Modi re-elected

What does it tell you about politics?

Gujrat going the way of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Himachal Pradesh to the Congress was expected even before the first vote was cast in the two states. Although Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has crossed old tally of 117, he must be disappointed that he did not get 145, the figure which the exit polls had projected and he had begun to cherish.

That the Congress has gained four or five seats is not a plus point because the incumbency factor and the revolt by Keshubai Patel, till recently a top BJP leader, should have cut into Modi’s strength. That he still has two-thirds of a majority in the 182-member house does not speak well of the Congress which had its top leaders campaigning in the state and enticing the Muslims and tribals.

Indeed, the corruption factor has worked against the BJP in Himachal. Chief Minister Prem Kumar Dhumal had charges against him, even though his governance had wide acclamation. It seems that Himachal is following the pattern of Tamil Nadu where the DMK and the AIADMK are elected alternately.

I fail to comprehend what message does Gujarat convey to the rest of India by re-electing Modi? This is his victory and that of his views which are out of tune with the 21st century thinking. Democracy also means pluralism. All people are equal before the law, whatever their religion or caste. Modi cares little about such ideas or values.

True, the middle class, which constitutes a majority in Gujarat, wants a polity which enables it to earn more, enjoy more comforts and give it normalcy even though on surface. It seldom questions the rulers and virtually never challenges the wisdom of their deeds. Yet, the middle class does not realise – or care – that Modi is authoritarian, like the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and his anti-Muslim bias is so strong that he did not field even a single Muslim candidate.

I do not grudge Modi and his party, the BJP, the sweep in the state. But is it the kind of India we want to build, a society sans secularism? Mahatma Gandhi who led the freedom struggle and who was himself a Gujarati said that Hindus and Muslims were his two eyes. He would take out prbahat pheris selling khadi in the morning on Ahmedabad’s streets which had killers and looters walking in 2002. The British lathi-charged peaceful processions, but in Modi’s regime the police connived at what the fanatics did.

The same Gujarat saw ethnic cleansing, planned and executed by the Hindutva exponents under Modi’s guidance. How some 17 crore Muslims in the country would have felt when Modi’s electoral fight was parochial? Gandhiji had a different approach and sacrificed his life at the hand of a Hindu fanatic. Granted that Modi’s campaigns never mentioned the Muslim community by name, yet he used mian before the name of Ahmed Patel, Congress President Sonia Gandhi’s political adviser. Modi played the anti-Pakistan card by introducing the Sir Creek dispute two days before polling.

He wrote a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh not to hand over the Sir Creek, a narrow bay, to Pakistan and alleged that the visit of its Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, to Delhi during the Gujarat polls was in that connection. The prime minister himself made it clear that there was no such move. Finance Minister P Chidambaram characterised Modi’s assertion ridiculous and a fig of imagination. But the harm had been done. The fence sitters went to the Modi’s side to “save” Sir Creek. In fact, the Election Commission should look into his tactics to win.

The Gujarat chief minister claims that he won because of developments he effected in the state. What kind of development is it when the Muslims have become poorer and even the riot victims have not been rehabilitated? There is no drinking water, no roads, no municipal facilities in their areas. Also, the adivasis have remained marginalised and tribals have not benefited in any way.

It is the middle class, both in cities and countryside, which has been the gainer and, therefore, it is not surprising that it has voted en bloc for Modi. In contrast, Dhumal has been jettisoned by the growing middle class in Himachal. It is a healthy sign that the middle class is asserting itself. But it is unfortunate that it has not yet risen from its parochial moorings. In Himachal, the distance between the Punjabi and the indigenous population seems to have counted a lot.

While the defeat of Dhumal will only be registered by the BJP high command, the victory by Modi is going to create problems for the party. Already the posters appearing in Gujarat suggest that the “state’s sher (lion) will become India’s sher”. This means that Modi is prepared for a national role which may not be liked by some of the top leaders of the party. Not long ago, its president Nitin Gadkari told me that there were too many aspirants in his party for the prime minister’s post. It is an open secret that Gadkari and Modi do not see eye to eye. Since the RSS, the BJP’s mentor, is backing Modi he would be a formidable candidate.

Where Modi may be stumped is the dislike for his way of politics and the categorical anti-Muslim view that scares away many in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). One of its leaders and Chief Minister of Bihar, Nitish Kumar, has conceded that the BJP, the NDA’s senior party, has the right to choose the leader but he has to be a consensus candidate. Modi may not make the choice because apart from the NDA allies, the country on the whole will feel horrified even at the mere mention of his name.

Both Gujarat and Himachal are straws in the wind. It cannot be taken for granted that the states ruled by the BJP would return its party candidates to parliament in the next election in 2014. It is a pity that the nation has to choose between the Congress and the BJP in the absence of an alternative. People’s movements throughout the country should get together and rescue the nation from mis-governance and corruption which has been the hallmark of rule by the two parties.

The writer is a senior Indian

journalist.