(Pic courtesy : kafila.org via Google)
OK – so it seems fairly certain that Narendra Modi is going to be the BJP’s candidate (not sure if he's going to be NDA's candidate) for the Prime Minister’s office in 2014. That is assuming, of course, that the NDA does not split into two (or more) entities by then. In Indian politics, anything seems possible. Since the age old days of Congress Party and Janata Party, there are so many different factions making up the NDA and the UPA that it is quite mind boggling. Looking at it from a politician’s point of view, the situation is near perfect. There are so many small factions to point fingers at, should the crap hit the fan (in any given situation).
Coming back to Narendra Modi – many people claim, I’ve read a great many articles that proclaim that Modi is the best thing that can happen to India, as it is today. Many articles have suggested that Narendra Modi can run the country effective, as effectively as a CEO. Many industrialists are reported to be in awe of Mr.Modi.
Another “good thing” that has been cited about Mr. Modi is that he can attract investments, help infuse much needed capital into the Indian economy because he has, time and again, projected himself as a leader who is prone to be “investment friendly”.
People have often spoken volumes about what a great orator Narendra Modi is. He is said to have an “undeniable air of charm and charisma” that radiates every time he speaks and inspires awe among the people who listen to him speak. But then, so was Adolf Hitler !!
Mr.Modi does claim of a GDP growth of 11+ % in his home state of Gujarat. But then again, figures in India are always provisional. Muslims in Gujarat too are reported to have claimed that they are happy under Modi’s rule in the state. How much of this is due to fear, how many of these statements are coerced ones ? I guess the debate can keep going on because as far as Narendra Modi goes, there are a lot of points to argue for and against him being touted as and stepping up to the Prime Minister’s chair in 2014.
Sad fact remains that India now faces a problem that many other countries have and do – a lack of choice. The UPA has done nothing to prevent the country’s slide into the depths of despair. Manmohan Singh has exemplified himself time and again, by remaining silent on issues that have demanded some action to be taken on. The rest of the troupe in the UPA has proved equally (if not more) ineffective in dealing with the problems facing the country today. In the light of this, Narendra Modi is being touted by the BJP as a go-getter, something that the country is in dire need of, as of now.
That said, one cannot refute the fact that Narendra Modi is a law unto himself. He has the tendency to wipe out and obliterate anything that stands in his way. He is aggressive – yes but what makes that aggression dangerous is the fact that Modi is undisputedly power hungry. In fact, Modi seems to have started viewing himself as a medium of power itself. He does not rely on power to get him out of situations or in to them, as the case may be. As far as Modi goes today, he IS power personified.
Does this not reek of fascism ? In the process of touting Modi and projecting him as India’s saviour and having the tendency to sweep all his wrongdoings under the carpet, has the NDA effectively created a Frankenstein ? A Fascist Frankenstein ?
Does that idea scare you ? Well, in my honest opinion, it should !
Like I said before, the situation now boils down to a simple lack of choice rather than even a choice between two evils.
I, for one, simply can’t get the Modi Action Inaction Theory out of my mind. In my opinion, this was a rather ethically abnormal theory for the leader of a state to be putting forth at the peak of communal riots that were rocking the state. Perversely enough, he was not referring to the burning of the Sabarmati Express as the spark which set off the massacre that the state witnessed. He was referring to the lynching of then MP Ehsan Jafri and Mr. Modi opined on TV that this had all to do with “kriya pratikriya”(action and reaction). He was of the opinion that the mob lynched Mr.Jafri because Mr.Jafri had shot at the mob to try and disperse them and this act of his infuriated the mob and that the massacre that followed was just a “reaction”. The SIT report too, with regard to the Godhra incident, left a lot to be desired, with Modi just being given a “clean chit”.
Hell, after he was appointed Chief Minister in 2007, he even went ahead and appointed Maya Kodnani as a Minister in his cabinet. The same Mayaben Kodnani, who, is now serving a 28 year prison term for her role in the Godhra, Naroda Patia riots. She was convicted of having orchestrated the massacre of 95 people during the riots. Did this, in Narendra Modi’s eyes, actually qualify her to be a minister in his cabinet ? But then again, like I said earlier, he is nothing but a law unto himself. No one dares question his actions and those who do, do not make life easy for themselves.
Remember how and why Adolf Hitler rose to prominence ? Here’s what Wikipedia says, in a gist,
“Adolf Hitler rose to a place of prominence in the early years of the party. Being one of the best speakers of the party, he told the other members of the party to either make him leader of the party, or, he would never return. He was aided in part by his willingness to use violence in advancing his political objectives and to recruit party members who were willing to do the same. The Beer Hall putsch in November 1923 and the later release of his book Mein Kampf (usually translated as My Struggle) introduced Hitler to a wider audience. In the mid-1920s, the party engaged in electoral battles in which Hitler participated as a speaker and organizer, as well as in street battles and violence between the Rotfrontkämpferbund and the Nazi's Sturmabteilung (SA). Through the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazis gathered enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag, and Hitler's blend of political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning converted the party's non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933.”
Germany gave birth to its own Frankenstein through the notion that there was no choice other than Hitler to lead them out of the Great Depression. Hitler rose to prominence, his rise to power was based broadly on – resentment among the German populace, the weakness of then then existent Weimar system, the terror that his troopers invoked in people and most importantly, his power of oratory and the brilliance of his speeches.
Remarkable parallels here, aren’t there ?
My question is "Is India about to do a Germany ?"