Wake up Mr. Vinod Mehta, clear your cobwebs

This article is written as a response to  Vinod Mehta’s article titled “Should we give Narendra Modi a Chance” in Hindustan Times dated March 16^th. Vinod Mehta's article can be read here. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/stoi/all-that-matters/Should-we-give-Narendra-Modi-a-chance/articleshow/32113843.cms

I write this article with great circumspection. There is a great chance that it would not be understood given that it would be read wearing the same spectacles of so called liberalism hidden behind a minorityism that was employed while writing the original. But it has to be written because the blinkers have to be broken through. Off course, I am not in the D K Barooah league of sycophancy rather I am driven more by a sense of duty , akin to what Yudhishthira felt in Mahabharata, “I do because I must.”

Without wasting more space, lets move to misgivings expressed by Vinod Mehta concerning our prospective prime minister, Narendra Modi.

There are four concerns (or allegations?) expressed in the article; Polarizing personality, safety of minorities under rule of Modi especially when Pariwar is likely to stir the communal pot in the background, autocrat / fascist masquerading as decisive leader and his achievements being a statistical fiction.

Though the first one is a combination of second & third and probably was made up as three is a inauspicious number, but the concerns of the secular commenter’s have be treated like a charge sheet and responded with the same spirit.

First concern: Modi is a deeply polarizing figure.

Oh yes, his detractors find him polarizing. Actually, anyone who stands for something in his life is always polarizing. No one reacts to someone who does not know what he /she stands for. But that is beside the point.

What is polarization? When people feel strongly enough about an issue or an individual to take strong positions as pro or anti, it is polarization. For example, had Manmohan Singh taken a tough stand on corrupt in his cabinet or party, he would have become a polarizing figure.  If Rahul Gandhi had taken a stand on discontinuation of dynasty, he could have become one.  In a way, if someone takes a stand & exposes our hypocrisies, we find him polarizing.

Yes, Narendra Modi does polarize people and the issues which cause this are covered later.

We come to the second concern, the centre point of your fable; safety of minorities & Hindu right wing stirring the pot in the background.  Let’s look at the charges; no apology for 2002 and Mujaffarnagar.  May be, Mr. Vinod Mehta, you are right. What good is a CM who does not apologize? One may be forgiven for letting hundreds of riots happen every year, for letting relief camps turn into killing fields for children, for dividing the society further by withdrawing cases against leaders belonging to a specific community, but one can’t be forgiven for not apologizing. After all, we Indians only care for symbolism.

By the way, you may know, Mr. Mehta,  the blatantly communal Special Investigation Team investigating Mujaffarnagar riots did not implicate the two ‘communal pot stirring’ BJP leaders and instead charged the poor, innocent leaders of BSP, SP & Congress despite the fact that the state CM had met latter, honored them.

And wake up, Mr. Mehta, 169 million Muslims do not tremble at the thought of Modi becoming PM. Instead, it is the crusaders of tactical voting, the traders of Muslim votes who are trembling at the scary thought of their citadel of tactical voting shaking. It began small. But more & more Muslims are realizing that the price at which their vote is sold goes up every election, so does the trader’s earnings whereas the pittance that is thrown to them is same. They know that if Gujarat 2002 can happen, so can Assam 2012 & Mujaffarnagar 2013. They are also realizing that the scare of Advani yesterday, Modi today & someone else tomorrow keeps them in ghettos, hopeless & despondent, in perpetuity.

If you cannot see that Mr. Mehta, clear the cobwebs. They (cobwebs) are, probably, 30 year old.

The third concern is that Modi is an autocrat / fascist masquerading as decisive leader. Laughable, I would say.

Our fundamental rights are enshrined in our Constitution. Has any violation of any fundamental right happened in Gujarat, in last ten years? Have we seen any threats to press freedom or has the government threatened to put all journalists in jail? Has Modi stopped circulation of any newspaper or blocked any TV channel, even when they were calling him names? Has he imposed emergency?  Has he threatened to degrade any constitutional position just to satisfy his own whims or fancies? Where does Gujarat stand in terms of extra judicial killings (also called encounters) on a state wise comparison?  Lowest number of encounters happened in Gujarat, NHRC data says.  But then, this issue need not be contentious and there is no harm in accepting the benign logic that the difference between Delhi & Gandhinagar would help smoothen the kinks, if there are any.

As far as the development in Gujarat being a statistical fiction is concerned, permit me to focus on few basic issues. Uninterrupted power is available in 100% villages, drinking water in 99% of villages, Ahmedabad city women feel safest in their city. Which other state can boast of these basics, power, water & rule of law? As far as concessions to industry are concerned, is it not the only way to generate employment, to get out of the rut of NREGA & other entitlements? 

Now, I have a concern, Mr. Mehta. If you are able to read this in capital letters & I quote from your article, ‘Narendra Modi will lead an NDA government on May 16’, your article betrays a kind of helplessness, of not being able to stop this from happening. Why this despondency?

May I hazard a guess? Modi does not fit the mould of traditional politician. He is not a part of the TMKMTK (You scratch my back I scratch yours – in Hindi) club. He is not the ‘manageable’ type, does not have relations who can help in reaching a middle ground. He is not a favourite guy for a secularist as he does not depend upon vote banks. And to top it all, he comes with a perception of being incorruptible. 

Are these the reasons for this discomfort? Or, is it the decimation of Congress, increasing irrelevance of Left liberal that is being mourned?