ALL through the recent brouhaha in the BJP, which saw a change of guard at the top, Mr Arun Jaitley’s objections to the party’s shrillness and the expulsion of Mr Jaswant Singh, one man maintained an enigmatic silence. Yet, he has often been mentioned as a leader who can revive the party’s fortunes and whose brand of politics is seen as a more combative version of Hindutva. Even then Mr Narendra Modi chose to take a back seat while his party grappled with the aftermath of defeats in two successive general elections and an uneasy transition to GenNext.
The only event which turned the spotlight on him was his championing of a legislative measure making voting compulsory in local elections. However, the flurry of statements and counter-statements about the controversial step died down as the BJP dealt with more immediate problems such as the assumption of the office of party president by the previously virtually unknown Mr Nitin Gadkari and the government formation in Jharkhand. As a result, there has been no convincing explanation for Mr Modi’s aloofness from national politics at a crucial time when the RSS was suspected to be tightening its grip on the BJP through Mr Gadkari.
Considering that Mr Modi’s name was touted as a possible future Prime Minister by Mr Arun Shourie, among others, on the eve of the general elections, one might have expected the Gujarat strong man to play a more active role. Instead, he chose to behave like a typical provincial apparatchik who has only a minor say in national affairs. Of course, no one places Mr Modi in the ranks of Mr Shivraj Singh Chauhan or Mr Raman Singh or Mr B.S. Yeddyurappa if only because his larger-than-life image cannot be ignored even when he remains in the background. It is also possible that because Mr Modi is aware of the influence which he exerts even when remaining quiet that he does not mind staying put in Gujarat.
However, the deliberate shunning of the limelight may not be without a purpose. If a senior police officer, one of the few who defied Mr Modi during the 2002 riots is to be believed, the Chief Minister confided after the outbreak that the violence had gone out of control. Kuchh zyada hi ho gaya, he is supposed to have said. Mr Modi’s subsequent behaviour also points to a deliberate attempt to distance himself from the carnage which, he undoubtedly realises, has become a permanent stain on his reputation.
Although he has refused to apologise for the disturbances, he has also resisted all attempts to raise the issue at public forums and insisted more than once that he stands for all the people of the state, irrespective of their religion. The post-carnage emphasis on development also underlines a conscious attempt to build a new image of himself, which is different from his earlier hawkish reputation. There are occasional lapses, of course, as during the Sohrabuddin Sheikh episode when he drew cheers from the crowd over the killing of the accused in a fake encounter. But there have been no crude references to the religious backgrounds of Mrs Sonia Gandhi and Mr James Michael Lyngdoh, as in 2002.
But even more significant than these uncharacteristic signs of sobriety is the reason which Mr Modi advanced for his preference for compulsory voting. According to him, such a focus on individuals to ensure that they will have no alternative but to cast their votes will deflect attention from treating them as vote banks. As a result, the parties will have to shed their segmented approach in terms of caste or community and accord greater importance to them as citizens. In a way, this approach of treating society as a composite whole is in tune with Mr Modi’s development-oriented policies, whose rationale is that a higher growth rate will benefit everyone and not particular groups.
For a person whose dubious role during the riots is still being scanned by the Supreme Court and whose attitude towards the refugee colonies housing Muslims was callous in the extreme – he called them child-breeding factories – the turning away of his government’s attention from communities to individuals is difficult to explain. What is more, since most of Mr Modi’s decisions are seen by his detractors to have been inspired by a sinister motive, even the latest move will be regarded with considerable suspicion.
Some may interpret it as the kind of an unofficial census of religious minorities which the Gujarat government initiated after the anti-Christian violence in the Dangs area to identify the members of the community. Since compulsory voting entails the possession of identity cards, it will mean that no one can hide if the law comes into force. As a recent report from Surat said, many Muslims assume Hindu names there to secure employment in diamond units. Such subterfuge will no longer be possible.
Notwithstanding such misgivings, there is little doubt that the proposed law runs counter to the basic objectives of caste-based and communal parties like the BSP and the BJP, to name only two, with their targeting of certain groups and demonising of others. It is necessary to remember that even the BSP realised that concentrating only on Dalits would not take it far and that there was a need, therefore, for a rainbow coalition which included the Manuvadi Brahmins, who were previously excoriated as traditional enemies of the Dalits.
Similarly, the forced moderation of some of the BJP leaders like Mr L. K. Advani in line with the example set by Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee was an explicit admission that the Hindu vote was not enough for it to gain power. In some respects, Mr Modi’s idea of compulsory voting endorses this inescapable fact of electoral politics where dependence only on a group of voters yields limited dividends.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of elections under the new law. Besides, whether the measure will at all be enacted is doubtful because, first, a consensus may elude the political class. Secondly, civil libertarians may see it as an infringement of basic rights since a person should have the freedom not to vote. And, thirdly, the enforcement of the law in so large a country where people are almost always on the move may be as difficult as the decision on the kind of punishment for the absentee voters. The law courts will also be clogged by petitioners challenging their punishment.
Irrespective of the fate of the proposed law, what is more relevant is Mr Modi’s purpose behind the unusual initiative. It is clear that he wants to project himself as someone different from the average politician who is forever embroiled in ego hassles within his own party and in striking opportunistic deals with other individuals and parties. In contrast to them, Mr Modi apparently wants to demonstrate his intention to rise above mundane party politics and to show that he is concerned with issues which have societal implications. Development is one of them and compulsory voting another.
At a time when the BJP is entering the post-Vajpayee and post-Advani phase when it has no obviously popular front-runners among its current crop of leaders, Mr Modi does not want to be seen jostling for party positions with the Jaitleys and Sushmas and Gadkaris, or presenting different interpretations about the inclusiveness or otherwise of Hindutva, or whether December 6, 1992, was the “saddest day” or shauriya divas, as the VHP’s Mr Ashok Singhal wants it to be called. Yet, as the Chief Minister tries to reinvent himself, he must be aware that the leopard is not known to change its spots. What is more, he cannot be sure that the BJP and, more importantly, the RSS will endorse his idea of reducing the importance of parties at the expense of individual voters. If his intention is to position himself in a way which will enable him to play a larger role in national affairs, he may not find the going easy.
Source:The Tribune.
0 comments on "Silence of the wolf:Narendra Modi"
Subscribe in a Reader
Post a Comment