If Prime Minister Narendra Modi is to be taken for his word, then his agenda for India is one of development and change. It was the iteration of this slogan in political rallies across the country in the run-up to last year’s parliamentary election that caught the imagination of voters who gave him the most impressive victory for any prime ministerial candidate in 30 years.
Naturally, with such a large mandate, it is only to be expected that a good number of public opinion makers - editorial writers, columnists, political commentators and anchors of television channels - also give the thumbs-up to the winner, especially when the previous decade witnessed a steady erosion of people’s confidence in the government.
Some like Tavleen Singh were out-and-out admirers of Modi and had no hesitation in saying so. In her blog on May 21, 2014, recapturing the day when the election results were announced, Singh wrote: “What a time it has been. What a week. Who would have thought that Indian politics could change so much so quickly? As someone who has been boasting a lot lately about having spotted a Modi wave before anyone else did I need to admit that not even I expected the Bharatiya Janata Party to get a full majority on its own.”
“We should welcome the fact that this is a victory achieved primarily on an unqualified promise of economic reform never seen in our political history, soaked as it is in the fading pink of fake socialism,” wrote Shekhar Gupta, one of India’s most respected editors, in his column in the Indian Express on May 17, 2104, the day after the results came out. Gupta, who supports many of the economic programmes that Modi has initiated, had also maintained that the leftist and pseudo-intellectual fear of Modi destroying established institutions was not just unfounded but also scare-mongering.
“Modi is a political phenomenon without precedent. In the annals of democratic politics, there are few stories to match his. He is a politician who embodies the quintessence of politics: converting adversity into opportunity. That single characteristic, more than any other, sums up his appeal…. In a discourse suffused with all that cannot be done, he came to be an embodiment of all that can be done under adversity,” wrote celebrated academic and commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta in his article in The Indian Express on May 17, 2014.
Mohamed Akhlaq was lynched by a frenzied mob in Basara village in Uttar Pradesh’s Dadri municipality on September 30 for the alleged crime of eating beef and also storing it at home. Below are what these commentators had to say about Modi in relation to the Dadri incident:
“It was a shameful display of primitive, provincial thinking, and Mr Modi would do well to notice that, along with the ‘ghar wapasi’ nonsense that went on through his entire first year in office, it serves to distract from the reasons why he became prime minister. The vote was for change and development and not Hindutva.” - Tavleen Singh.
“The Dadri incident is a chilling turning point in our politics. It marks the rise of Hindu supremacist mob militancy that the BJP won’t unequivocally condemn or disown. It will criticise the killing, but qualify it in a half-dozen ways.” - Shekhar Gupta.
“The blame for this has to fall entirely on Modi. Those who spread this poison enjoy his patronage. This government has set a tone that is threatening, mean-spirited and inimical to freedom.” - Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
Modi can make fun of a Rahul Gandhi or a Nitish Kumar or Lalu Prasad as much as he wants for their criticism of his policies because theirs will always carry a political colour. But when fair-minded, independent commentators start pointing fingers, it is advisable to sit up and take note.
For more than a week many of these neutral observers had been calling on Modi to end his silence on the gruesome murder of Akhlaq. This when the prime minister found time to tweet his best wishes to an ex-cricketer who is admitted to hospital. You could, of course, turn around and say such things are routinely handled by the PMO but a statement condemning the murder of Akhlaq - or for that matter those of Maharashtra’s left-wing politician Govind Pansare or Kannada writer Malleshappa Khalburgi or Marathi rationalist Narendra Dabholkar - would require more time and thought.
So, after much thought and still more time, Modi spoke. At a political rally in Bihar. And what did he say? He simply said those Hindus who are fighting Muslims and those Muslims who are fighting Hindus would be better off fighting poverty. And for good measure he seconded what President Pranab Mukherjee said the previous day - that the nation must remain united and should ignore irresponsible politicians.
The Hindu-Muslim fight against poverty is a theme that Modi had intoned much before he became prime minister. So there was nothing new in it. And if Modi was referring to the Dadri incident, it could hardly be described as a Hindu-Muslim fight because it had political polarisation written all over it. And as for the president’s speech, it was at best a homily, so repeating it was so much an exercise in boredom.
It is a curious coincidence that just as the Akhlaq killing and the prime minister’s silence was making front-page news on national dailies, US President Barack Obama went before cameras to unequivocally condemn the mass shooting in an Oregon college. He said he was angry and frustrated at the turn of events and asked Americans to rethink sincerely on the need to own weapons that are capable of such mass destruction.
Except in the case of Delhi and a few other federally ruled states, law and order is entirely up to individual states. But Modi gets the blame because the intolerance and vigilantism of fringe elements is beginning to get a pan-India profile. And remember, today’s fringe can be tomorrow’s mainstream. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Bhajrang Dal were once fringe groups. Their leaders are now the who’s who of Hindu nationalists.
Political morals have hit their nadir in India, so it is not difficult to believe that at least some of these attacks may have been plotted by Modi’s political opponents some of whom are within his own party. But whichever way you look at it, the government of the day has much to answer for. No wonder then that someone like Pratap Bhanu Mehta is forced to conclude that “those who spread this poison enjoy his (Modi’s) patronage.”
Delhi abuzz with reshuffle rumours
Elections to the Bihar state assembly, which began on Monday, is going to be a long-drawn affair. November 5 is the last day of polling and the results will be out three days later on November 8. But Delhi is abuzz with rumours that Prime Minister Modi is getting ready for a big reshuffle of his cabinet immediately after the polls.
If these rumours have any basis, there are going to be some big changes in names and portfolios, those of Suresh Prabhu and Ravi Shankar Prasad heading the list. When the PMO flagged a “less than satisfactory” rating for the railways last month, it was believed that Prabhu could be on the way out. However, at a function to lay the foundation stone for two metro rail projects in Mumbai this week, Modi showered wholesome praise on the railway minister, possibly to dispel rumours of his impending departure from the ministry.
With a 1.5mn workforce and the world’s fourth largest rail network, managing Indian railways is a humongous job. Prabhu has been going about it professionally, but the results of his endeavours are taking time to fruition. With a pat from the prime minister coming at the right time, Prabhu might shift gears now.
No such luck seems to be favouring Prasad who is heading the telecom ministry. With mobile call drops becoming a national outrage, Modi reportedly told Prasad that if he could not handle it, let somebody else do it. Modi had made his displeasure about the call drops known earlier too and Prasad himself came on television to explain that everything will be fine soon. But that “soon” seems to be open-ended as the situation has only worsened of late. India Today TV even brought out a cartoon show on the subject but nothing seems to move the ministry or the service providers.
