Mr. Narendra Modi (hereinafter NM) seems to be the front - runner for the Prime Minister's post for the BJP. This post is about whether NM is suitable for becoming the Prime Minister of India.
NM is a leader of the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party in India. He has been the Chief Minister of the state of Gujarat since 2001. It was under his Chief Ministership, that the 2002 anti-Muslim Pogroms happened in Gujarat. It is widely believed that there was complicity from the highest levels of the state government, during the anti-Muslim riots. Mr. NM has been widely attributed to the statement, "every action has an equal and opposite reaction", to justify the riots.
NM since then has inculcated ambitions to lead the country as its Prime Minister. This ambition required a 'secularisation' of brand Modi. This has been undertaken with great care, by various rallies, state grants and other minority appeasement policies. In a nutshell, NM from being projected as a hard-line Hindutva guy, has now become the epitome of a secular leader, who harps on economic development for garnering votes.
I would like to clarify that NM has never been held responsible by the judiciary for the riots. Let us here after proceed with the assumption, that he has been falsely framed for the 2002 riots. But, it is still a firm belief among large sections of our Muslim brethren that, NM was the chief architect of the post-Godhra riots. Even though NM is now being touted as the secular leader who ushers in economic development, this belief of the minority community still stands strong.
This is problematic because no matter how strong NM's secular credentials are/might be, the majority of our Muslim populace will be uncomfortable with someone like him as the leader of our country. This situation is somewhat similar to the position of the Indian National Congress(INC) in the late 1930's till the mid 40's. The INC was seen to command allegiance of the majority Hindu population of the erstwhile British India. It was seen as the protector of the rights and aspirations of the Hindu majority. The INC took a very technical stand on the issue of setting up of a secular and democratic nation. This technical stand has been viewed as a plan of the INC to garner power at the Union level, and then look for a solution to the the Hindu-Muslim problem from a position of power, and in a manner detrimental to the minority groups. This image of the INC (whether true or not) along with its insistence on technicalities in face of huge humanitarian costs led to the partition of India. This is a view that is accepted by both the then administrators of British India as well as historians post-independence.
In my humble opinion, the election of NM as the Prime Minister of this country, might result in the rise of similar sentiments of insecurity among the Muslim populace of India. We dont know whether the INC was right in acting the way they acted, but all of us know that the insecurities that arose from those actions led to one of the biggest human tragedies the world has seen in the last century. I am not sure whether we should make the mistake of trying our luck again.
I would also like to question his claim of being one of the biggest champions of development. I agree that Gujarat today is one of the fastest growing and more developed states of India. But, there are two aspects which need to be underlined as regards that statement. First, what is the direct contribution of NM into the economic development of Gujarat. Secondly, what is the nature of this development. As regards the first aspect, Gujarat has always been a development oriented state, so the claim that he is the champion of development in Gujarat seems shaky. At best he can be credited with providing favorable conditions to further the success story of Gujarat. In my humble opinion, this can not and should not be used to judge his claim of being the champion of development, suitable for leadership of India. We should remember that India is still largely made up of parts which are under-developed, and the NM model of development might not be suited for pan-Indian application. It should also be noted that Gujarat for all its bluster, is not the fastest growing state in India, and there are various economic factors like FDI, net saving rate, etcetera, where Gujarat is behind a lot of under-developed states. Thus, one feels the need for critical scrutiny of these developmental claims at the national level.
The second issue in regards his developmental claims is the pathetic performance of Gujarat on social parameters of development. Gujarat has repeatedly been reprimanded for its bad Human Development Index. It is well known that the Gujarati society has become increasingly polarized during his tenure as the Chief Minister. The NM model of development is largely seen as a pro-industrialist model, and is not an inclusive model of growth. My respectful submission is that though such a model might be suitable for the development of a state, but it is not suitable for India, which is constitutionally mandated to be a welfare state.
Thus, from the above discussion it seems that if NM was to be appointed as the leader of this country, it will alienate a large section of our minority and economically disadvantaged populace. There is a possibility that I might be wrong in my predictions, but all that I am asking is can India as a nation afford to take that risk.
