Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Saturday, April 27, 2013

Modi under modificationMost analyses of Modi are rooted in the debate surrounding the Ayodhya years, but both India and the man have changed


Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times by Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay (Tranquebar Press, 2013, 410 pages. Rs 495)

Biographies of individuals who could end up as the Prime Minister of India have begun making their appearance in a pre-election India gripped by political uncertainty. In the past year, for example, there have been two attempts by three journalists to explain the life and politics of Rahul Gandhi, the Congress Party’s media-shy heir apparent. Both books were astonishing in one respect: the authors had never met nor spoken to the Congress Vice President!

Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay’s political biography of Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi does not short-change readers with such brazenness. Yet, the fact that the author met the subject of his study for just one lengthy session (he had, of course, interacted with him in earlier years when Modi was a functionary at the BJP central office in Delhi) in May 2012 and completed the back some nine months later suggests that ‘quickies’ are becoming the norm in Indian publishing.

To do justice to his subject, a biographer needs to certainly understand the wider environment in which the individual operates. He certainly needs to engage exhaustively with friends, family, associates and detractors of the person under scrutiny. But these are never a substitute for getting under the skin of and understanding the mind of the subject. For a person whose life is still a work in progress, this is a doubly complex exercise that requires patience, perseverance and doggedness.

It is not that Mukhopadhyay hasn’t tried. He has read most of the secondary articles and reports on Modi; he has spoken to those who dislike Modi within the RSS family; and he has touched base with most of Gujarat’s senior journalists. Indeed, like the reporter who is parachuted into unknown territory, he has followed the drill: first talk to the taxi driver and then imbibe the wisdom of local journalists.

There is only problem with this approach: the local media (with some exceptions) is usually the least well-informed about the Chief Minister. I have seen this in Orissa and I have experienced it in Gujarat. In 2002, for example, there were almost no takers for the couple of seats set aside for media in the leader’s helicopter during the campaign. The media had decided to boycott the ‘monster’, having convinced itself that he was going to lose—a perception bolstered by spurious polls. In 2007, an Ahmedabad journalist asked me to contribute an article on the theme: “Is 2007 Modi’s Waterloo?” And in 2012, Delhi journalists were routinely told by their Gujarat colleagues that the BJP would fall short of a majority.

Mukhopadhyay’s over-dependence on the local media has inevitably led him to replicate the facile conclusions on which the Delhi chatterati has depended in assessing Modi. I was struck, for example, by the complete absence of any inputs from retired or serving bureaucrats on Modi’s approach to administration. It was amusing to see the complete absence of accounts from entrepreneurs and farmers on the business environment of Gujarat. Rather than undertake rigorous groundwork, Mukhopadhyay has relied exclusively on reports that suggest that Modi is no big deal. Likewise, the absence of any discernible inputs from senior BJP figures, many of whom have a strange love-hate relationship with him, is very noticeable. There are umpteen stories of the years Modi spent in ‘exile’, dreaming of a return to Gujarat, and the way he handled the post-2002 assault by the Prime Minister’s Office that would have enriched the of the man. Equally, Mukhopadhyay does not provide any insights into Modi’s troubled relationship with the RSS establishment and how he prevailed.

The fundamental mistake of this biography lies in the belief that the Modi who was an important functionary during the Hindutva mobilisation from the late-1980s to the mid-1990s is the same man who now aspires to be Prime Minister. This is a common mistake of those who covered the Ayodhya movement and were convinced that fascism was round the corner in India.

The most interesting story to be told is how Modi clobbered the likes of Togadia, insulated himself from the RSS’ micro-management and coped with the unrelenting hostility of the Indian Establishment. The Modi who found himself thrust into the unlikely role of ‘Chhote Sardar’ in 2002, redefined the terms on which he would be judged subsequently. In believing, like many still do, that the rise and rise of Narendra Modi is a consequence of crude identity politics is to misread the man completely. Modi’s critics, it would seem, are still judging him on the terms of a debate that surrounded the Ayodhya years. Since then, India has changed, Modi has changed but his detractors are caught in a time warp.

In assessing the “The Times’ which shaped Modi, Mukhopadhyay overlooked the post-1991 economic transformation of India. The vicious 2002 riots were the last gasp of the old politics. What matters is subsequent events, themes that this book leaves under-explored.
---Swapan Dasgupta 

Business Standard, April 26, 2013

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is it necessary to have a view on religous zealots other than as RZs? World has moved on, but the RSS and Modi and such like religio-political activists are trapped in the state of religious strife and antagonism of the medieval centuries. Despite these antediluvian characters and their promoters, the world modernizes itself and moves on. India is no exception.

RS said...

@Anonymous

You obviously did not understand what the Swapan Dasgupta wrote on Modi's biography.

Also you hardly understand the real Modi.


It’s such a pity that despite 2 biographies of Modi, none seem to capture Namo entirely.

Hinduism is a small part of his identity , but there is so much more to him. I liked him, after I saw him on TV where he said in Gujrati around 2004 , “sho badhu avooj chaltu rehshe, “ , translated as, will things always be like this, must we do nothing to change
it and make it better ? That was the habemus papam (we found our Pope) moment where he captured what I and many others felt profoundly. He is like Thatcher, who cannot preside over the orderly decline of India.



He is a politician in the mould of Reagan and Thatcher, who simply will not accept the status qou but is determined to do something about it, and make a root and branch overhaul of the system. Reagan and Thatcher were people who could dream of ending communism and they succeeded. Like Thatcher who said “consensus is the negation of leadership”, Modi too believes that one cannot wait for consensus endlessly, one has to get on with doing things, one believes in strongly.



The point these biographers miss is that, whilst culturally Namo is wholly Indian/ Hindu , in mindset he is largely West European . His centre-right economic focus, the idea of small but effective govt, the ambition of continually improving quality of life of citizens by way of better infrastructure , economic growth etc, trusting citizens and companies to do some self regulation are to my mind, overwhelmingly west European traits.


Namo has a disgust for sham, and he often mocks pompous-hypocrites and upper class twits for which he is mercilessly rebuked in India, as we have to many holy cows (Nehru-
Gandhis etc), who must at all times by treated with uber deference .

Then there are his social reformer traits, where he tells Gujratis to give as much importance to Saraswati as they do to Laxmi. Or he tells people not to take debt for weddings, and that their social standing did not depend on any lavish wedding. He encourages newly weds and ST bus drivers to study further, so that they can achieve greater heights . He also tells people in a lighter vein, that whilst evaluating potential suitors for marriage, just ask them what they read, if they are well read, that itself is a guarantee of a good upbringing and values , one need not ask for any more references.



Further Modi has another gentle and sensitive side, where he gets moved by the sacrifice and affection of a lioness for her cubs or by the idea of gratitude- that one must be grateful for what one has, or even a Gujarati poem which articulates the feeling that the poet is tired of everyone coming to him asking for something, which perhaps partly reflects Namo’s situation.




So I'm afraid @anonymous Modi hardly conforms to your typical religious zealot

Anonymous said...

RS, Modi west european? Ha Ha! Trying hard to get some polish for the ill-mannered indian politician with his crude sneer and rustic articulation? Even the modi-worshipers know in their hearts that Modi and his 'development' stories are fake, but these religious bigots cannot see beyond their bigotry. They will worship Modi because they have now no other idol. It all come down to religious sectarianism.