You are aiming hihg.... /Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/June 16, 2013

You are aiming high, but beware of marketers selling you as an FMCG

Dear Narendrabhai,

We have known each other for over 35 years. Your meteoric rise from an ordinary member of the ABVP to a national leader is well deserved. Though you still have to go far to acquire the status of the maximum leader, a national debate around your personality has the potential to minimise your achievements. You are perhaps one of the few workers of the Sangh Parivar who has risen from the ranks through hard work, loyalty, commitment and a frugal lifestyle. You were known as a team-builder and organiser. You were the party’s political strategist who had no connections with elitist opinion-makers or corporate planners. You hardly ever visited a five-star to address an audience or confabulate with your contacts. You were like Arjuna, whose eyes were fixed on the target and whose methods were well defined.

From 1985 to 1999, none of your current followers sought your company, let alone opinion or guidance. They couldn’t imagine that a canteen boy would become the most powerful contender for the PM’s post in less than two decades. They ignored your presence. They even painted you a demon after the 2002 Gujarat riots. While the rest of India bayed for your blood, there were very few in your own party who stood by you. One of them was L K Advani, who saw in you a potential leader. Advani stood like a rock with you and not behind you like other invisible opportunists who didn’t want to be seen as your protectors in public. I remember how Advani pushed you as the candidate for Gujarat chief minister in 2001. Former Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana was aware of the problems in getting you anointed by replacing old warhorse Keshubhai Patel. Khurana was sent as observer to organise the transition from the old to the new. Advani put his weight and authority behind you, like he did for other young leaders like Vasundhara Raje, Uma Bharati, Shivraj Chouhan and Raman Singh, despite massive opposition from within. You didn’t let him down in delivering a better government. When you were in trouble over the riots, it was Advani who stood by you in Goa. I was present there, covering the meeting of the BJP’s National Executive. You may not have forgotten the torture you went through those two days. I remember your victorious smile when you were told to continue in spite of Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s reservations. The majority, led by Advani, overruled the will and wish of the person who was then India’s undisputed darling. You sounded humbled. You returned to Ahmedabad brimming with gratitude and resolved to change Gujarat’s face. You became the state, the party and the only leader.

This time round, you are a different Narendra Modi. Unlike in 2002, your arrival in Goa resembled a general’s. The V-sign was a clear sign of your new mission. Your admirers and supporters put up larger-than-life posters of you along the road from the airport to your hotel. The choreographed welcome was a clear indication of the change in political style. The party, which chose principles over personalities, appeared to be at war with itself; and you were portrayed as the one leading a faction. The BJP meeting was meant to discuss ways and means to win the 2014 elections by trouncing Congress. It wasn’t called to demolish an established hierarchy. But a section of the party now feels that Goa became just another Kurukshetra.

Instead of the party and BJP, you have become both subject and target of the current political discourse. Your detractors haven’t found fault with your economics. But they find the new Modi’s politics a threat to democratic institutions. The conduct and language of your fans like Amit Shah drive even your hardcore loyalists away. Don’t forget that most self-appointed Modi acolytes were once Advani’s courtiers. Advani may not be an attractive proposition for the money-minded Indian middle class, but he is still like a father who can keep a family together.

Please don’t forget that your acceptability will not be measured in terms of how many times you have hosted corporate bigwigs or addressed industry forums in Gujarat or elsewhere. A Time cover story on you may be a topic of discussion over cocktails in urban drawing rooms but will not enthuse semi-literate voters. Your suitability for a national responsibility will not be judged by how many media-hyped interactions you’ve had with college students. You even shared the dais with corporate leaders who were college alumni. Your eagerness to woo foreigners or NRIs isn’t a strategy that will ensure broader acceptability. Don’t get carried away by the number of requests which you now get from ambassadors seeking appointments. They want to assess you as a person and not as a leader who has delivered a unique development model. After 2002, you were a pariah for them. Most of them funded NGOs who are in the forefront of launching long-drawn legal and social battles against you. They will not miss an opportunity to support the cause of the types of Nitish Kumar once they feel that you have lost your relevance. Some are already whispering about your inability to take your own parivar along and your tendency to humiliate senior leaders. Don’t forget that the party leadership allowed you to demolish top honchos like Keshubhai Patel, Sanjay Joshi, Kashiram Rana and others. But once you move to the national platform, it will be difficult for you to ignore old colleagues. Indira Gandhi could do it because her enemies were discredited and she had nationwide appeal. You are also the most popular leader but your acceptability is still limited.

You are aiming high. But the success of a leader lies in his ability to make himself redundant in his current post. You haven’t shown that tendency. Are you willing to hand over Gujarat’s reins to any leader you have groomed? In your endeavour to make Gujarat India’s most modern state, you forgot to create successors. You have unwittingly let your benefactors promote you as a brand. Please do not allow them to hawk Brand Modi like a deodorant or a freshener, which attracts people only temporarily. Don’t ignore the fact that multinational food chains haven’t been able to find a replacement for the desi dhokhla, vada pao, Tulsi or Haldiram. You are a homegrown brand and its dilution will spell disaster for you alone. In a country that still preaches respect for elders, a person like you can’t be sold like an FMCG. Unfortunately, your over-enthusiastic marketers are not pushing you as an idea because they also feel that its time is yet to come.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modi and Rahul should aim .... Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard, April 07, 2013

Modi and Rahul should aim for real votes, not celebrity endorsements

A country of over a billion people obsessed with only two individuals—Rahul Gandhi and Narendra Modi. It reflects the famine of leadership in a country that aspires to become a superpower. The UPA has a Cabinet of 33 members whose average age is well above 60, and is led by the 80-year-old Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. None of the ministers are considered leaders of tomorrow since they are perceived as ones who have betrayed the present. So, the debate and dialogue is now restricted to 43-year-old Rahul and the 63-year-old Gujarat Chief Minister, Modi.

Both have much in common. They are reclusive, surrounded by sycophants. Both are choosy about meeting or avoiding people. Both are secretive in their approach and agenda. Both want to be loved, respected and feared for either their pedigree or the post they hold and the power they have. Both want to be heard but avoid hearing others. Both select only platforms and audiences they like. On top of it, both have an arrogant streak that comes with the clean image and performance. Both are the least acceptable leaders to their allies, as the rhythm of their narrative is alien to the tune regional colleagues are used to. They are dealing with a highly divided electorate, which seeks answers on issues like how to fix fiscal policies that protect FDI and MNCs from paying legitimate taxes to how to ensure a proper drainage system. These scary expectations force both to skip the specifics and resort to polemics and generalities.

The similarities end there. Modi and Rahul are two extreme ends of India’s complex political landscape. Modi has served Gujarat for over a decade. His work and words speak louder than his acerbic—yet witty—speeches. From a humble servant of Gujarat, Modi now wants to repay the debt he says he owes India. For him, development is the only mantra for resolving all problems. Modi communicates with his audiences in his own language and through symbolic facial expressions.

The deadpan Rahul has been in active politics for almost a decade as well. He is known for his political adventurism and romance with the other India—Bharat. He doesn’t mind travelling by train to understand its diversity, complexity and potential. He even found a new lesson to learn by spending a night in a Dalit home, even though part of his Socialist chic involved the companionship of British Foreign Secretary David Miliband. He makes a great impact on the media by addressing Parliament on issues that he thinks are more relevant than a stimulated Sensex. For Rahul, a participatory democracy is the perfect tool to lift India out of its current mess. He connects with people mostly in English or through well-rehearsed iPad presentations—though on occasion he has “lost it”. A search of his name on Google yields 48.9 million results, while Modi finds mention 29.3 million times. For a tech-savvy chief minister, it’s a comparison that is galling.

As the countdown to the next general election begins, both Rahul and Modi are caught in the crossfire not only between leaders in their own parties but also of corporate India. Rahul is the undisputed leader of his party. A Gandhi can only lead the government through remote control or by becoming Prime Minister. But no Gandhi will accept the top job unless the Congress acquires an absolute majority. A Gandhi can’t accept a situation where his or her wish is overturned by a regional satrap. Rahul is not Manmohan who would change according to the need of the moment.

Modi is equally inflexible. He knows how to dictate his agenda and mission. The current debate on the colour of the future revolves around two personalities and not the ideology they represent. Even they are confused as is evident from their chase for platforms which affords visibility but not votes. Modi and Rahul are now competing to grab corporate, youth and international attention. It gives them instant fame and endorsements. Both have forgotten that leaders who sought elitist endorsement have always lost voter confidence. It happened to Chandrababu Naidu, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, Amrinder Singh, Mulayam Singh and even Narasimha Rao. All were hailed as the champions of economic reform and modern India, but real India sent them packing. It is the correct interpretation and understanding of the past that will determine the future stature of both Rahul and Modi, and not the orchestra of applause they get at exclusive gatherings of fair-weather friends whose hands hold wads of currency notes but rarely have voter’s ink on their fingers.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

The Great Reckoning ../Power & Politics/The Sunday Standard/February 03, 2013

The great reckoning is in 2014 but next Prime Minister will emerge this year

Numerically 2013 precedes 2014. Normally, the past casts its shadows over the future. But such is the nature of the frivolous discourse of new politics and our opinion-makers that the present is ignored to build castles on the sands of the future. From individuals to institutions, many are spending sleepless nights debating the name and nature of the knight who would save India. They conveniently forget that Number 13 is considered an inauspicious number. It can’t make fortunes. But it can definitely mar and demolish the dreams of many powerful leaders. It is 2013 that will decide the contours of Indian politics in 2014. It will also seal the fate of many chief ministers and aspirants for the prime ministership of India.

The parties or personalities that explode the negative myth of 13 will not only determine the rulers of 2014, but will also decide the colour of coalition politics. While the media and some self-appointed claimants for the post of the prime minister of India are indulging in shadow-boxing, their cadres and middle-level leaders are concerned about the fate of their respective parties and that of local leaders who face state elections that begin from Tripura next month. In addition, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh,  Rajasthan, Delhi, Jharkhand and Meghalaya will all elect new Assemblies before the end of the year. It is the verdict in these states that will decide the future politics of not only the national and regional parties but also of some prominent leaders who aspire or are in the race for the top job in South Block. These elections may even throw up new candidates for the prime ministership. In the cacophony of Rahul versus Modi is drowned the complex and explosive nature of the fight which will see regional leaders warring for a bigger national role. The BJP rules Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The Congress runs Rajasthan and Delhi. If Shivraj Singh Chouhan is able to win his state for the third time for the BJP, the party may add his name to the list of possible leaders to lead the BJP at the Centre. The fight may become messier if Vasundhara Raje also delivers in Rajasthan and becomes the BJP’s second secular female face besides Sushma Swaraj, the current Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Both Chouhan and Raje have never displayed their national ambitions but they have much more acceptability not only within the party but also with NDA’s allies. Leaders like Chouhan, Raje and Raman Singh will play a dominant role if they win their state elections—between them, they control the outcome of 80 Lok Sabha seats in 2014. The party won a little less than half the Lok Sabha seats in these states in 2009. Even in Jharkhand and Karnataka, where the party won 28 out of 42 LS seats, the local leadership will have a major say if they are able to retain the same number of seats in their Assemblies. If the BJP is able to retain its states and win Delhi, Rajnath Singh’s promoters are bound to project him as the natural choice for PM. During his earlier term, the BJP won most of the state elections but lost the Lok Sabha elections. A victory in 2013 will also make the BJP less untouchable with the fence-sitters jumping on to the saffron ship, which is currently sailing in rough waters.

If the future of the current BJP leadership is linked with its performance in 2013, such is the case for Rahul Gandhi as well. Since there is no other visible contender for the prime ministership in the Congress, the electoral verdict of 2013 will also decide whether the vice-president of a political party will be elevated to the post of the prime minister of a country of over 1.2 billion people. So far, Rahul hasn’t been able to deliver much in any Assembly election. His aggressive forays into caste-based north Indian politics failed to pay dividends. The Congress lost badly in Bihar, Gujarat, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. It was able to wrest power from the BJP in Himachal and Uttarakhand, and may do it Karnataka as well. But a loss in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh or even Chhattisgarh may raise many questions about Rahul’s ability win an election for his party. Some of his close aides are resigned to the idea of sitting in the Opposition for five years, and rebuilding the party from scratch. Rahul has not shown any hurry to demolish the old order in the 129-year-old party, and has refrained from any direct interference in the selection of either the state-level candidates or the chief ministers so far. But with his new responsibility, he cannot evade accountability. 2013 will mark the rise of the Rahul Congress and the eclipse of the traditional Congress—a tradition that started with the anointment of his grandmother Indira Gandhi in 1967, and followed by his father later on. Both created their own versions of the Congress by placing greater premium on loyalty than on merit. There is, however, a qualitative difference between the politics of the 1980s and that of the 21st century. Now in the battle between perception and performance, those who deliver more than what they promise will rule the heart of New India. The electoral aerobics of 2013 will decide the decibel level and political health of the prospective heartthrob.

Prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me  on Twitter @PrabwhuChawla

Congress turns negative into positive.. Power and Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ December 23, 2012

Congress turns negative into positive, but BJP faces a peril of its own making

In 2012, the Congress has followed Fuller faithfully. Meanwhile, the BJP ignored this well-tested prophesy to its detriment. If the electoral verdicts of 2012 are any indication, it is the Congress that anticipated the prevailing public anger, while the BJP failed to read the writing on the wall. Despite scams, lack of leadership, ideological confusion, an ineffective central administration and assertive allies, the Congress gained electorally while the BJP failed to even retain what it had earlier. The saffron party’s third consecutive victory under Narendra Modi’s leadership in Gujarat is hardly a consolation for its slide in other parts of India. The BJP lost both Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh, where it had ruled for five years. It polled fewer votes and won less seats in Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Assam. The BJP had a total of 276 MLAs combined in the seven states of Goa, Manipur, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh, which went to the hustings in 2012; its tally fell to 252 while that of the Congress rose from 215 to 254.  The ignominious defeat in Assam and Himachal Pradesh exposed the hollowness of its overrated election strategists. It also proved the larger point that only strong leaders like Modi and Virbhadra Singh can win elections, and not paratroopers from Delhi or elsewhere. One cannot ignore the stark reality that the Congress has more chief ministers than the BJP at the end of this year than at its beginning. Earlier, it snatched Kerala from the Left. Meanwhile, the saffron party took pride in winning in various municipal elections.

2012 has been a Year of Consolation for the Congress and despair for the entire Opposition. The BJP may have many prime ministerial aspirants who expect the people to vote out the Congress, but it is the Congress, with just a Gandhi as its potential prime minister, that is laughing all the way to the votebank. As the BJP underplayed Modi’s victory, middle-level Congress leaders took pride in the fact that in Gujarat, the party won whereever Rahul campaigned during his whistle-stop forays. The Congress has been able to successfully exploit both the BJP’s ideological isolation and the insufferable arrogance of its top leadership. For the past 10 months, the Congress not only encouraged but also fuelled the battle for prime ministership within the BJP. Its camp followers ensured that Modi remained the factual point of deliberations not only within the BJP but also in the media. He has become the new political narrative around which the nation has been polarised. Consequently, the BJP leadership walked into the trap and started demolishing not only each other but also the organisation in various states. The battle of Assam was lost not because the party was careless, but because its Central leadership was fighting over the control of funds and publicity. Uttar Pradesh proved to be a disaster because its feuding Central leaders were promoting their own groups. A classic case is the BJP’s humiliating defeat in Himachal Pradesh, where the father-son duo of chief minister Prem Kumar Dhumal and Anurag Thakur became puppets in the hands of a Central leader and his haywire strategy. They committed the cardinal error of targeting Virbhadra personally, rather than focusing on their genuine achievements. While Modi made his a fight between development and the Congress, the BJP strategist converted the Himachal battle into one between Dhumal and Virbhadra. The Raja of Theog won.

Yet, the BJP refuses to learn lessons from its slide. A bigger challenge lies ahead in 2013. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Delhi are going to the polls. Unless the RSS decides to purge the top leadership of the party, the saffron shadow over India’s political map is going to shrink further. With powerless and rootless Central leaders deciding the fate of the state’s popular leaders, Karnataka is likely to slip out of the BJP’s hands, signalling the end of its short-lived control over a southern state. According to an opinion poll, the BJP’s tally is likely to slip to under 50 as against over 115 now. In Rajasthan, where its chances are bright, a coterie of insecure Central leaders have ensured that its former chief minister not be given favourable treatment. It is only in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, where both Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Raman Singh have carved out their own invincible niches, that cult-hungry Central leaders has been forced to keep their hands off. In Delhi, the condition is pathetic. Its fat cats dictate and decide the future of others. According to one party functionary, the BJP doesn’t even have candidates for 23 of the 70 Assembly constituencies. An 80-year-old leads, because his supporters stop grassroots workers from coming up.



On the other hand, the Congress, under its 76-year-old chief minister, is already in election mode. Its poll strategy and administrative plans are well in place.Even at the Central level, the Congress has mapped out the dangers ahead in Andhra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi, since these states will set the mood for the 2014 elections. While the Congress appears to be battle-ready, it is the BJP that has already assumed that power is waiting to be plucked. It has neither noticed the troubled spots nor remembers that it is still an opposition party not on a roll. A party with a positive perception is performing pathetically against the Congress, which suffers from negative perception. Without a purge at the top level, peril stares the BJP in the face in 2013.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabwhuChawla

The Real Contest .... Power & Politics/ The Sunday Standard/ December 16, 2012

The real contest in Gujarat is Modi vs Modi, and nobody else matters

In the age of minute-by-minute verdicts on every subject, from potatoes to politics, logical analysis is the loser. Media pundits as well as industry icons have become experts in delivering instant judgments even on complex issues like elections. The Battle for Gujarat is a classic case in which those whose connection with the state is as tenuous as that of casual visitors or political tourists are delivering verdicts on the outcome. I must confess that I am one of the many who visited Gujarat last week looking for fresh facts and unknown trends.

Surprisingly, there is unanimity about the outcome. The only conflicts are either on the margin of victory or the reasons for Narendra Modi’s third consecutive triumph—a record for any BJP chief minister—if he makes it. After a couple of days in Gujarat, I returned to New Delhi a contrarian. It is not a fight between the BJP and Congress. Nor is it between Modi and the Congress. Giving it the tag of Modi vs Rahul or Sonia sounds glamorous, but it is an imaginary description, as none of them would replace Modi. It is not a battle between developmental reality and mythical opposition either. No doubt, Modi is Gujarat’s most effective and successful chief minister ever. But his personal gain has been at the cost of the organisation and a split in the Sangh Parivar.

It’s a war between Modi and Modi. Others are just symbolic opponents. Chief Minister Narendra Modi is involved in a fierce battle with Narendra Modi the individual. The Modi model of governance is his asset, but arrogance is his most formidable foe. There is no BJP on the ground in Gujarat. It has a symbolic presence in the form of an office and a formal institutional framework. Contrary to public perception, it is Modi who strategises his own politics and election agenda. He does invite and hire some from outside for help in press conferences, writing media statements, putting up billboards and interacting with English-speaking opinion-moulders from New Delhi, Mumbai and New York. The collapse of the BJP as an organisation in Gujarat has been steeper than the rise of Modi as an institution. As he became inaccessible to the cadres and easily accessible to the monarchs from Mumbai, Modi’s connectivity with his core constituents has drastically thinned.

For Modi, it is the number of visitors from abroad and New Delhi that reflects his acceptability as a leader and not meetings with his own MLAs and officebearers. In the past five years, many senior leaders—including two former chief ministers and half-a-dozen former ministers—quit the party because of Modi’s assertive personality. Undoubtedly, the BJP cadres take pride in the performance of their chief minister, but are also seriously concerned about the erosion of their  organisational base. Modi has kept both the VHP and RSS at arm’s length as he feels that they interfere too much but they have been providing footsoldiers and ensuring mobilisation of voters. Modi rarely talks about Vajpayee, Deen Dayal Upadhyay or any other BJP stalwart. His innovative 3D campaign has minimised the visibility of other leaders in the six-week-old campaign. Party workers are symbolically but not emotionally involved. Perhaps it was to offset the lack of enthusiasm within his own cadres that Modi admitted former Congress leader Narhari Amin and others into the BJP fold, and shared the platform with the not-so-successful cricketer Irfan Pathan. It reflected Modi’s lack of confidence in his own charisma.

Taking a leaf out of Indira Gandhi’s book,  Modi has made the party irrelevant. He has rallied the fence-sitters and ideologically neutral middle class behind him. By shifting his goalposts, he has left his detractors high and dry. When they found that his development agenda was selling, they started finding fault with his achievements. Suddenly, a couple of economists-turned-columnists started questioning Modi’s claims on every economic indicator. Others went to the extent of blaming him for the state’s backwardness because he failed to encourage teaching English in the state, as if Gujarati is a language of the backwards and the illiterate. Such ridiculous faultfinding has compensated Modi for the loss of cadre support. He is the only BJP leader to survive organisational isolation, being one of three who were sent to their respective states in 2001 to become chief ministers. The other two were Vasundhara Raje Scindia and Uma Bharti. The trio led the BJP to impressive victories. But Uma and Vasundhara couldn’t survive the hostility of the party leadership in Delhi and the Sangh Parivar’s in their states and have been marginalised. Modi learned his lessons and never allowed the party to dominate him.

Modi is omnipresent while others are conspicuous by their absence. Modi has quietly forgotten the skills of weaving an organisation together, which he learned as a full-time RSS pracharak. He hardly ever holds regular meetings with district-level coordination panels where representatives from all Sangh Parivar organisations are present. He is hardly on speaking terms with most top functionaries of the RSS and VHP. He is feared, but hardly respected in his own party. On the other hand, he is revered and admired by those who called him names soon after the 2002 carnage. Even the politically correct auto tycoon Anand Mahindra speculated positively about Modi’s—not the BJP’s—victory in Gujarat. Other industrialists like Ratan Tata don’t find it embarrassing now to get photographed with Modi. Even foreign diplomats who earlier led a cacophony of hatred against Modi have made it a point to make pilgrimages to Ahmedabad.

In 2002, Modi was the messiah of Sangh Parivar. In 2012, he is the Darling of the Dollaratis for whom quick returns on investment and land allotments are the most acceptable indicators of a leader’s success. They smell a future prime minister. But his metamorphosis from a hardcore right-wing Hindu leader to a nationalist secular leader depends on acceptability within his own Parivar. Neither his passion for hard work nor his victory has ever been in doubt. But if Modi wants to play an important national role, he has to set his own house in order. With his political enemies totally mauled, it is time for Modi to lead others, not himself alone. Only then can he replace Vajpayee, who became a national icon despite the Sangh Parivar’s meddling. If Modi doesn’t follow the patriarch’s example, the detractors in his own party will keep him caged in Ahmedabad as he is only Narendrabhai, not Atalji.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

Modi Must Learn .. / The Sunday Standard/ June 10, 2012

POWER & POLITICS

Modi Must Learn the Politics of Tolerance to Take National Stage

Modi has proved his skills of governance. But he is yet to prove his pan-India acceptability, like Indira did.

Arrogance and ego are perhaps the most lethal traits that can spell doom for a personality. If combined with unbridled power, they can destroy even the most powerful icons on earth. Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi has added these two visible vices to his positive image of a strong leader with an agenda. Until the past few months, Modi was perceived as man of development, vision and ideology. Now, he symbolises the victory of an individual over ideology. For Modi, his party is merely a convenient vehicle to reach the ultimate office. As the BJP’s most visible face, he is expected to prepare to win the big war of 2014. Today, however, he is fighting petty battles within his own party.

With his no non-nonsense approach, Modi made Gujarat the darling of Corporate India. A man who was shunned and spurned by industry leaders became India’s most sought-after chief minister. Even as motivated and sponsored campaigns against him continued unabated, Modi was seen a leader for today and tomorrow. The BJP has been living in awe of Moditva: the Modi mantra was the model of modern India. He has been fighting a lonely battle against the combined might of the UPA and other so-called secular forces in the country. Most of Modi’s own party leaders have been quietly waiting for him to fall the weight of his own mighty image. For the past nine years, he has been living under the fear of either being dislodged or sent to jail. But it didn’t deter him for doing what he is best at—development.

Events of the past few weeks, however, have diminished a leader of great stature like Modi. Instead of showing tolerance and a spirit of accommodation, Modi has betrayed his insecurity. By forcing BJP President Nitin Gadkari to get rid of Sanjay Joshi, a full-time RSS worker from the BJP, Modi has damaged himself. The party expects Modi to take on Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. But he chose to strike at his own ideological colleague who neither has the resources nor the organisational clout to inflict even a minor injury. The Modi- Joshi feud reflects all that is rotten not within just the BJP, but also with the mindset of various leaders who have acquired immense power through democratic means. Joshi has never contested an election, nor is he likely to do so in his lifetime. He has no roots in Gujarat. He is just an ordinary RSS worker who knows how to organise shakhas and keep people together. But Modi sees in him a monster who poses a grave threat to his supremacy in the party, and one who may throw a curveball to his prime ministerial ambitions. But Modi has forgotten that he has become what he is today only thanks to the massive support given to him by the rank and file of the organisation.

A decade ago, Modi could hardly be called a leader. His comrades had packed him off to the north from Gujarat. But the RSS and distinguished leaders like LK Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee saw in Modi a potential leader. They made him the chief minister of Gujarat even though the majority of MLAs were against it. Former Delhi chief minister Madan Lal Khurana was sent to Ahmadabad to supervise the transition and ensure Modi’s smooth anointment. Modi had not held any ministerial or elected post before. To his credit, however, Modi proved himself by winning the elections thrice and breaking the record of the longest surviving chief minister of the state.

In Modi’s case, it is not the chair that makes him an iconic leader but his success in restoring the powers and effectiveness of the institution of the chief minister. As he grew in status, he opened more fronts against himself rather than follow the politics of inclusiveness. His integrity, decisiveness and clarity of thought are great virtues which most of our leaders lack. But the path to acquiring the status of a statesman needs a certain degree of tolerance. Modi doesn’t forget to visit the ailing Vajpayee, but he hasn’t picked a leaf from Vajpayee’s unwritten book on politics. The former prime minister never allowed his personal likes and dislikes to affect his choice of party satraps or ministers. He even made insignificant rivals ministers in his Cabinet, choosing to forget that some of them were involved in filthy personal campaigns against him when they weren’t part of his government. Vajpayee believed in minimising drifts and rifts and maximising consensus and confidence. On the other hand, Modi is now maximising confrontation and intolerance and minimising mutual trust and accommodation.

If Modi feels that, like Indira Gandhi, he can win the people’s mandate by trampling on internal democratic processes, he is sadly mistaken. He has proved his skills of governance. But he is yet to prove his pan-Indian acceptability, like Indira did. To do so, he has to attract workers like Joshi and not crush them instead under the might of his state power.

prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com

Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla

MAN ON A MISSION/Power & Politics, Mail Today-June 06,2008

THOSE who have followed Narendra Modi’s remarkable career from simple RSS pracharak to one of India’s most powerful chief ministers believe that the Gujarat helmsman cannot be tied down to his home state for long. Last week, there was irrefutable evidence of Modi’s larger ambitions. Addressing apublic meeting in Vadodara, he charged the Centre with virtually looting states, to illustrate which he said that while his state contributed Rs 40,000 crores in taxes to the Centre, it received less than 2.5 per cent of its contribution in return. “Let us not take from each other for ayear and see how it works”, he said with the air of aman with no doubts at all in his mind. To be sure, it wasn’t astray remark aimed at whipping up public passion. It was acarefully calibrated, well- orchestrated and precisely- timed statement, about not just Gujarati pride, but pride of the states. The kind which has now become aModi trademark since his victory last year. He has an insatiable appetite for innovation. Recently, he joined other NDA chief ministers in petitioning the Prime Minister against discrimination of the states by the Finance Ministry. But while the rest met Singh, handed over the petitions and headed back home, Modi chose to up the ante and taunted the Centre. What followed wasn’t surprising. The Congress walked into his trap saying Modi should be charged with sedition and arrested, though Idoubt they were serious because there is nothing Modi would have loved more. What makes Modi different from other chief ministers is that what he says is what he thinks. One of his favourite lines is “good politics and good economics can co- exist” and it is not something even his party seniors agree with. Take the Indo- US Nuclear Deal. While the BJP’s opposition to the deal is known, Modi told the Centre his party will consider supporting it if the government takes it into confidence on all aspects of the deal. Such statements are the prerogative of LK Advani or Jaswant Singh, but Idoubt if the thought crossed his mind that that he may have extended his brief. At arecent FICCI meeting, even Congress chief ministers lined up to pat his back after he invited the governments of landlocked states like Punjab, Delhi, Haryana, UP etc, which are all large importers and exporters, to set up dedicated ports along the vast Gujarat coastline. “You save time and money by not having to depend on existing congested ports and Iearn revenue from you. It’s awin for all of us”. Last year, at an India Today meeting attended by many chief ministers, he called on states to adopt the best practices of other states. “Gujarat can learn from Kerala about literacy and tourism and we can show them the way on industrial development. We will take lessons even from Marxists in West Bengal”, he said and added “if there is something positive we can absorb from them”. Of course some things never change. He remains steadfast about Hindutva and against pandering to minorityism, but no retributive hate campaigns are seen these days. On the contrary, diplomats of Western Europe who denied him visas in the early part of the decade now regularly visit Gandhinagar to catch up with him. Modi is finally getting accustomed to being wooed.