Judge not Modi too soon

Narendra Modi being sworn in as PM by President Pranab
Mukherjee. (Photo credit: Rajeev Bhatt/The Hindu) 

Narendra Modi has just been sworn in as the Prime Minister of India in a grand ceremony in the forecourt of the Rashtrapati Bhavan. For the first time ever, leaders from all the seven Saarc (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) nations and Mauritius, besides 4,000 other invitees attended.

It should normally have been just another transition of power -- for the 15th time, if you didn't include two stints of 13 days each when Gulzarilal Nanda was the acting prime minister after the demise of Jawaharlal Nehru in 1964 and Lal Bahadur Shastri in 1966. But there has been so much of excitement this time around.

In the recent past, perhaps only two other transitions created so much excitement -- in 1977 when Morarji Desai became PM heading India's first non-Congress government that too after both Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi were defeated in the election; and later in 1996 when Atal Behari Vajpayee led a BJP-led minority government, for 16 days, just 4 years after the demolition of Babri Masjid.

Given the way the UPA-2 government was drifting rudderless courting one controversy after another -- under a competent man, who unfortunately never got to do what he wanted to (unlike in 1991 when he was the finance minister, Narasimha Rao was the PM and Sonia Gandhi hadn't entered politics) -- Narendra Modi becoming the PM was very much foreseen.

Why the excitement?

• The hope that we will have a government that will be also seen to be functioning.

• After 16 years, we have a prime minister who has campaigned and led his party to victory.

• After 30 years, a single party has got majority in the Lok Sabha.

• Regional satraps who have only a score or two MPs won't hold the entire nation to ransom.

• The talk that Modi is an efficient and tough taskmaster who gets things done.

• We have a PM who is backed by a reasonable set of achievements, though he has quite a lot of negative attributes as well. But in the absence of any alternative, many seem to have decided to focus on his pluses than minuses.

While the excitement is understandable. we are too presumptuous in judging Modi. I guess, we must allow him and his government to settle down. We have seen only a number of symbolisms, during electioneering and after, from Modi. Nothing wrong. After all, politics is a lot about perception -- formed not just by tangible substantive actions, but by intangible tokenism too. The most talked-about symbolism is the invitation of foreign leaders to the swearing-in, particularly Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

I am sure Modi wouldn't restrict himself to token gestures, as he and his team gets the wheels of effective governance turning again. Expect not just sweet symbolisms, but quite a few harsh and unpopular decisions as well that are needed if our country has to scale heights of economic and social excellence. Hopefully, sloth, lack of accountability and indiscipline in governance will be things of the past.

Eager anticipation

It's more anticipation than excitement; anticipation on how the future would be. Going by the way votes have gone, it has been established on multiple fora that people who voted for the BJP had chosen to look at economic issues over communal and religious issues.

One important area that has suffered over the past few years is investment. We are not talking about the more controversial foreign direct investment, that too in retail. We are talking of investment in infrastructure, education, science and technology, agriculture, industry, tourism etc. And we are not talking of foreign investment. We are talking of Indian investment. Many Indians, wary of investing in India itself, have been turning to foreign countries.

The biggest change most Indians are looking forward to is this. Because, it will have a great bearing on jobs, state of the economy, and by extrapolation, the standard of living.

But the huge flip side of the mandate is that very other Indian who voted, didn't vote for BJP. Its vote share was a little over 30%. The majority of those voted, the nearly two-thirds, will be keeping their fingers crossed with a lot skepticism.

Hopefully Modi will keep them in mind, the huge majority who didn't vote for the BJP. Finally, his image and success, will depend on how he takes care of them.

Test of crisis

It's said the strength of a chain is its weakest link. It means, when pressure is applied on the chain, it's weakest link that will snap first. So, how long lasting the chain is depends on that weakest link. Similarly, how good Modi is will depend on how well he can handle a crisis. It's during a crisis one's abilities are put to test. So, we will be able to judge best, when he is faced with a crisis, by looking at how well he resolves it.

Congress 44 seats out of 543. What next for Sonia?

As poll surveys and exits polls dominated television, and everyone seemed to be pretty convinced that Narendra Modi would be the next prime minister, I wondered if there would be any surprises yesterday, the day votes were counted. Exits polls on most previous occasions, overestimated the winner. So the fear was if NDA would end up just around 272, allowing smaller regional parties to have a field day. Anticipating that, BJP started even looking for more allies a couple of days before counting.

But I was proved wrong and there were plenty of surprises yesterday. The biggest of them all was the the sweep of the Modi storm. Though Modi would have dreamt of this, and worked strenuously for the result, I am sure he himself was taken by surprise. So too millions of voters, who voted for BJP but just kept their fingers crossed. My random guess is that many people who don't basically agree with BJP ideology (including Muslims) would have have voted for BJP. Why they voted for the BJP could be the subject of a debate.

The other big surprise was the depth to which Congress plummeted yesterday, which didn't get highlighted so much, thanks to the blinding effect of the BJP gust.

Congress managed to win just 44 seats in a House of 543. Simply can't believe this.

Their worst performance was in 1999, when Vajpayee-led NDA restricted them to a mere 114. In fact, that itself was worse than the 1977 tally of 153, when a hurriedly cobbled together combination of Janata Alliance dealt a body blow to Indira Gandhi-led Congress -- a punishment for the severe excesses during the Emergency: a particularly black chapter in India's independent history. Then, both Indira and her son Sanjay lost the election. At least the family members have won this time. Some consolation for Congress.

Yesterday, as one saw Sonia and Rahul come out to meet the media, and valiantly put up a smile and graciously accept the result in all humility, it was difficult to suppress a surge of sympathy for the plight they find themselves in. To be fair to Congress, their government did launch a number of social initiatives aimed at helping the disadvantaged, besides a slew of economic policies to benefit the youth and career-minded burgeoning young middle class. But the barrage of negative tidings for the top leaders of the party was so strong, Congress had time only to keep themselves afloat rather than counter the BJP. No one understood or took notice of the few good things the government did.

The Sonia family will have to seriously introspect why such a fate befell their party. Congress is just riding on the family tag. That will have to definitely change. Congress doesn't have a leader. Sonia, Rahul and Priyanka are always in the background. They need a strong leader: both Sonia and Manmohan were weak. Rahul just made sporadic appearances. Priyanka came in too late to make any impact.

Rahul was simply no match for Narendra Modi.

Also, the Congress experiment of two heads -- one for the party and the other for the government -- has failed. It was made worse with the two leaders who could make no impact.

Congress needs to project as their leader, someone who has strong grassroots presence and is a leader in his or her own right. Neither Sonia, nor Rahul, nor Priyanka can take that position. The family's first task will be to identify that person, and groom him.

The family also needs to consider if loosening their grip on the party, would help in any way. It would be a tough call to take.

But things are so bad for the Congress, any decision to revive the party would be better than no decision at all.

A political rally with a difference

Political party rallies aren't very different from one another, barring the party that organizes them. There are huge crowds; and an implicit assumption is that they have been hired, brought by the volunteers from neighbourhood villages and towns for a price. Speakers portray themselves as saviours of the poor and downtrodden while tearing into their opponents. Speeches dissolve into bland political rhetoric, notwithstanding the speakers' high vocal pitch and oratorical theatrics; finally everything sounding like pots calling the kettles black.

Today, I went for the Aam Aadmi Party's public meeting at Freedom Park, Bangalore. It was a political rally with a number of differences.

I reached the venue at 3 pm. There was a fairly a good crowd. At a booth near the entrance, one could pick up the AAP caps. They were for free, but the organizers expected a contribution -- of any amount -- towards the party. One could also register as a volunteer or even formally join the party. I made my way towards the podium, through the crowd, with some difficulty. I noticed that there was a barricade separating the audience -- women who had come alone or along with men, and senior citizens on one side; and men on the other side.

The composition of the crowd stood out. They were definitely not brought to the town from neighbourhood villages. No one paid them. But on the contrary, the members of the audience had offered whatever they could to the party's kitty. The audience comprised middle class and upper middle class people in the 25 to 40 age group. But there was a significant number of elderly people as well. Definitely not the ones who would normally go to such rallies, they were the new breed political followers who were evidently attracted by the pitch of the greenhorn party.

The huge crowd of young middle class and upper middle class people who had come to the AAP rally in Bangalore 

The atmosphere was festive. It made me feel as if I was at some college reunion or some youth festival. On the stage were youngsters with musical instruments like drums, keyboard and violin, playing well-known patriotic songs and a few ones composed by the party's lyricists mocking the current political culture. The rhythmic numbers and the young lady moderator's exhortations steadily electrified the atmosphere, with the crowd continually breaking into handclap and loud cheers. There was also a performance of "broom dance": a few young men and women doing an amateurish jig with brooms in their hands, and a song resonating with AAP theme playing in the background.

The podium wasn't covered. Obviously, since the party doesn't have the money to get an ornamental pandal and decorations. Everyone was sitting in hot (by Bangalore standards) sun.

At 4.10 pm, Arvind Kejriwal arrived to a thunderous applause and cheers of the crowd that had swollen to huge numbers by then. The AAP candidates were introduced to the crowd and there were speeches by a number of people, including a 96-year old person, Doraiswamy, if I remember the name right. He spoke so vociferously and passionately on the state of the nation lamenting the lack of progress even after decades of independence from the British. A former career diplomat, who resigned after the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition, too spoke, singing paeans to Kejriwal's dream of a new India.

Around 4.45 pm Kejriwal began speaking. It was the usual tirade against Congress, BJP, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and many others of both the national parties, besides Mukesh Ambani. Most of the attack was targeted against Modi, since he is tipped to the next prime minister going by multiple opinion polls. He read out names of many politicians of the BJP and the Congress who were allegedly involved in corrupt deals. He kept asking why Modi had to have people involved in dubious backgrounds in his ministry or in the party.

Arvind Kejriwal addressing AAP's Bangalore rally

He said he would consider himself fortunate if he had to lay down his life for the country. Mocking Modi for looking for a safe seat, he said if the party decides, he would contest against Modi in Varanasi. The speech went on for close to an hour. There were constant cheers on the lines of "Kejriwal, we are with you!".

This was definitely a political rally with a difference; at least for the following reasons:

• The type of crowd, comprising young, educated middle class and upper middle class people. 
• The lack of any decorations at the venue. There was no shade or even chairs on the the podium.
• The festive atmosphere, with music, songs and dance.
• The determination of speakers to plough a new and different track in India's political discourse. 
• Speeches free of old rhetoric of freeing the country from poverty, a staple of usual political speeches; 
• Projection of common man's problems as the most pertinent political theme. 

AAP's ideals sound noble. They reflect the frustration and disappointments of common people. Kejriwal seems to be a good leader, is a good speaker and knows how to steer political agendas. He has positioned himself as a politician with a difference; and AAP as a political party with a difference.

But the challenges before Kejriwal and AAP are huge. Because they are not fighting an issue or two. They are taking on an entire system which has run the country all these years, and to which we all have got used to.

Not many realise that this is a challenge not just for Kejriwal and AAP but for all the common people too, since they all will have to get used to a new system crafted by Kejriwal and AAP. Fired-up party leaders may be ready for the required sacrifice, but are the common people ready for that sacrifice?

Only time will tell, but surely, a beginning has been made -- a beginning that will, for sure, have a bearing on the results of the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

Gujarat and Indian democracy

Gujarat has been at the centre of Indian politics right from the time of Mahatma Gandhi. It's a beautiful state with a rich historical legacy, populated by extraordinarily affable people. The six years I was there, from 1990 to 96, are most memorable: the goodness of people outweighing the troubles of post-Babri Masjid demolition.

I always wonder how can such a state be so caught up in violence and radical ideology. Violence there is an inexplicable abberation for me. I haven't understood how such a state where people of all relgions, especially Hindus and Muslims, are so dependent on each other, mainly for business, could nurture within itself violently divisive tendencies. Inspite of all this, interestingly, people, especially women, feel much safe at night, crime rate is low!

The latest issue of The Chronicle Review carries an article Fears for Democracy in India by Martha C Nussbaum. She is a professor in philosophy at the University of Chicago and has authored The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future. The book is due for publication this week by Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

A good portion of the article is devoted to the troubles in Gujarat post-Feb 27, 2002. That was a decisive turning point for Gujarat. She says:

• "He (Narendra Modi) was later (after the Godhra carnage) re-elected on a platform that focused on religious hatred.... What has been happening in India is a serious threat to the future of democracy in the world."

We have heard this point before. But what is interesting is this observation of Martha:

• The real "clash of civilizations" is not between "Islam" and "the West," but instead within virtually all modern nations — between people who are prepared to live on terms of equal respect with others who are different, and those who seek the protection of homogeneity and the domination of a single "pure" religious and ethnic tradition. At a deeper level, as Gandhi claimed, it is a clash within the individual self, between the urge to dominate and defile the other and a willingness to live respectfully on terms of compassion and equality, with all the vulnerability that such a life entails.

• "What we see in Gujarat is not a simplistic, comforting thesis, but something more disturbing: the fact that in a thriving democracy, many individuals are unable to live with others who are different, on terms of mutual respect and amity. They seek total domination as the only road to security and pride. That is a phenomenon well known in democracies around the world, and it has nothing to do with an alleged Muslim monolith, and, really, very little to do with religion as such."

While on an intellectual and academic plane Martha makes a lot of sense, on a practical level we need to understand the current spate of violence. Hasn't it gone beyond issues of "clash of civilisations" or "clash within civilisations" as Martha would like to put it? Specifically, let us take yesterday's explosion inside the Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad. Earlier such incidents used to trigger a cycle of violence like the Babri Masjid demolition or the Sabarmati Express fire did. But the Hyderabad blast and earlier similar ones in Malegaon, Mumbai, Delhi, have stopped at that.

Are people (politicians included) in India getting fed up of stoking communal embers? Are we finally seeing an end to pan-Indian communal conflagrations at the slightest provocation?

No rehabilitation, no Narmada dam work

Today's Supreme Court observation was bang on target. Rehabilitation is the issue; and the judges have rightly said that the dam construction has to stop if affected people aren't adequately compensated.

Both dam and rehabilitation are important. That's what Supreme Court said. And that is why both Medha Patkar and Narendra Modi felt they had won and ended their fasts.

I don't think the issue will be resolved anytime in the near future. Because the problem is not so easily solvable. The number of people being displaced and the area going under water is so huge, it is practically impossible for the government (mainly of Madhya Pradesh) to find alternative land.

The people who are getting displaced are all dependent on land for livelihood. It's not like your company is sinking, so you quit and join and another company. Is it right to be so indifferent to these people?

One of the reasons for the World Bank and other partners pulling out the project in 1990 is the high human cost of the project. The moot point is not when we will address it, but how we will address it.

The big beneficiary of the project is Gujarat but most the submergence and displacement of people is happening in Madhya Pradesh. But Gujarat government and its politicians haven't spared even one little thought for the people who are being adversely affected.
Why? Is it because those people live in Madhya Pradesh? Isn't this "why should we bother" attitude bad?

The politicians and the government of Gujarat will not lose anything if they give at least moral support to the people being displaced. Shouldn't the beneficiaries at least acknowledge the sacrifice of millions of people, if not help in some way to ameliorate their difficulties?

Depoliticise Narmada, rehabilitate people

Development issues should never be political. Generally they are not in developed and advanced societies.

Good roads and transportation, adequate supply of potable water, uninterrupted power, ample opportunities to pursue education and career are basic rights. And, they should have no bearing on which party is in power.

But, India is an exception. Development issues are highly politicised. So much so all development is stalled. From the tarring of the road to building of dams, examples are a legion.

We still have not been able to resolve the Narmda dam controversy, even after at least 25 years. Though the project was first conceived by Pandit Nehru as part of development projects for nascent India, complex legal issues involving different states delayed the formal announcement till 1979.

Over 3,000 big and small dams are to built over a stretch of 1,200 km. The Sardar Sarovar dam is the biggest and dogged by controversy.

The supporters of the project say that the dam will supply water to 30 million people and irrigate crops to feed another 20 million. But the opponents say nearly 2 lakh people will be displaced and damage the ecology of the region. They also say that rehabilitation of such a huge number of people is practically impossible, and alternative methods of irrigation and water supply haven't been explored.

What is not disputed by both sides is that the dam will greatly benefit people in drought-prone areas. While issue of possible ecological damage can be left to debators, that of rehabilitation Project Affected People should be addressed clearly.

Many independent studies have shown that villagers and tribals who have been affected have been left to the mercy of the elements and rehabilitation packages are merely on paper. Many international donor agencies and partners like the World Bank pulled out the project citing environmental and high human costs in early 1990s.

Build the dam, but don't kill people in the process is what activists like Medha Patkar have been saying, and I fully agree with her on that count. Tomorrow the issue comes up before the Supreme Court.

Why is development at the cost of human lives, when development itself is meant to improves the conditions of the people. Why is the government not rehabilitating these people properly? Is it because they are poor?

How cheap on part of politicians of Gujarat to politicise the issue.

Just a quick recap:

* March 8: Narmada Control Authority gives go-ahead to increase the height to 121.92 meters from 110.64. The Supreme Court had refused raising of the dam height in 2003.

* March 12: Medha Patkar and 50 others sit in dharna in Delhi, since the Supreme Court had said that the dam height can be increased only after properly rehabilitating the affected people.

* March 27: Medha goes on fast unto death.

* April 5 night: Police swoop down on Medha and take her to All-India Institute of Medical Sciences. Two others Bhagvatibhai and Jamsingh are also in hospital. They continue fast in hospital.

* April 7: A three-member team led by Water Resources Minister Saifuddin Soz visits the valley.

* April 10: Team submits report to Prime Minister. Widely speculated that the team found rehabilitation inadequate and recommended stopping of work.

April 14: Reports that Soz has ordered stoppage of work.

* April 16: Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi begins a 51-hour hunger strike against stoppage or work. PM assures all-party team from Gujarat that work has not been stopped.

* April 17: Supreme Court to hear petition on stoppage of work.

US says no to Modi

Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi can't enter the US. I don't know if an elected Indian constitutional head ever has been denied visa in this manner.

Modi is a democratically elected constitutional head of an Indian state. He even registerd a thumbing victory in the election that was held after the Gujarat riots. The US is a paragon of everything even remotely linked to democracy. So, is it not only natural it should fully recognise Modi's credentials, even if they have a difference of opinion ?

Though the American action is hurting, it is another occasion for introspection. Wasn't the Indian pride already hurt when Gujarat burnt, when it was widely acknowledged that Modi did pretty much nothing to stop the mobs. No one had gained anything out of the whole episode.

Coming to think of it, the denial of visa wasn't so much of a surprise. What ever be the context of the riots, it was one incident that gave India a very, very bad image abroad.

Indians abroad, generally in the US, are more patriotic than Indians at home, may be because they are away from India. They are mostly BJP supporters. But post-Godhra, Modi gained lot of enemies in the US. This action of the US is also linked to the strong lobbying by anti-Modi (not anti-Indian) lobby in the US.

Personally, I don't think Modi deserves so much of sympathy over this. We feel bad that an Indian leader has been denied entry to the US. But just like the riots, this too has a context to it, is it not?