India was envisioned by
its founding fathers as a pluralistic democracy, which would reflect the cultural, political, and religious aspirations of its diverse communities. The political vision of its founders was democratic and inclusive, but their economic vision was socialist; the former has seen an uninterrupted progress but the latter suffered rough jolts with the demise of communism and the sluggish pace of the Indian economy. In the early 1990s, the political leadership began fiddling with laissez faire economics and introduced a flurry of reforms to liberalise markets. Consequently, liberalisation of the economy has lifted millions of Indians from poverty and vaulted India onto the world stage as a leading economic power. Opening up of the markets has also created an assertive and vibrant middle class that is demanding accountability, transparency and meritocracy, and leaders like Anna Hazare and Arwind Kejriwal are spearheading the new reforms movements .
As the clamour for good governance grows, Elections 2014 could posit new dilemmas and opportunities for the Indian electorate. Mr Narendra Modi, the thrice-elected chief minister of Gujarat, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, is being projected as the next prime minister of India in the Indian media. He was the top pick for the candidature of prime minister in an opinion poll conducted by India Today Group-ORG in 2012. A majority of respondents voted for him while Rahul Gandhi, the scion of the Nehru-Gandhi dynasty, lagged far behind him in the poll.
What could be the reason for Modi’s popularity? First, his governance and administrative capabilities are impeccable, as shown by the dazzling growth statistics of Gujarat. Its economy has grown at an average of 10 percent each year for a decade, which equals the growth rate of China. Agricultural growth has increased by an average of 10.97 percent per annum, the highest in India. Gujarat is the only place in the whole country where industrial units, commercial businesses and farmers can get uninterrupted electricity for nearly 24 hours a day.
Secondly, Modi’s reputation has not been tainted with any corruption scandal. Compared to him, the Congress leaders are mired to their knees in corruption. Therefore, he comes across as a committed and dedicated leader.
And third, Modi has charisma and star quality. Possessing excellent oratorical skills, he turns his rallies into interactive sessions where the leader and the masses are engaged in verbal sallies, lampooning and ridiculing political opponents that range from Sonia behn to Rs 500 million girlfriend-turned-wife of the Union Minister, Shashi Tharoor.
As Modi’s stature has grown, some BJP leaders are touting him as a man with the best-selling idea: what he did in Gujarat, he could replicate in Delhi too with good policy prescriptions and commitment. The political context is also right for his stride towards Delhi; the economy is stagnating, central government is reeking with corruption, and people are clamouring for change.
That said, Modi has a dark side too — his alleged complicity in igniting the Muslim pogrom in Gujarat in 2002. As a chief minister, his decision of allowing Hindu nationalists to parade the bodies of victims who perished in the Godhra train fire; his public statement that violence was ‘a spontaneous reaction of the Hindus’; and that refugee camps, which housed thousands of Muslims displaced by riots, ‘as baby-making factories’ reflected callousness, insensitivity and partisanship. To the discomfort of Indian Muslims, so far Modi has not shown any remorse for the worst-ever communal riots to hit Gujarat since independence.
Notwithstanding this taint of communal partisanship, corporate India and the educated Hindu middle classes support Modi because he appears as their best bet to deliver the goals of free market reforms, better administration and transparency.
So a question arises: could political pluralism, with its emphasis on affirmative action, different civil codes and quotas, be reconciled with economic entrepreneurship and efficiency?
Arguably, economic efficiency leads to increased production of goods and services such as education, health, potable water, electricity and roads, but any society is also a consumer of intangible goods — freedom of speech, freedom of expression and free exercise of cultural and religious rights. Thus, if a member in any diverse society cannot criticise a political leader, or protest through peaceful assembly or practise his religious faith freely, then denial of these rights would rend apart that society and even a good pace of economic productivity would never glue together different segments of that society.
Turning a page from history, let us take the example of Adolf Hitler. Hitler was not a dishonest person but a fraudulent leader because he showed his people a false dream: Germany could become a great power by excluding other groups from its political, social and economic order. Under his rule, Germany made tremendous industrial progress and recovered more quickly than any other war-ravaged country, but his parochial vision and political exclusivity eventually reduced it to rubble again.
Having said that, in the coming months, as the political parties of India fine-tune their manifestoes and shortlist prime ministerial candidates, the Indian electorate must watch for a party and a candidate that promises to provide good governance along with inclusive political partnership.
The writer is a public policy practitioner and holds an MSc degree in Public Policy and Management from King’s College, London