TINA should not determine the fate of 1.25bn people
Assuming
media, including social media, reflects the popular perceptions, we find the
country divided in three camps over Narendra Modi. One camp comprises of people
who find him the best cure to the policy paralysis and therefore much of the
problems afflicting the country at this point in time. The other camp rejects
him as a regional phenomenon not of much relevance at national level. The third
camp finds him the dark side of the democracy to be rejected as a whole.
In our
view, this debate is mostly misdirected, suffers from strong prejudices &
elements of romanticism, reflects a conspicuous disconnect between so called
intelligentsia and ground realties, and conveniently ignores the political
history of past three decades.
We feel
we need to debate the issue without prejudice, in light of post emergency
political history and from the following three different perspectives.
1. Does the country need a change in leadership?
First of
all, before debating the candidature of Mr. Modi, or Rahul or anybody else for
that matter, for PMship, we need to answer “Does the country really needs a
change in leadership? If yes, what are the alternatives?”
“Modi
vs. Rahul in 2014” debate presumes that the current leadership has failed the
country or at least has outlived its utility. If we approve of this hypothesis
then we should first junk the current leadership without giving it the benefit
of TINA factor. If we disapprove of this hypothesis then this whole debate about
new leadership is meaningless and should be junked forthwith. We should rather work
to strengthen the current leadership.
In case we
believe that the country needs change, we need to discuss the alternatives
without prejudice and in light of the historical experience.
Post
emergency we have seen a number of permutation and combinations sharing the
power, including BJP and Communists, BJP and Mayawati, Mulayam and Mayawati,
Lalu and Nitish, NC, BJD & TDP with BJP, Communists and Congress, BJP and
AIDMK, BJP and DMK, Scindhia, Tiwari, Pawar against Congress and with Congress
etc. Hence restricting the search for alternative to UPA and NDA leadership in
the present form would be inappropriate, in our view.
We also
believe that the recent trend, in which dominance of regional aspirations over
national issues has influenced the national politics leading to emergence of
strong regional leaders, should strengthen further.
Therefore
the sustainable alternative could only come from the states rather than imposed
from Delhi. And if we make the exceptional leadership qualities, capability to
deliver responsive administration, business friendliness, mass appeal, clear
thinking, personal commitment etc. as primary criteria – the long list of
alternatives would include (not exclusive and not necessarily in this order),
Advani, Narendra Modi, Jayalalitha, Shivraj Singh Chauhan, Raman Singh, Navin
Patnayak, Sharad Pawar, Nitish Kumar, Manohar Joshi, Pawan Chamling, A. K.
Antony, Shiela Dikshit, Tarun Gogoi and Chandrababu. Rahul Gandhi may not find
place in this list, as he is yet to demonstrate his capabilities in an
administrative role.
2. Will Modi be widely acceptable as leader of the country?
In
our view this issue needs to be examined from two angles – (a) his
acceptability to the people and (b) his acceptability to the regional parties.
Our
discussions with various people across 19 states and from different walks of
life shows Modi is very popular amongst students, professionals, middle
classes, salaried, traders, entrepreneurs due to his leadership and
administrative capabilities and business friendliness. He is widely perceived
as honest, religious and straight forward. Farmers and poor outside Gujarat
were largely indifferent towards him except for communal reasons. So the doubt about
his mass appeal being limited to Gujarat may be without strong basis.
The
most interesting point that emerged from our study was the preference of Modi
over other regional leaders. We found that Tamilian in Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad
and Vijaywada prefer Modi over Jayalalitha, though all Tamilians in Chennai and
Coimbatore liked their CM more than Modi. Similar was the feedback in case of
Oriya people in Delhi/Mumbai and Bhubaneswar/Sambalpur. Person in Tezpur
(Assam) supported Modi over Gogoi. A hotel owner in Gangtok however felt
Chamling is most suitable to lead the country. All Gujarati and Rajasthani
people, wherever they are, preferred Modi over other regional leaders. Most
businessmen in Patna believe Modi to be better leader than Nitish Kumar. BJP
ruled states MP and Chattisgarh were equally divided between their local
leaders and Modi. Raman Singh was sole choice in Raipur, while Bhopal, Indore,
Jabalpur were divided between Shivraj, Scindhia and Rahul Gandhi. UP was
divided on party lines, between Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Mayawati and Mulayam Singh.
Overall, Rahul Gandhi had miniscule support. Some farmers and poor women in
north India found him a suitable alternative. Mulayam, Mayawati, Shiela
Dikshit, Sharad Pawar, Manohar Joshi found support amongst their respective
party supporters only.
Insofar
as his acceptability to regional parties, except communists and BSP, is
concerned, the issue is somewhat abstruse. If we divide these parties into two
camps – (a) who have Congress as the main opposition in their respective states
and (b) who do not compete directly with Congress in their respective states.
The parties in first group, e.g., SAD, Shiv Sena, BJD, PDP, INLD, SSP, TDP
would always prefer a non-Congress alliance. Whereas the parties in the second
camp e.g., SP/BSP, JDU, LJP, RLD, AIDMK, DMK, would prefer to go with the
alliance which is more likely to form the government. In fact many of these
parties have their genesis in the anti-congressism and therefore are more
natural allies of BJP. The only bone of contention in this simplistic analysis
is the sizable minorities’ votes and that is the only reason of their
opposition to Modi. Communists
will not join BJP and BSP is mostly unpredictable.
In our
view, anti-congressism is the raison d’être of most of these parties and hence
more critical to their existence rather than secularism which they often use as convenience. RLD and LJP’s
decline is a classic case study of the consequences of preferring convenient
secularism over fundamental anti-congressism.
The apparent opposition of Nitish Kumar to Modi’s leadership
should therefore not be taken as a major limiting factor, especially when his
popularity is already declining at the margins and his government is dependent
on BJP’s support.
3. Is Modi relevant in national context?
The
third aspect which needs to be intensively debated is whether Modi is relevant to
the present national context.
Presently,
India is struggling with the limitations of the Nehruvian model of economic
development that we have followed since independence. Even BJP, when it came to
power, decided to leave the alternative model “integrated humanism” proposed by
its ideologue Mr. Deendayal Upadhyaya and followed a variant of Nehruvian model
terming it “Gandhian Socialism”.
The current
variant of the Nehruvian model is largely a distortion of the classical
Keynesian model that advocates a larger role for the private enterprise with
active state intervention during extremities of business cycle and argues
against higher savings in both private and public sector. The Keynesian model
has its genesis in the great depression and found useful during larger economic
crisis.
However,
Modi seems to be an advocate of Laissez-faire or free market
which entails minimal state intervention even during crisis. He has implemented
the model in Gujarat with limited success. But it is pertinent to note that
unlike many other states, Gujarat has a history of 200years of
industrialization and 60mn people who are globally recognized for their
enterprising skills.
It is
therefore important to evaluate whether the Gujarat model could be replicated
at the national level, or in other words whether Modi can deliver the same
results as Prime Minister what he has delivered as Chief Minister of Gujarat.
In our view,
considering the present state of socio-economic development of various parts of
the country, it would be 10-15years too early to test the Laissez-faire model at
the pan-India level. Hence, Modi’s Gujarat model may not be of much relevance
at the national level.
But at
the same time the Gujarat model should not become his limitation also. Modi has
very successfully demonstrated his strategy skills in past one decade. It would
be totally wrong to assume that he would not be able to adapt to the larger responsibility
and formulate an appropriate strategy for integrated development of the
country.
Conclusion
To conclude, in our view, the popular debate should be wholesome and not
based on sensationalism, prejudices and romanticism. “If” it is felt that a change
is required and a particular leader or party is fit and ready to provide a
better alternative, we all should support and help such party or leader as the
case may be. If there are certain limitations/problems, all should work
together overcome that. For example, if we sincerely believe that Modi is a fit
and proper person to lead the country, subject to he coming clean on 2002
events – we all should work with him on this aspect and help him to take the
corrective action. Isolating him will not do. However, if the popular
perception feels no change is required – we all should work to strengthen the
current leadership and let Modi serve 60mn Gujaratis
No comments:
Post a Comment