By Kumkum Chadha
Even before Prime Minister Narendra Modi turned 75, everyone within the country knew that the rule he had used to axe his detractors will not be applicable to him. Nor would RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat’s recent “shawl comment” do much. Yes, there would be a debate, but towards the end, it is Modi who would emerge the winner.
For the uninitiated, it was in 2014 that the BJP imposed a maximum age limit that restricted those above the age of 75 years to contest elections or hold public office. The back-story is well known: the rule had targeted party veterans, LK Advani and Murli Manohar Joshi. Former Union Minister Yashwant Sinha had then said that BJP had on May 26, 2014, “declared brain dead” its leaders who were above the age of 75 years.
Years on, the age bar axed others like Anandiben Patel and Najma Heptullah. Patel had resigned as chief minister, two months before she turned 75 years. Heptullah, on the other hand, overstayed by a year. The rule, however, is not cast in stone. Take the example of “Metroman” E Sreedharan, who contested the elections at the age of 88 as a BJP candidate.
As for the “shawl comment” Bhagwat had stated that if you are honoured with a shawl after turning 75, it means “you should stop now, you are old, step aside and let others come in”. Of course, Bhagwat later made amends within a month by saying that he never said that anyone should retire at 75.
Interestingly both Bhagwat and Modi turned 75 years in September: Bhagwat less than a week before Modi. Therefore, speculation was rife whether Bhagwat’s shawl remark would apply to him and followed by Modi. Those who backed this theory were only indulging in wishful thinking. Modi is not only here to stay, but as Union Minister Amit Shah said, will continue till 2029 as prime minister and even after: “There is no confusion in the BJP about it”, Shah had said several months before Modi reached his 75th milestone. This time around Shah is right. Modi is at the helm and here to stay for some years unless of course politics takes a different turn and circumstances change the course.
As of now, even Modi’s critics would concede that he is India’s “best bet”. Political vacuum apart, clearly there is no toss-up between Modi and Rahul Gandhi. Neither a toss-up nor a comparison. Whatever may be the faultlines, Modi is a leader who is mature, has a vision for the country and lofty ideas on taking India forward. Also, when it comes to the country, he is usually in a “no compromise” mode.
Pitch this against Gandhi’s flip-flop and immature statements and one would back Modi without batting an eyelid. Having said that one cannot deny that the Gandhi-led Opposition has taken up issues that have touched a chord be it “Save the Constitution” or the “Vote Chori” campaign or his people-connect yatras.
As of now, Gandhi has shaped up as a good Opposition leader pitched against a capable prime minister. Therefore, unless the country finds someone to match Modi, this, for the time being, is an arrangement Indians must accept and learn to live with. Comparisons or alternatives apart, one needs to judge Modi on his actions, decisions and deeds. More importantly, on his daring and unrelenting attitude.
Taking the last first, post-Pahalgam, he had dared Pakistan and vowed to fight to the finish. The controversy of who actually won the war apart, the fact remains that India launched an attack to avenge the Pahalgam killings. Modi’s provocative statements be it ghar mein ghus kar marenge, or wahan se goli, yahan se gola were enough to give goosebumps.
Even when it came to the US and its erratic President Donald Trump’s bullying tactics, Modi stood firm. So, when Trump slapped 50 percent tariffs on India, Modi did not buckle under pressure. Neither did he succumb to blackmail. Instead, he turned to Russia and China: the troika enough to make Trump back off.
Equally, Modi may be criticized for self-projection on the world stage, but what one cannot take away for him is his effort to ensure that India gets its due among the countries that matter and when India speaks the world sits up and listens. Today Modi may not be a household name in the Western world, but it sure is one that rings a bell. Add to this, that Indians today speak from a position of strength and flag their Indianness willingly and proudly.
Within the country too, Modi has emerged as a doer and one who sets and keeps deadlines. It is for this reason that projects that did not go beyond foundation stone laying have been completed. A case in point is Chenab Railway Bridge that was thrown open in June this year. This project was conceived in the seventies during Indira Gandhi’s tenure as prime minister. There are others including Goa’s International Airport that languished for 12 years after approval; the Saryu Irrigation project in Uttar Pradesh that Modi inaugurated some 40 years after it was conceptualized. The list is long and one that could make previous governments run for cover.
As for his own track record, Modi launched several welfare schemes. No prime minister had thought of building toilets for women or providing gas connections or registering them as homeowners. In fact, when it has come to women, the Modi government’s sensitivity is exemplary.
Critics would be quick to jump in and dismiss this as an electoral gimmick. So be it, but what one must accept is that women centric schemes have improved lives.
As for the “I dare” spirit, Modi has displayed that in ample measure: be it in scrapping Article 370 and stripping the state of Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, the controversial demonetization, farm bills or the Waqf law: “If he says he will do it, he will, whatever be the cost” is something well known about Modi. Of course, this can cut both ways though on welfare schemes and ushering in Bharatiyata, Indianness, the Modi government has done well.
But this is where one must stop. Because the Modi ledger is not only about credits: there are debits that outweigh the gains and skew the balance sheet. For starters, it is the politics of “hate” that the BJP led Modi dispensation unleashed on the people. The minority versus majority politics targeted the Muslims and underscored Hindu dominance. Add to this the religious quotient and the damage is irreparable.
Even within the government, there is a fear psychosis with a virtual gag order on ministers, bureaucrats and other government functionaries. Apart from restricting a free flow of information, this puts a lid on goings-on within the government vis-a-vis policy and crucial decisions. The result: one hears what the government wants the people and nation to hear. This, in a democracy, is uncalled for.
Add to this the muzzling of the press and vocal members of the civil society and the Opposition: jail independent voices or slap cases on those who raise a discordant note. In this context, those who say “there is an undeclared Emergency” are not off the mark.
Equally, the government’s attempt to saffronize institutions is out there for everyone to see. Plum posts are earmarked for those driven by a particular ideology and tasked with carrying forward an agenda which is divisive.
Having said that, the onus is not only the government’s. The unwillingness to stand up and the willingness to be subservient is a malaise that has affected major sections of the media, bureaucracy, academia and other institutions that earlier stood tall.
Equally, Modi at 75 needs to take stock of his actions and decisions and weigh whether it is good governance or divisive politics that will see him through his years in power. At 75, he needs to choose between the two.
—The writer is an author, journalist and political commentator