GUJARAT ANALYSIS
New Delhi, 24 December 2004
Anti-Populist Modi
NO FREE LUNCHES!
By Prakash Nanda
The much-denigrated Narendra Modi has received another
massive mandate from the people of Gujarat to
start his third term as the Chief Minister. He had many odds against him ---
his acts of omission and commission during the 2002 communal riots; his
so-called arrogance that has alienated him from his senior colleagues in the
BJP and his disregard for populist politics, particularly when the ruling
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was seeking the fourth consecutive term in office,
something that no ruling party, except the communists in West Bengal, has
managed to achieve in recent memory in Indian politics.
Of these, the critics have overplayed the first two
“drawbacks” of Modi. Therefore, let us discuss the under-highlighted “drawback”
of Modi --- his aversion towards populist politics. In fact, the most important
lesson of the Gujarat polls is that Modi has
proved that one can shun populism and yet win elections.
The worst critics of Modi do accept the fact that under his Chief
Ministership, every village, not to speak of towns in Gujarat
gets uninterrupted supply of electricity these days, where earlier long and
frequent power shortages were the order of the day. And yet these critics wooed
the public to vote against Modi. Why? Because, Modi has been severe on those
people who fail to pay for their electricity consumption.
In fact, one heard during the electioneering a prosperous
diamond merchant in Surat
telling a television journalist --- “what is the use in having electricity if
people are forced to pay for its consumption. Earlier we never paid for
electricity. We never cleared our bills, but nobody cut our connections. But
under Modi, not only are our connections cut, we are also being forced to go to
courts to face legal charges against us”, he added, while vowing that he would
campaign for Modi’s ouster.
In other words, detractors of Modi say that there is nothing
wrong in stealing electricity. So much so that the rival Congress Party had
promised to write off the unpaid electricity bills if voted to power. And
worse, the Party had promised to supply free electricity to the farmers in the
villages.
Moreover, so “appealing” was this Congress plank that senior
BJP leaders in Gujarat had almost decided to copy
this in their manifesto, but Modi was not impressed. He ultimately prevailed
and the State BJP leaders were told not to be defensive about cutting
electricity to the defaulters and punish them on charges of theft.
In my opinion, condoning power-theft is populism at its
worst. In order to get votes, political parties encourage people to defy rules,
regulations and laws. Let it be made clear that here one is not talking of the
subsidies that the Government provides to the disadvantaged sections of the
society on various items, though one can legitimately argue that the subsidy
regime is simply not working in India. Here, one is talking of the middle class
people --- the diamond merchant certainly belongs to this class --- being
averse to pay for the facilities provided by the Government.
They do not want to pay their electricity bills, water
charges and even income taxes. They violate all the rules and regulations ---
we see how in cities like Delhi
and Mumbai they encroach on the public properties, add unauthorized
constructions in their residences and commercial establishments and so on. And
yet, if the law tries to catch them, politicians come to the forefront in not
only protecting them but also in justifying their actions!
It seems that Narendra Modi is not one of these politicians.
He believes in delivering goods to the people provided people pay accordingly
for those goods. No wonder that he is disliked by India’s traditional political class
and that includes his own BJP.
Besides, it is not wrong when some analysts say that more
than the Congress leaders, many in his own BJP would have been happy if Modi
had lost. For these conventional or
traditional politicians --- and they included all the BJP dissidents under the
leadership of Keshubhai Patel --- Modi is the villain, as he did not believe in
populist politics.
Ironically, “populism” is not a wrong concept if one goes by
its true meaning. At its core, populism stands in stark contrast to elitism
and, therefore, by definition a populist would be against all forms of elitism:
social, political and economic. It means being against corporatism. It means
fighting those who corrupt to retain their elite status.
A populist must surely be a status quo buster by
representing the interests of the non-elites, the larger public of working ---
and the middle-class people that are the victims of elitists. A true populist
relates to the common person because he or she by virtue of their entire
background is more of a common person than an elitist. Populists are not part
of the establishment; they are fundamentally and aggressively
anti-establishment.
The Encyclopedia Britannica provides this useful view of
populism: "Political programme or movement that champions the common
person, usually by favourable contrast with an elite. Populism usually combines
elements of the left and right, opposing large business and financial interests
but also frequently being hostile to established socialist and labour
parties”.
But if in India
or in any developing country, populism has assumed wrong connotations, it is
precisely because of the fact that the populist leaders here are essentially
statusquoists and pro-establishment --- they do not want change; they want
captive vote banks, which is possible when the people remain poor and poverty
is glorified.
You cannot give free electricity knowing pretty well that it
is not sustainable and once the state coffers get emptied by such policies, you
do not have funds for growth, development and even for social justice that India’s
populist politicians promise. In fact, one may give enough examples of how the
populism of the Indian brand actually sustains and help the rich more than the
poor (for instance, subsidy in diesels and fertilisers do not help the poor
farmers who do not buy them.).
Writing in “the Guardian”, Ralf Dahrendorf, a member of the
British House of Lords once decried successful populists worldwide, saying:
"It does not take long for voters to discover that the promises of
populists were empty. Once in power, they simply make for bad Government.
Populist episodes are signs of an underlying instability that neither serves national progress nor contributes to
international order." One cannot
agree with him more.
In any case, when one talks of growth and development in
this age of globalisation, one cannot progress without rules of law. Nobody
will invest in developmental projects and infrastructural developments if one
is not assured safety of his investments and returns. Why should the Ambanis ---
sons of Gujarat --- invest in power
generations (the two Ambani brothers are entering the power sector these days
in a big way all over the country) if people will not pay for their power?
Coming back to Narendra Modi, he is definitely a multi-faceted
personality, analysing him is not easy task. He is not a typical populist
politician since he is talking of the rules of law. One may find serious
faults, and legitimately so, with his rules of law in dealing with the
minorities, but he deserved support for his rules of law in the sphere of
economic development. The Gujaratis have not disappointed him and taught his
critics --- particularly, the aforesaid diamond merchant --- a fitting lesson. ----
INFA
(Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)
|