2. But there is a certain hesitation in the column, and to an extent, even a mild irritation, that people suppose he is autocratic but it may not be true. If we honour this hesitation and assume at least a "weak no" that Mr. Modi is not an autocrat, then it begs a question. Should the question be UPA vs. Mr. Modi (with an undertone of NAC vs. Mr. Modi) or rather it should be NDA under Mr. Modi vs. UPA/NAC (or anyone we may wish to fit in this slot, depending on the popular current of the day). If the debate is then framed in this way, then the next question is how will NDA under Mr. Modi differ in decision-making from UPA (under NAC, Mrs. Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi or interestingly, Priyanka Gandhi or again, slot any one else in this as may be needed). On this, will the NDA definitively be distinctive and by implication, will it be only the Gujarat Administrative Model or an eclectic patchwork of other models where NDA and its allies have been influential over a sustained period? And yes, one forgot to add the point which the paper has been constantly hinting at, and now been vocal about: about NAC under-cutting the government and distoring its policies and causing grave damage in the process. Rest assured, the role of NAC as an "extra-constitutional" body will be performed by RSS (with the added flavour that RSS in some cases has consciously subverted the constitution and may even be deemed non-constitutional in some ways). The recent stand of BJP on the section 377 issue is a case in point. Thus at the end of the day the extra choices to citizens may not be so easily available in that case.
3. But one still has a right to question: Will the NDA dispensation be really all that different? One line of argument would say, no because the difference betweeen all political parties is really in form and not substance. It seems to be an occupational hazard of being in politics that no politician has been able to rise above politics. But is that really the case? While a politician is always a politician and a political party always a political party, there is always one difference: ideology.
4. The column begins with "the great fear of the intellectual and political class" and identifies secularism as the "totem of Indian ideology". Lets make a small correction. Instead of calling it "Indian" lets call it "Indian political ideology". In taking a sarcastic note on the "intellectual and political class" of Delhi, one is forgiven for entertaining the feeling that the column wishes to stand outside of this class. But throughout the column we are faced with a dilemma: it claims to present an alternative "totem of Indian political ideology" with an overdue emphasis on favouring a government which is responsible for how it spends. So what has happened is that the old totem still stands and one more is put beside it. How does this new one fare? And more importantly, this new totem points definitively to Mr. Modi. But we just agreed that the column itself contradicts its overdue emphasis on an autocratic personality and by that, eventually points to BJP/RSS/Allies instead of Congress/NAC/Allies.
5. While the column establishes this totem, it fails to compare its merit under the above governing structure. One thing is very clear: this totem with an exclusive emphasis on the economic lens seems narrower than the older totem which, while possibly confusing and ineffective, is broader. Why is this worth considering? Because the column has questioned the understanding of democracy and has outlined an understanding based on this totem. But then there is a bigger irony here: in a democracy, the definition of democracy itself can be arrived at only through a democratic process. And this definition will never be fixed. It has to change. Trying to predict the change or trying to impose an intellectual understanding of this change actually runs counter to well, er, the universal adult franchise. While the column says it is a weak definition, but in being a weak definition everyone has to admit it is the first principle of democracy on which there is scope to add more.
6. And this is the danger of being a "Reluctant Duelist". You have to find something to fight against (and fight for). In this case a certain ideological totem. In the process one becomes, in essence, what one is fighting against. In this case, another ideological totem. And in becoming this, one is led to conclusions which, on more unideological days, one would not wish to make so easily.
7. There is always a middle way, and that is to get back to the sarcasm at the beginning of the column reserved for the intellectual and political class. If we internalize that sacrasm, forgo either of the ideological positions and take a hard look at the recent set of claims the paper is doing a good job of making a propoganda out of: NAC has failed, Gujarat model of adminsitration is admirable. On the first, it is unfortunately a research-led debate, one that puts the efforts and outcomes of the NAC in the historical context and pits it against the future. That, unfortunately, only the posterity will be in a position to answer with any degree of scientific truth. The second, on the Gujarat Model of Administration is far simpler. I propose a simple road trip through Gujarat with a very honest and patient mind-set. That proposition will, literally, crumble before one's eyes if one is really willing to look very deep.
8. It is not a question of whether Gujarat has developed. It is a question of what really is development and in the case of Gujarat, what is the difference between the said, the unsaid and the actual. That difference is uncomfortably too large. And such a difference can be sustained only under one condition: if the administration had some element of autocracy within it.
Best,
Kushagra
P.S.---For the last 1 year I am based in Ahmedabad
See also A Letter to Mint: On Shruti Kapila
P.S. "In December 2002, weeks before the announcement of state election results in Gujarat, MJ Akbar, then the editor-in-chief of the news daily The Asian Age, published a column. That July, Gujarat's legislative assembly had been prematurely dissolved, and its chief minister, Narendra Modi, had resigned, following criticism of his Bhartiya Janata Party government for widespread anti-Muslim violence under its watch earlier in the year.
Akbar's column, titled 'Congress is BJP's B-Team in Gujarat', chided the opposition party for a campaign strategy centred on "soft-Hindutva," a watered-down version of the BJP's Hindu nationalist ideology. "It is chicanery to claim outside Gujarat that you want to destroy the evil of communalism by defeating Narendra Modi," he wrote, "and to indulge in a variation of his communalism inside Gujarat." But he had sharp words for the BJP too. A major victory for Modi should cause the party to worry, he said. The chief minister is an ideologue, with a difference. The difference is hysteria. It is an edgy hysteria, which can mesmerise; and it easily melts into the kind of megalomania that makes a politician believe that he is serving the larger good through a destructive frenzy against a perceived enemy. In Hitler's case, the enemy was the Jew; in Modi's case the enemy is the Muslim. Such a politician is not a fool; in fact, he may have a high degree of intellect. But it is intellect unleavened by reason, and untempered by humanism.
Akbar continued,
If Modi wins big, he will immediately seek to make the whole of the BJP a version of his Gujarat experience. He is already visibly contemptuous of the senior leadership of his own party. ... Modi will mount a challenge within his party, and get some support too; he will dream of becoming Prime Minister of India after a national victory fashioned through the Gujarat rhetoric.
With all of this, Akbar warned, "long before Modi gets anywhere near Delhi, he will have destroyed the BJP."
--- Extracted from the article "Experiments with Truth, MJ Akbar's inconstant path through journalism and politics" by Hartosh Singh Bal in The Caravan Magazine, December 2015.
It takes one intelligent man on one side of the fence to see another on the other side of the fence. Those sitting on the fence seem to loose all perspective as they are busy ensuring they don't trip over and fall down. Having said that: it is not long before intelligent men on one side move to the other side, ignoring the fence altogether, and in the process failing to take advantage of the solitary virtue that the fence has to offer: repose and reflection.
P.P.S: The following excerpt makes one realize how far the media missed its mark in the six monthly period leading upto the General Election of May 2014. To (a) rename 'continuity' as a 'model' , (b) to confuse (or ignore) what is historical and circumstantial as a well-planned modern design and (c) to conflate what is essentially an evolutionary process with the will of an individual lay bare the conceptual (or worse still, moral) underpinnings of those whose profession it is to wield the pen with a responsible sense of weighted deliberation. To quote from "A new model of development", Dr. Shaibal Gupta, Frontline, Vol. 32, Number 22, October 31 - November 13, 2015:
"
Even with limited success, Bihar can be calibrated with Gujarat, the "poster" State for development. Ironically, the electoral stability of any Chief Minister or a political party over a period or even economic development may not be the guarantee for social tranquility. An obvious example is Hardik Patel's movement in Gujarat on behalf of the Patidar community, one of the most prosperous communities, indicating the limitations of the capital-intensive growth strategy which is far from being inclusive. Even though Bihar has witnessed some development only in the past 10 years, its track recod in terms of inclusion is much better.
...
The two development trajectories, one in the landlocked state of Bihar and the other in a seafront State of Gujarat, need to be evaluated against the backdrop of the economic evolution of the two regions. If one makes a clinical dissection of the two models, Gujarat's achievements can hardly be characterized as a "model". Narendra Modi's achievement in Gujarat is actually a continuation of a momentous policy that has been in place for about two centuries. Admittedly, Gujarat is the most happening State and its growth model is being advertised both nationally and internationally; some people believe that "Gujaratisation of India" is the only way out for our nation. But, quite surprisingly, these people also claim that the development in Gujarat is of recent origin, primarily because of the initiatives of one individual. This understand has serious flaws. It ignores the historical and societal construct of Gujarat. Over and above, institutional factors ultimately determine the societal understanding and priorities of a State. Unlike the "Permanent Settlement" States, the "Ryotwari" States, including Gujarat, historically had good governance.
So, it was no accident that Gujarat produced generations of distinguished public functionaries who created new developmental benchmarks. Consequently, enterpreneurship flourished because of huge positive externalities. There have been several instances of first-generation entrepreneurs, like Dhirubhai Ambani, Guatam Adani and Karsanbhai Patel (Nirma), reaching the pinnacle in no time. Even the Anand experience of milk cooperative created a global benchmark. The princley States also played a decisive role in this matter. The princely State of Baroda (Vadodara) created a record in matters of administrative and developmental innovation. But all these institutional advantages are a historical phenomenon, not a recent trend. Way back in 1984, when Madhavsinh Solanki was Chief Minister, the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) broought out a table of 100 districts with an investment of more than Rs. 4,000 crore. Gujarat had the highest number of districts (nearly 25) on this list. In Bharuch district alone, the investment was more than the total investment in the rest of the country.
In fact, Narendra Modi's was a continuation of the trend of financial and industrial accumulation in Gujarat; he was not its initiator. Finally, it is to be noted that notwithstanding the economic growth of the State, which makes it the third richest one in India, social development in Gujarat lags behind. In terms of sector indicators, like (a) literacy, b) life expectancy at birth, (c) infant mortality, (d) poverty ratio, (e) multidimensional poverty index, (f) hunger index, and (g) human development index, Gujarat ranks very low. Against this backdrop, Hardik Patel's movement is a wholly understandable phenomenon (alphabetical numbering added for emphasis).
In contrast, Nitish's strategy of resurrection of Bihar can certainly be seen as a "model". In Bihar, Nitish did not inherit any benchmark for a Chief Minister who can be emulated. Unlike Narendra Modi with a strong organisational foundation of the BJP, Nitish Kumar had many political agendas to pursue. He also had to build the massive state structure, energise the public system and kick-start a growth process. Even though he could not accomplish all, Bihar did make a decisive start, changing the direction of its development discourse.
One thing that should be borne in mind is that Bihar subsidised the entire post-Indepenedence industrialisation of the country by allowing its mineral resources to be taken outside through the "freight equalisation" policy. Bihar's growth is also demonstratively more inclusive, with the State recording substantial gains in education, health and other social indicators. Between 2001 and 2011, the literacy rate increased by 16.8 percentage points. There has been a dramatic decline in the infant mortality rate, which now equals the national average.
That indeed makes Nitish's strategy a new model of development. In any case, the future models of growth will be essentially human-development centric. In the new social justice electoral alignment with Lalu Prasad, Nitish Kumar can lead the churning of agrarian reform from the front, ignoring electoral populism. This path of development, in which growth and equity command equal attention, will create a social justice benchmark in the country.
"
P.P.P.S Incidentally, how should we view gross errors of a nation, founded on forgetfulness and speculative hope, in the choice of its leader?
"... But the Gujarat pogrom cannot be wished away by Modi, or his admirers. The situation on the ground continues to shriek its relevance. Two questions must be faced honestly. First, why did his admirers shut their eyes to a man with such a background? And can a man with such a heavy load of baggage serve as the Prime Minister of a secular country?
This is where judgement of character comes. "A highly impressionable person without a firm grip of public affairs and without any strong convictions ... an amiable man with philantrophic impulses, but he is not the dangerous enemy of anything, ... a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for the office, would very much like to be President." Until he died 40 years later, neither friend nor foe could forget Walter Lippman's egregiously wrong appraisal of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. But a little over a decade earlier, after a brief meeting with Roosevelt, the sage Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered a judgement that stood the test of time: "A second-rate intellect, but a first-rate temperament."
What is that Holmes had which Lippmann lacked? It is what is known in Urdu as mardun-shanasi, the art of judging characer. It is a gift given to few. People are not particularly keen to acquire it, either. It complicates things. There is another comforting belief, not unlike that held by parents in the olden days that the rakish son would mature in marriage. So, trust Richard Nixon and Morarji Desai to mellow at the apex of power. They did not; nor did Indira Gandhi after her return to power in 1980."
---
To add to the above:
"Modi has successfully branded himself as a non-corrupt, efficient administrator, as a facilitator, of business in a State with a deep commercial culture, and as a no-nonsense, law and order politician who looks after the interests of the Hindu majority. Modi's backers in the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] now hope to convince the party leadership that he can use these positive traits to attract voters throughout India. Some voters believe, or hope, that the voters will forget and forgive Modi's role in the 2002 bloodshed, once they learn to appreciate his other qualities...
"In public appearances, Modi can be charming and likeable. By all accounts, however, he is an insular, distrustful person who rules with a small group of advisers. This inner circle acts as a buffer between the Chief Minister and his Cabinet and party. He reigns more by fear and intimidation than by inclusiveness and consensus, and is rude, condescending and often derogatory to even high-level party officials. He hoards power and often leaves his Ministers in the cold when making decisions that affect their portfolios" (emphasis added throughout).
The writer was Michael S. Owen, the U.S. Consul General in Mumbai, in whose bailiwick Gujarat fell. That his sober, nuanced 2,850-word cable, dated November 2, 2006, was cleared by U.S. Embassy in New Delhi, before its despatch to the State Department, shows that it was carefully considered by the Ambassador and his colleagues. Suresh Nambath aptly remarked: "The disquisition could well form the core of an M.A. thesis in politics." ... The cable was part of the WikiLeaks disclosures published in The Hindu; this one, on March 22, 2011.
The cable might well have been written shortly after Modi became Prime Minister and tried to fulfil his dream of replicating "the Gujarat model" nationally. He began by undermining the Cabinet system of government at the Centre, as he had in Gujarat. Ministers were cut to size, chosen civil servants were exalted. Amit Shah was appointed the BJP's president. The grip on the party was complete. As in Gujarat, rivals were the shown the door."
---
~ India's Sawdust Caesar, A. G. Noorani, Frontline, Volume 32, Number 25, December 12-25, 2015.
| |
|