That Modi is a polarizing figure is a self evident truth. What is not so clear is the reason this man has been demonized so much. Gujarat has had a history of ghastly communal riots and the carnage of 2002 still pales when compared to the 1969 Ahmedabad riots which were triggered by massacre of cows and temple priest’s alongwith attack on Rath Yatra. Even otherwise, more than a quarter of casualties in the riots were Hindus, clearly indicating that it was far, far from a much abused word ‘pogrom’ and with due respect to the unfortunate dead, our intelligentsia should study Rwanda, Cambodia, Yugoslavia or our own medieval and modern history (partition) to understand what the genocide or a pogrom means.
Still, the image of Modi as the ‘Hindu Hriday Samrat’ was justified to the extent that he was aggressive with regards to the cause of the riots and even otherwise, the aggressive campaign of the NGO –ECI brigade resulted in a consolidation of Nationalist forces behind Modi, so much so that even the Congress did not fight the election on the plank of riots. Very soon, however, it became amply clear that Modi had little sympathies for Hindutva, in spite of his life long career in the RSS. Not only were the VHP office bearers marginalized, very soon, people started finding themselves behind bars in riot related cases. Not only were the likes of Keshubhai Patel and Rana pushed to margins, erstwhile foot soldiers like Gordhan Zadaphia became sworn enemies of Modi. Modi’s impatience with a Hindutva agenda became all the more clear when, on his orders, municipal authorities demolished scores of temples but left mosques and dargahs untouched, after outbreak of Muslim violence in Vadodara. It is indeed a miracle, that the VHP, which had active units in each of Gujarat’s 10,000 odd towns and villages till a decade back, seems like a spent force today.
Yet, in spite of having marginalized the RSS and its affiliates, including the powerful Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, Modi won a spectacular mandate once again in 2007. This mandate indicated that the mass’s adoration of Modi had moved beyond his macho image to his development mantra. Today, with almost everyone signing paeans to Modi’s commitment to development, it would be churlish to deny that Modi has emerged as a formidable champion of developmental politics. To say that Gujaratis’ have always been industrious and that Modi has no role to play in development simply indicates an envious mindset for if nothing else, the ever-conscious of profits Gujarati would be more aware than you and me if Modi had indeed made a difference to their pursuit of prosperity.
Interestingly, in we look at the 2007 elections dispassionately, we will find that the elections were considered tough for him on account of the strident anti Modi position taken by the VHP, formation of the rebel BJP, by the dissents led by Gordhan Zadaphia and the presence of Uma Bharti’s Lok Janshakti, which managed to attract a significant number of sitting MLAs as candidates for the coming polls. However, as elections neared, Ashok Singhal declared that he had no differences with Modi and said VHP would campaign for Hindutva leaning candidates, Uma Bharti withdrew her candidates (though some still fought as independents) and silently, the RSS volunteers campaigned for Modi and Modi alone. Why did it happen? After suffering marginalization and insults for 4 years, it was probably a right time for the Sangh to show Modi that the latter was not indispensable and his dreams of ruling Gujarat hinged on the support of those he had been dismissing as the rustic cousins. However, nothing of this sort happened and Modi was blessed with Sangh support yet again. In all likelihood, the Sangh would have calculated that for a party demoralized with loss of power in 2004 General Elections and facing ideological confusion post Advani’s attempts to turn secular, the loss of Gujarat would have been a body blow to the morale of its activists. Maybe, there was some other commitment of Modi to ‘mend’ his way which became the deciding factor for Sangh to throw its weight behind the son who had wandered, rather than attempting a ‘cutting the nose to spite the face’ act.
To be fair to Modi, while the RSS, the VHP and numerous other Sangh Parivar affiliates continue to be marginalized in Gujarat, there had not been any open confrontation between his Government and others. That an open dissident like Dr Kanubhai Kalsaria still continues as a BJP MLA, probably would indicate that some sort of arrangement between Modi and the Sangh had been in place.
However, Modi’s antics in the last few weeks seem to indicate the limitations of such truces. Frankly, for an ambitious man like Modi, anything less than the Prime Ministership would be an affront to his own perception of his capabilities and indispensability and like his one time mentor LK Advani, Modi has attempted to turn a new leaf and be seen as a moderate, capable of winning acceptability from all sections of society. While this may or this may not fit in the Sangh’s scheme of things, which pushed the arch moderate Vajpayee to the center stage when he had been languishing on the margins for years, knowing well his proclivity to moderation, what certainly may not fit the Sangh’s worldview is his open defiance of the BJP Leadership. Ironically, it Modi becomes aggressively intolerant of the Sangh and more open in his defiance, he may still achieve what his Sadbhavna fast failed to – endorsement of the chattering classes.
The media would like us to believe that Modi is immensely popular among the cadre while having limited appeal to voters outside Gujarat. While the latter may be true, considering that the BJP’s performance hasn’t really peaked where he campaigned, one wonders if the cadres will really be as enamored of Modi if more and more of them become aware that the Hindu Nationalist Modi took birth and died in 2002. The Modi we have today would probably be closest to a refined male version of Mrs Indira Gandhi – insecure, scheming, autocratic but resolute and strong – seen as a leader who delivers! For a Nation plagued with vapid leaders, a strong leader has its attractions. At the same time, one cannot discount the fact that for all her positive contributions, Indira stands heads and shoulders above all others in having succeeded in subverting the system and compromising our Constitution. Yet, for all her faults, Indira did not ditch the people she claimed she stood for. Till the very end, she remained steadfast to the people who stood by her and for those who stood for her. Here in Modi, we may be faced with a leader who cares little for those who adore him and certainly one, who has left those behind who stood for him, when it mattered the most.
No comments:
Post a Comment