By Mihir S Sharma
April 11, 2014
Your road to work, gentle reader, will have been brightened up of late by giant hoardings of Narendra Modi, by all accounts – especially his – the next prime minister of India. One expects, of course, that they will be taken down after the elections. But, as one of my companions on the road recently remarked to me: “There’s a chance that after the elections, his pictures will only get bigger.”
The personality cult around Modi has reached levels not seen in this country for years. In Kanpur, the throne that was honoured to seat NaMo during a rally last year is preserved reverentially under glass at the local Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office. In Agra, the equivalent throne was the subject of a furious bidding war by local BJP leaders. The Congress, traditionally the party of sycophancy, can only look on in awe this time. BJP leaders are even echoing a slogan from the dead past. At a recent Modi rally in Purnia, said the Times of India, “almost all the speakers, including former ministers claimed Modi and India have now become synonyms…. Said former health minister Ashwini Choubey: “Narendra Modi is an identity linked to India… ‘India is Modi and Modi is India’.” It is not reported if NaMo himself bashfully disagreed with this sentiment, but I wouldn’t put my money on it. That sort of thing puts ideas in anyone’s head: What would Indira do? To establish power, that is. It’s a good question.
But, of course, we aren’t allowed to use these historical parallels, are we? Because that would just be alarmist. Even India’s leading liberals are deeply uncomfortable with any idea that Modi would replicate the awful excesses of the past. India is too strong a liberal democracy for Modi to do any damage; to think otherwise is disrespectful and unpatriotic, and might lead people to vote on an Anything-But-Modi principle, which is undemocratic. Apparently.
I mean, it apparently isn’t relevant to a discussion about authoritarianism, and institutional strength, that Modi has a history of including, for example, serious allegations that he used state machinery to snoop on someone for personal reasons. Nope. Nothing to worry about there. Nor is it relevant, apparently, that his respect for legislative accountability is not notable – he speaks in the Gujarat Assembly with Manmohanesque rarity, and the entire opposition is frequently suspended before difficult subjects like critical auditors’ reports are discussed. Or that his my way-or-the-highway approach can be summed up in the number of Muslim BJP MLA candidates in Gujarat under his watch: zero. Or the number from the BJP this time, outside Kashmir: two. Nationally, out of 500-something.
Even if Modi has authoritarian instincts, his power will be limited, we’re told, by powerful state leaders. Wait – didn’t people say the same of Indira? There was that Syndicate thing, wasn’t there? Bother. OK, then what about India’s Democratic Heritage! It even defeated Indira and the Emergency! Oh wait – no it didn’t, she chose to hold elections when she didn’t need to. Bother.
The “don’t-you-worry” arguments are all darkly funny. Consider this one: India’s institutional strength will constrain Modi. Wait, haven’t we heard endlessly about how the Congress, since Indira, has undermined Indian institutions? So why, precisely, would Modi not? Either these institutions can’t be/weren’t weak and undermined by the Congress. Or they won’t protect us.
Consider this other one: but Indira had a big majority! OK, then. Yes, best political slogan ever: “Vote for Modi, just not too much, please.”
Sadly, the opposition is part of the problem. The Congress itself has shamefully ceded this election. One gets the impression that Rahul Gandhi imagines a spell in opposition would help him cleanse his party, even at the price of a Modi sarkar. In this, as in so much else, he shows an irresponsible desire to prioritise what his party needs over what the country needs.
So who could stop PM Modi from doing whatever he wants? Allies? We know they can be bought, silenced, threatened and split. The media? Well, Modi has not exactly been restrained with sedition charges in the past, and we aren’t the bravest fraternity in the world when operating in dicey legal waters.
The courts? It is no secret that they are sensitive to public opinion; a really ruthless leader would not hesitate to use skeletons in judicial closets, if any. And did Indira worry about the courts? The Supreme Court transferred cases involving his government out of the area that Modi ran; where will it transfer them if he runs all of India – Nepal?
The CAG? Don’t make me laugh. World opinion, which goaded Indira into elections? Again, ha. If a visa denial didn’t cause Modi to swerve, you think a sharp editorial in the Times will?
Writing in The Indian Express on Friday, Pratap Bhanu Mehta said: “If we end up voting for [Modi and the BJP], the morning after we will need to think of the kinds of structures that can mitigate the damage they might do.” Sadly, that’s the wrong advice. The correct attitude is: “Before voting for Modi’s BJP, examine whether we have the kinds of structures that can mitigate the damage they might do.”
Generals, they say, fight the last war. Liberals, it appears, fear the last fascists. But authoritarian leaders never reach for absolute power the same way. The postcolonial presidents-for-life became dictators otherwise than did the fascists of the 1930s. The Putins and Chavezes sought and maintained power otherwise than did the Mugabes. And the Rajapakses have established control differently from all others. In each case, it appeared the reasons for their rise were good, or at least understandable in the moment. And in each case, there were liberals who nodded on the sidelines, and said: “Stop worrying. Someone will stop them.” Or: “It’s OK to support them just now. How much damage could they do?”
How much damage did Indira do?
