It is fair when a party in power says that its achievements or failures should be judged after five years for which it is elected to the office. After all, one has to achieve one’s objectives of fulfilling the electoral promises in a planned or phased manner within this period of five years. Viewed thus, things cannot be set right in just about two months that the Narendra Modi and his colleagues have been in office. But then the fact remains that politics is all about perceptions of the common people, and if one goes by the emerging perceptions of not only general public but also many BJP activists and supporters, the Modi government’s short record is uninspiring. In my considered opinion, there are three reasons for such a perception. While one is a serious reason that needs somber analysis, the other two reasons are relatively minor and can be easily set right by the Modi government. Let me deal with them first.
It is not a rocket science to understand that food-inflation is the one that hurts the common people the most. And the food inflation that we are seeing in places like Delhi has less to do with the nature. The farmer does not benefit a single pie extra because of this inflation. If the rates of the food items at the retails are 400 to 700 per cent higher than that in the mandis, then there is something wrong in the distribution system. If under Modi, cauliflower sells Rs 100 a kg, tomatoes Rs 70 and onions Rs 40 at the retails, then no amount of explanation by the government is going to convince the common people. In fact, the onion prices shot up the moment a responsible minister of Modi proudly announced that the government would not allow the onion prices to go beyond Rs. 40 a kg. Before this announcement, onions were easily available at Rs. 20 or so. And what is most shocking that this year there has been a good harvest of the onion; so much so that in Maharashtra the famers are selling onions under distress in the absence of storing facilities!
The second problem is the growing distance between Modi’s ministers and the party-workers/supporters. After assuming office, the ministers are living inside “secluded forts” and have shut doors to the activists and well-wishers who had relentlessly worked for their and party’s victory over the years in some way or the other. The one standard argument that one hears is that the ministers are doing so because they do not want to meet these activists and supporters who are only obsessed with seeking favours from the government.
Though that is not exactly the case always and that sometimes well-wishers want to convey meaningful suggestions to the ministers, the fact nonetheless remains that in every established democracy (and this includes the US and Britain), political patronage is a legitimate affair. No leader should think that it is the will of the God that it is he or she who will enjoy the fruits of electoral victory by being a minister and that his or her party workers and supporters should tirelessly strive for the party cause without expecting anything in return. In fact, a successful politician is he or she who maintains the loyalty of his or her supporters and yet is not parochial or sectarian in furthering or doing the bigger national task. The Vajpayee government had forgotten this basic lesson, evident in its disastrous performance in 2004 elections. One distinctly remembers how diehard BJP activists were distributing sweets over the party’s defeat that year; such was the distance between the Vajpayee government and the BJP in 2004!
Now let me go to the more serious reason why the image of the Modi government has lost some of its sheen of late. The reason is serious because unless addressed squarely, it will have serious and long-term repercussions. As I have invariably argued in this column, more than being BJP’s victory, it was Modi’s victory in the last general elections. Modi conducted his electioneering in a presidential style. Based on his record in Gujarat as the Chief Minister, he promised to be the harbinger of real changes in the Indian polity and economy. And when one talks of the Indian polity and economy all these years, the fact is that these have been strongly moulded in what is called Nehruvian framework, a framework which no BJP leader of repute had ever challenged. So much so that it was said that after Jawaharlal Nehru himself, if any Prime Minister acted to further strengthen this framework then it was none other than Atal Behari Vajpayee! In fact, it was under Vajpayee as the founding President of the modern-day BJP in 1980 that the party incorporated the word “socialism” in its charter. Vajpayee’s “Gandhian socialism” may be argued by its present-day leaders to be akin to Deendayal Upadhaya’s “integral humanism”, but that in my opinion is not the case. They are as different as chalk and cheese.
In essence, Nehru had a vision of leading a strong and centralised government out of impoverishment and backwardness, through socialism and planning. In fact, Nehru was the father of the concept of competitive populism among the politicians who view the purpose of the economy is to generate money which they can spend as they like. In political sphere, Nehru talked of equality in abstract terms because of which merit and competence were believed to be dirty words and the so-called affirmative actions through caste-based reservations became the order of the day. Nehru’s “science” led to the neglect and eventual loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world. Nehru’s secularism meant reforms only in the Hinduism and promotion of minoritysm. Nehru’s world view was idealism devoid of realism that led to the utter neglect of defence forces.
This is not to suggest that I am belittling Nehru and his great contributions to the country. My point is that in a democracy that we are, Nehru’s vision cannot be the only vision or panacea to end India’s myriad ills. All told, India that still continues with Nehruvian ideas is the country where still one third of the world’s poor live. And this despite the fact that at the time of independence Indian economy was miles ahead of the Chinese economy and Korean economy. But see where they are today. They are now miles ahead of us. India in the Nehruvian mould is much more corrupt today than what it was in 1947. And India under the Nehruvian mould is socially much more fragmented today than what it was in 1947. Violence, crime, rape, sodomy, drunkenness and incest in the ghettoes have been on ascent in a Nehruvian India. The Nehruvian mantra all these years has been “keep the poor if not poorer, further extend state interference into the private domain, and further divide an already-divided Indian society against itself”.
Modi had promised to break India from this Nehruvian mould and present us a different model of governance. The voters responded to his call for trying a Modi-model for five years. And here, people had reposed faith in Modi, not the BJP as such as the party suffers from every ill associated with Nehurvianism. Like any other leading party of the country, the BJP is a highly populist party. The BJP asks people not to give the enhanced electricity and water bills in Delhi; despite the fact the rates of electricity and water in the national capital are arguably the lowest in the country. But Modi’s record in Gujarat was different. He disconnected electricity supply to the defaulters but ensured what once seemed impossible: 24-hour, uninterrupted three-phase electricity to the people. The point is that like the Congress, the BJP too believes in the “subsidy raj”, costing the nation trillions and trillions of rupees. Like the Congress, the BJP believes in glorifying the notion of “Daridra Narayan” (poor is God) and giving the poor alms of few rupees or some kilograms of grains here and there. The BJP does not advocate for creating a system with all-round development so that nobody remains poor and beggar. The BJP, like others, does not focus on empowering the poor; it, like others, wants the poor to remain poor for all time to come.
Modi’s Gujarat-model was a refreshing change in this regard. This model facilitated the generation of more wealth. This model welcomed capitalism and competence, not prisoner of vested interests that were hell-bent on avoiding competition and remaining mediocre and exploitive. It encouraged entrepreneurship and respected those who were contributing to the national GDP.
Similarly, the BJP is as much a casteist party as any other in the country. Come the time of elections and like any other party, the BJP takes into account the caste factor in selecting candidates. But in the last elections, the people of India, the younger generation in rapidly urbanising country in particular and the rising middle class in general wanted politics to be detached from the factors of region, religion, caste and community. They appreciated how in Gujarat, Modi, despite the party pressures, had kept himself aloof from this pernicious trend. They have high hopes that Modi will have a relook at the pernicious system of reservations in higher and specialised education and reservations in promotions.
Has Modi lived up to all these expectations? His government’s maiden budget has been disappointing, to say the least. It contains the same Nehruvian ideas to such an extent that it appeared like a Congress-budget. Slowly and slowly, all the “fixers” in the obsequious Delhi establishment (academia, media, bureaucracy), the monumental symbol of Nehruvianism, have not only recovered from the electoral earthquake in May 2014 but also wangled favours from the Modi government. There is no problem if Modi has developed a taste for wearing the Nehruvian “bandhgala” suits—that is his personal choice—but he will disappoint an overwhelming majority of his supporters if eventually he falls prey to the charms of Nehruvianism.
By Prakash Nanda
prakashnanda@udayindia.in
Leave Your Comment