Will Modi be the prisoner of hindutva forever?

Hindutva, Gujarat asmita and development mark three transitional phases in the making of the myth of Narendra Modi. While all three are seemingly disparate constructs, they converge at the subterranean level to narrate his progress as a politician— from Hindutva firebrand pre-2002 to messiah of development in 2012 to an aspirant for the prime minister’s job somewhere in the uncertain future. All three have added glow, and mystique, to his persona – amply aided by a section of the media, which would promptly ascribe ‘victory’ to everything that is even remotely favourable to him, and a gaggle of corporates who would wax eloquent on him with embarrassing effusiveness. But these have also set limits on his political growth. [caption id=“attachment_226768” align=“alignleft” width=“380” caption=“On Hindutva, Modi has won big in Gujarat but lost across the country. AFP”]  [/caption] If he is still seen as a leader confined to the boundaries of Gujarat, and not a national one even now – forget the media’s hurry to project him as the best prime minister candidate; the enthusiasm for him is abysmally low beyond his state – it means the combined strength of Hindutva, Gujarat asmita and development has not really helped him grab attention elsewhere. Either his transition has been too slow and too inadequate or people simply refuse relate to his idea of – or is it narrow definition? – Hindutva, asmita and development. On Hindutva, Modi has won big in Gujarat but lost across the country. In public perception beyond his state, he would still be associated strongly with the 2002 carnage. Despite his shift to the development rhetoric, he would forever be seen not as a hero but as a communal leader under whom the Hindu fanatics massacred Muslims. His refusal to express regret for the incident and reluctance to accept any small gift from Muslims in public only reinforces the image he wants to erase from public memory. He looks too obstinate to be a pan-Indian leader. Some reality check first: Modi is a virtual political untouchable for powerful secular NDA partners such as Nitish Kumar. Worse, his party is not too comfortable with him either. It wants to play down Hindutva now as it has run its course and is no more politically productive. Moreover, ten years after the Gujarat madness and two decades after the Babri Masjid demolition, the country has moved beyond Hindutva. Modi, with his hard line image, is more a liability than an asset to the party at the national level. The party is not oblivious to the fact that during election campaigns outside Gujarat, Modi generates little enthusiasm. He does not even polarise votes the way he manages in his state. It is no surprise that the party has shown little interest in inviting him to campaign in the crucial Uttar Pradesh assembly polls — the party’s leadership would explain it in other ways though. Gujarat asmita, by its description, should sell within the state. There is no need for others, barring business groups interested in making money, should be excited by it. Asmita means pride. When Modi flaunted it proudly a few years after the riots, did he mean to convey that communal killings are a thing of the past and he wanted to move ahead? Possibly. But it was not backed by efforts at reconciliation or words to assuage the hurt feelings in the Muslim community. His emphasis on pride could easily be misinterpreted as Hindu asmita. His attempt to break free of the Hindutva hawk image was not good enough. He had to shift to a more neutral plank. It had to be development. The mainstream media has gone ga ga over development of Gujarat under the stewardship of Modi. Most of the credit should actually go to the enterprising Gujarati who has terrific business sense. But let’s put `development’ perspective. “In 1991, a full 10 years before Modi arrived, as many as 17,940 out of 18,028 villages were already electrified. The Ukai plant, which uses washed coal to generate power, was also pre-Modi as was the asphalting of 87.5% of Gujarat roads. In 1980-81, Gujarat’s share in manufacturing at the national level was only 16.29%, but by 2000-01 it rose to an impressive 28.71%. Not surprising then that between 1994-2001, well before Modi, Gujarat’s state domestic product grew at 10%-13%, way higher than the all-India average,” says an article in the Times of India. “Since 1980, Gujarat has been India’s poster state. Modi had nothing to do with the world’s largest ship-breaking yard coming up in Bhavnagar, nor with the setting up of the Ambani refinery in Jamnagar…If Gujarat’s agriculture is prospering today, it is because the state has begun to receive Sardar Sarovar waters from 2002. Once again, Modi had little to do with the inauguration of this project, but he was at the right place at the right time to take the credit for it. If there was ever a person who reaped what somebody else had sown, then that is Modi,” the article adds. But the ‘development’ fails to hide some dark realities. According to a report prepared by the Planning Commission-appointed Suresh P Tendulkar Committee a couple of years ago, 31.8 percent of the State’s population lived below the poverty line. There numerous cases of farmer suicides which go unreported or under reported. The industrialisation drive of Modi has hurt the water resources of tribals badly. Despite prosperity, the lags in in basic human index parameters like education, employment etc. And yes, during the development drama, the Muslims lead a ghettoised existence, more cut off from the mainstream than ever before. So has Modi grown up as a leader? Obviously not. He is good enough for Gujarat but to be a national player he needs to be much more than the combination of Hindutva, Gujarat asmita and development. Forget all the court cases, he might lose them or he might not, but he seems destined to be a prisoner of the developments of 2002. He has lost the battle of perception. He needs something drastic to change that. He cannot come with timid responses to that. He must prove that he is the leader of all people, capable of overcoming narrow thinking.