Modi needs to look into his fixation
One may wonder why Modi is obsessed with the political model he has developed in his tenure as the chief minister of Gujarat. But it is hardly difficult to decode his obsession
image for illustrative purpose
We can see how detrimental it is. Prime Minister Modi went to Russia and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to Manipur. The opposition dismissed the prime minister’s visit, and the ruling party rejected Rahul's visit. Is it healthy for our democracy? Is it not the responsibility of the head of the nation to resolve the crisis?
The crisis of parliamentary democracy in India has deepened in the wake of the post-election maneuverings of Prime Minister Modi. His attempt to ignore the message of the common people is adding to the difficulties democracy has been facing during his rule. His fixation with the model of governance he has perfected in the past decades as the chief minister of Gujarat and as the Prime Minister of India. His fixation has grown into such rigidity that he considers any flexibility a debacle.
He thinks that any flexibility on his part may encourage the opposition alliance to further offensive. Modi might be thinking that he lost the last election because he failed to project the INDIA alliance as an enemy of the country. He thinks that propaganda only matters, and any narrative could work if it has the proper backing of propaganda. Is he not distanced from the truth? Can a weak narrative defeat the truth?
One may wonder why Modi is obsessed with the political model he has developed in his tenure as the chief minister of Gujarat. But it is hardly difficult to decode his obsession. Trade and business have been the dominant themes in Gujarati society. His adherence to the right-wing ideology helped him win a sizeable section of society. Another thing might be the failure of the Congress, the main opposition party of the State, to push forward an ideological alternative. The Congress could not do it because of its ideological ambiguity. The grand old party of India had all the opportunity to do it, but it failed. The State had a high hunger index, high income inequality, and a poor score on the Human Development Index. The Congress failed to organize deprived sections of society, including Dalits, Muslims, and Scheduled Tribes.
The voting pattern reveals how Congress has been able to garner the support of these sections despite its inaction and lethargy. The Congress never opposed the Gujarat Model of Development. It never attacked the disparities that the model had introduced in a colonial society. The party failed to integrate itself with the Gandhian legacy. So, it is not surprising that it has been supplying leaders to the saffron party. It is very common in State politics that a senior Congress leader joins the BJP. The only positive part of Congress politics in the State was that it never endorsed the rabid communalism of the saffron party. However, the opposition to communalism was not too strong to embrace any success.
Modi and Amit Shah wanted to replicate the same model on the national stage. They somehow overlooked the inefficacy of a governance model that essentially relies on an economy that benefits a limited section of society. They heavily relied on the regimentation based on religious identity. This was done to neutralize the failures of economic policies that were unable to provide education, jobs, and healthcare to the majority of the people. The two leaders used the legacy of the Ram Janmabhoomi Movement to polarise the people on religious grounds. This was done to distract people away from the protests for better living conditions. They succeeded for almost a decade. Can these strategies succeed forever?
Prime Minister Modi is yet to realize the failure of the strategy. He is dismissive of the poll verdict because the opposition made false propaganda against him, and his machinery failed to counter the propaganda. In essence, he considers the electoral battle merely as a propaganda war. Does he believe it? Does he not understand that the allegation of his tweaking the core of the constitutional mandate was based on concrete facts? Maybe he is not in a position to accept it publicly.
Was it not expected from him that he should make a course correction? But this is not a wise expectation. His tweaking of the constitutional mandate is deliberate and ideologically driven. How could the Prime Minister of India install Sengol, a symbol of monarchy, in Parliament? How could he preside over the consecration ceremony of Shri Ram Temple at Ayodhya in his official capacity? How could his cabinet pass a resolution to praise him for it? It was an attack on the core values of the Indian Constitution. Modi might have thought that the religious polarisation would help him to pursue his agenda. However, the INDIA alliance successfully defeated his attempt to tweak the constitution via a religious route. It exposed the Hindutva agenda of transforming a secular State into a non-secular majoritarian State.
Why did Modi and Shah fail to anticipate the repercussions of their moves? This might be because they underestimated the wisdom of the common people and the strength of Indian ethos. They ignored the response Rahul Gandhi received during his 3,500 kilometers plus Yatra. The response of the people only showed the strength of the core values of Indian society. The overconfidence of the Prime Minister and his associates mainly came from their grip over the media, the government institutions, and the poll body.
The latter remained unexpectedly partial despite repeated complaints by the opposition parties. The Prime Minister retained his ministers and ensured the continuance of Speaker of the Lok Sabha Om Birla for another term. He has done it to assure his supporters that he will not change his path. However, his rigidity is likely to deepen the crisis of Indian democracy. This crisis could be seen in its failure to resolve the confrontation between the government and the opposition.
We can see how detrimental it is. Prime Minister Modi went to Russia and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to Manipur. The opposition dismissed the prime minister’s visit, and the ruling party rejected Rahul's visit. Is it healthy for our democracy? Is it not the responsibility of the head of the nation to resolve the crisis?
(The author is a senior journalist. He has experience of working with leading newspapers and electronic media including Deccan Herald, Sunday Guardian, Navbharat Times and Dainik Bhaskar. He writes on politics, society, environment and economy)
