11-24-2007, 09:44 PM
Modi, inept pragmatist
Swapan DasguptaPosted online: Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailGujaratâs CM is Indiaâs only genuine right-winger. Heâs a moderniser and that, ironically, has led to his difficulties.
Swapan Dasgupta
Related Stories BJP, seek donât Hyde
BJPâs Pratibha Patil
For the past few years the language of secularist outrage has become predictable. Last week, angered by the CPMâs high- handedness in Nandigram, historian Sumit Sarkar showered on West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the ultimate abusive epithet: he equated him with Narendra Modi.
No Indian public figure in living memory has been subjected to as much vilification as has the chief minister of Gujarat. From being routinely called âfascistâ and âmass murdererâ to being dubbed a four-letter word by a leading magazine, Modi has been projected as the epitome of ugliness. The anger is centred on his alleged acts of commission and omission during the post-Godhra violence of 2002. According to a parliamentary reply given by the Union minister of state for home affairs on May 11, 2005, a total of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in what has been variously described as a âpogromâ, âgenocideâ and, by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as another âHolocaustâ.
Given the persistence of shrillness, there was an expectation that the matter would have been brought once again to the court of democracy next month. Yet, as the subdued reactions to TV footage of sundry goons bragging about their murderous ways suggest, Gujarat is reluctant to revisit the gory past. Godhra and its fallout was the theme of the December 2002 election, and the political class is anxious to avoid an action replay. Righteous victimhood will at best form a silent sub-text of the campaign.
On the surface, the December poll appears a ânormalâ election. Despite the towering omnipresence of Modi, the themes at play â personal enmities, governance, caste, local grievances, campaign imagery, etc â hardly mark Gujarat out from other routine celebrations of democracy. At the same time, everyone agrees that the Gujarat verdict will have a profound bearing on future politics. Is the importance being attached to the Gujarat verdict, therefore, merely a consequence of Modiâs involvement? If identity politics isnât at the heart of this election, is the future of Modi just an academic issue?
The Gujarat election is a ânormalâ election if sectarian tensions are taken as the sole index of abnormality. However, in terms of establishing new benchmarks in governance and political management, how Gujarat votes will contain important lessons. In what may yet turn out to be a referendum on the past five years of Modiâs administration, the verdict may help redefine what can and cannot be achieved in the political sphere.
The real tragedy of Modi is that his audacious bid to reshape the rules of governance and politics has been overshadowed on the national stage by an obsessive preoccupation with Hindu-Muslim issues. In Gujarat, however, the agenda has been set by Modiâs strategy for rapid economic growth and an approach to political management that has produced tensions between him and a section of the RSS parivar.
Modi has presided over a period of double-digit economic growth in Gujarat. It has won him the lavish appreciation of industry and made Gujarat the most favoured destination of private investment. Yet, what has been insufficiently highlighted is that the success of Gujarat owes a great deal to Modiâs success in demolishing many of the ideological obstacles to market-oriented economics. Some of his more notable successes include: statutory curbs on government fiscal profligacy; curbing wasteful expenditure through a 9 per cent cut in non-plan expenditure over five years; carrying out radical reforms in the power sector that has led to profits for the âunbundledâ power companies and ensured generous power supply to rural Gujarat; and, most important, amending the draconian Industrial Disputes Act to make labour laws in the special economic zones receptive to market conditions.
Modi has been one of Indiaâs foremost modernisers. He has transformed Gujarat into an entrepreneur-friendly state and given India a foretaste of the potential benefits that can accrue from a government committed to economic freedom. His critics are right: Modi is Indiaâs only genuine right-winger.
Ironically, Modiâs difficulties have arisen from this unwavering commitment to efficiency as a principle of governance: âMinimum government and maximum governanceâ. The political culture of India, cutting across parties, is rooted in patronage and self-gratification. In defying these pressures â an important example is resisting political interference in Gujaratâs hugely successful public sector units â the chief minister has been portrayed as arrogant and insensitive to political compulsions. Both MLAs and pracharaks have turned their guns on him for repudiating the politics of âadjustmentâ, a euphemism for cronyism and discretionary irregularities.
Modi is an inept pragmatist. He could easily have bought peace for himself by making expedient compromises, as politicians are expected to do. In being fanatically uncompromising and, at the same time, maintaining the highest standards of personal integrity, he has shown the possibilities of an alternative approach to politics.
In challenging the âpower brokersâ (what Rajiv Gandhi tried and failed in the first years of his rule), Modi has taken a stupendous risk. There are many in the BJP who are fearful that his no-nonsense reputation, embellished by a show of machismo, may prove contagious and unsettle their little cosy arrangements. The fears are not unfounded. Modi has attempted to strike a direct rapport with the electorate bypassing intermediaries who call themselves âkaryakartasâ. In a parliamentary system this is always difficult, but he has tried to negotiate the problem by banking on a fierce personality cult around himself.
Conventional wisdom, particularly after the failure of India shining in 2004, shows there is no alternative to vote bank populism. The political class has also come to believe that exercising hard options is politically hazardous and can best be done by stealth and subterfuge. Modi has challenged these axioms robustly. The outcome of the assembly poll will show whether his faith in populist idealism is electorally tenable or not.
If Modi wins, there is a future for a refreshing brand of politics. If he is defeated, the political class will have taken its revenge on an interloper.
Swapan DasguptaPosted online: Saturday, November 24, 2007 at 0000 hrs Print EmailGujaratâs CM is Indiaâs only genuine right-winger. Heâs a moderniser and that, ironically, has led to his difficulties.
Swapan Dasgupta
Related Stories BJP, seek donât Hyde
BJPâs Pratibha Patil
For the past few years the language of secularist outrage has become predictable. Last week, angered by the CPMâs high- handedness in Nandigram, historian Sumit Sarkar showered on West Bengal Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee the ultimate abusive epithet: he equated him with Narendra Modi.
No Indian public figure in living memory has been subjected to as much vilification as has the chief minister of Gujarat. From being routinely called âfascistâ and âmass murdererâ to being dubbed a four-letter word by a leading magazine, Modi has been projected as the epitome of ugliness. The anger is centred on his alleged acts of commission and omission during the post-Godhra violence of 2002. According to a parliamentary reply given by the Union minister of state for home affairs on May 11, 2005, a total of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in what has been variously described as a âpogromâ, âgenocideâ and, by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, as another âHolocaustâ.
Given the persistence of shrillness, there was an expectation that the matter would have been brought once again to the court of democracy next month. Yet, as the subdued reactions to TV footage of sundry goons bragging about their murderous ways suggest, Gujarat is reluctant to revisit the gory past. Godhra and its fallout was the theme of the December 2002 election, and the political class is anxious to avoid an action replay. Righteous victimhood will at best form a silent sub-text of the campaign.
On the surface, the December poll appears a ânormalâ election. Despite the towering omnipresence of Modi, the themes at play â personal enmities, governance, caste, local grievances, campaign imagery, etc â hardly mark Gujarat out from other routine celebrations of democracy. At the same time, everyone agrees that the Gujarat verdict will have a profound bearing on future politics. Is the importance being attached to the Gujarat verdict, therefore, merely a consequence of Modiâs involvement? If identity politics isnât at the heart of this election, is the future of Modi just an academic issue?
The Gujarat election is a ânormalâ election if sectarian tensions are taken as the sole index of abnormality. However, in terms of establishing new benchmarks in governance and political management, how Gujarat votes will contain important lessons. In what may yet turn out to be a referendum on the past five years of Modiâs administration, the verdict may help redefine what can and cannot be achieved in the political sphere.
The real tragedy of Modi is that his audacious bid to reshape the rules of governance and politics has been overshadowed on the national stage by an obsessive preoccupation with Hindu-Muslim issues. In Gujarat, however, the agenda has been set by Modiâs strategy for rapid economic growth and an approach to political management that has produced tensions between him and a section of the RSS parivar.
Modi has presided over a period of double-digit economic growth in Gujarat. It has won him the lavish appreciation of industry and made Gujarat the most favoured destination of private investment. Yet, what has been insufficiently highlighted is that the success of Gujarat owes a great deal to Modiâs success in demolishing many of the ideological obstacles to market-oriented economics. Some of his more notable successes include: statutory curbs on government fiscal profligacy; curbing wasteful expenditure through a 9 per cent cut in non-plan expenditure over five years; carrying out radical reforms in the power sector that has led to profits for the âunbundledâ power companies and ensured generous power supply to rural Gujarat; and, most important, amending the draconian Industrial Disputes Act to make labour laws in the special economic zones receptive to market conditions.
Modi has been one of Indiaâs foremost modernisers. He has transformed Gujarat into an entrepreneur-friendly state and given India a foretaste of the potential benefits that can accrue from a government committed to economic freedom. His critics are right: Modi is Indiaâs only genuine right-winger.
Ironically, Modiâs difficulties have arisen from this unwavering commitment to efficiency as a principle of governance: âMinimum government and maximum governanceâ. The political culture of India, cutting across parties, is rooted in patronage and self-gratification. In defying these pressures â an important example is resisting political interference in Gujaratâs hugely successful public sector units â the chief minister has been portrayed as arrogant and insensitive to political compulsions. Both MLAs and pracharaks have turned their guns on him for repudiating the politics of âadjustmentâ, a euphemism for cronyism and discretionary irregularities.
Modi is an inept pragmatist. He could easily have bought peace for himself by making expedient compromises, as politicians are expected to do. In being fanatically uncompromising and, at the same time, maintaining the highest standards of personal integrity, he has shown the possibilities of an alternative approach to politics.
In challenging the âpower brokersâ (what Rajiv Gandhi tried and failed in the first years of his rule), Modi has taken a stupendous risk. There are many in the BJP who are fearful that his no-nonsense reputation, embellished by a show of machismo, may prove contagious and unsettle their little cosy arrangements. The fears are not unfounded. Modi has attempted to strike a direct rapport with the electorate bypassing intermediaries who call themselves âkaryakartasâ. In a parliamentary system this is always difficult, but he has tried to negotiate the problem by banking on a fierce personality cult around himself.
Conventional wisdom, particularly after the failure of India shining in 2004, shows there is no alternative to vote bank populism. The political class has also come to believe that exercising hard options is politically hazardous and can best be done by stealth and subterfuge. Modi has challenged these axioms robustly. The outcome of the assembly poll will show whether his faith in populist idealism is electorally tenable or not.
If Modi wins, there is a future for a refreshing brand of politics. If he is defeated, the political class will have taken its revenge on an interloper.