Shyam Parekh

Let India Judge Modi – 2

Most societies have learnt to develop only a simplistic view of life. Either things, people, situations and everything else is valued as good or shoved aside as bad! Very rarely societies candidly accept that there exists a shade of grey – which is neither black nor white. And are comfortable with this knowledge. No wonder then most attempts to express an honest view-point ends up stirring a hornet’s nest. Even an attempt to remind us to maintain our sovereignty is interpreted as either against someone or for someone. Any debate which involves Modi (not the IPL cheerleaders famed Lalit Modi, but Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi) in any manner, is usually very stereotypically analysed as either favouring Modi or opposing him. Most people forget that there can be a debate which involves Modi, but it is not necessarily about Modi!

When DNA decided to think aloud on whether the Germans were justified in passing such a comment, the idea was not to criticize either the Germans or to challenge their freedom of expression on Modi. Neither was it to say that Modi doesn’t deserve any criticism. It certainly wasn’t a parochial act. It was a mere attempt to prevent a street fight from turning into a full-blown battle which will perhaps end up forcing everyone into taking sides and fighting like a beast. It was to merely draw a line between what needs to be identified as India’s internal problem, from those which can be thrown open for international participation, criticism or help for trouble shooting.

As a self-respecting nation we ought to be mature enough to learn anger management! Venom against Modi should not spew another fight where the sides are not limited to two sections of Indians but also allows emergence of a third dimension of foreign powers. The question is that we have a largely reliable judiciary, an anti-BJP party ruling at the Centre which certainly is not in love with Modi and last but not the least, not at all foolish voters. So why do we need foreign intervention eight years later? Yes if foreign intervention during February-March 2002 could have saved lives and quelled the communal inferno, it would have been a very desirable step.

***

It is very difficult to analyse and judge a politician or a leader who actually effects a change – positive or negative -- Definitely not before the person is fully understood in historical context. A whole generation in this country has been reared up on a staple diet of hating Mahatma Gandhi. I have experienced in high school, in college and in university, how easy it was for student leaders belonging to non-Congress organizations to rise in the ranks just by abusing Gandhiji. So if all the rightist and saffron forces could tolerate so much of criticism for the Father of this very nation, which they claim to be safeguarding – then why are they so uncomfortable with any criticism of Modi? Is someone trying to pass a judgment that despite being a democratically elected leader Modi enjoys an indemnity from any kind of criticism? For records sake, Modi has categorically stated to this writer in an interview that “…I can also make mistakes.” So much for the sycophancy. Most of his loyal fans forget that Modi is an astute politician that very few have seen before. This is irrespective of his failures and shortcomings. His criticism has only made him stronger and popular. Remember Nietzsche’s take? “What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.” (Full interview: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/interview_i-am-human-and-i-can-also-make-mistakes-modi_1228917)

***

Like its difficult to reason with loyal fans of Modi, most of his critics are equally rabid. A debate about a chief minister of any of the Indian state being denied visa by the two most powerful geo-political entities like the USA and the European Union, is bound to take much hated myopic jingoistic nationalistic hues. Beyond a point it doesn’t remain denial to an individual, but becomes a state’s and a nation’s concern too. Today its Modi, tomorrow it could be Naveen Patnaik for violence against Christians in Orissa and then perhaps it could even be Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee or who knows it could Manmohan Singh for allowing them to continue. What most people don’t realize that lot of sympathy that Modi evokes in Gujarat is because of relentless Modi-bashing. In the end, the tarnished image of a ruler leads to beating of the image of Gujarat and Gujaratis on the global platform. A state with thousands of years of history has been reduced to and equated with just one individual – and unfortunately its not even Gujarat's biggest brand ever - Mahatma Gandhi!Any Gujarati travelling to an Islamic country can recollect and tell you easily how many sharp reactions and disdainful looks they had to face. A businessperson and someone in diplomatic circuit could easily relate what all Gujarat has lost thanks to the riots. Why deny respect to the five crore Gujaratis who have committed no crime? Why an entire state is singled out and every individual made to feel like a criminal? Most critics forget that while thousands died in 2002 riots, many more thousands were saved by the efforts of the peace loving majority of the majority community of Gujarat. But the people of Gujarat never get credit for their great deeds but are loathed for misdeeds of some individuals. How long? Why?

***

This piece intended to appeal the cerebral and not the sentimental.And that’s the reason that unlike many a comments on this blog, we have carefully chosen not to give a religious shape to the debate. Yes, its correct that the German delegation was invited by the church to talk and were clearly influenced by the achievements of the church. But bringing this argument in a debate on sovereignty of the nation would be unbefitting and it will turn into an ugly debate on partisans and one faith versus another. Please keep local rivalries and personal dislikes, faiths and religions, crimes and sins of an individual aside while allowing a global participation in a slanging match. The purpose of the debate is not to criticize the Germans or the church, but to discuss what should be India’s posture as a nation and as a society. What people need to keep in mind is that Gujarat is much more than Mahatma (incidentally Jinnah was born just a little over hundred kilometers away from him, in Gujarat!). And certainly Modi.

***

There are many a comments to this blog which are attacking media and blasting it for taking an anti-Modi stance or for supporting Modi. All that I would like to say is that as a professional journalist, its the dharma of our ilk to help people develop a perspective - to appreciate what is good and criticize what is bad. Also to relentlessly remind them of what is not in their interest, even when they are delirious! Please understand that a journalist should never see just one side – but has to appreciate and criticize on issue basis. And most of the times its not easy. If media was so much biased, perhaps you would never read this article!