The case against Narendra Modi

Guaranteed to raise hackles: should anyone take the supposed endorsement of Gujarat CM Narendra Modi by some (all right, by two and a bit by the third) industrialists seriously? Should one ignore the suggestion and hope that it just goes away by itself? And why shouldn’t Narendra Modi or anyone else for that matter dream of being prime minister of this country?

First, the industrialists maybe were being polite. Two, they may have been temporarily overwhelmed by the announcements of MOUs of several lakh crore rupees. Three, they may have been very well looked after and felt very happy as a result. All quite understandable.

Unfortunately there are contexts and undercurrents here, which the good industrialists should have been aware of. Modi is not just any chief minister. He has a “background”. And so does Gujarat. It is a fallacy to assume that Modi developed Gujarat and that it was a wasteland before he appeared on the scene. Gujarat has always been one of India’s most industrialised states. Not only does it have an entrepreneurial atmosphere, which comes from tradition successfully built upon over generations, it is also fairly wealthy or at any rate wealthier than many other states. For this success, the people of Gujarat have to be congratulated —and this is a pre-Independence and pre-separation from Maharashtra phenomenon.

But Gujarat also has fault lines which need fixing. Caste and religion are the biggest. Also, the same day that news of the Modi-for-PM suggestion appeared, another item quoted a study of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan, where  Gujarat lagged behind most other Indian states on every indicator which tracked education. This is not a happy situation to be in, when even Bihar does better than you.

Then there’s the uneven development between the heavily industrialised South Gujarat, the partly industrialised north and central Gujarat and the somewhat neglected areas of Saurashtra and Kutch. Perhaps some of those crores which came in at the recent Vibrant Gujarat jamboree could be diverted to equitable development, caste issues and education?

And so, the  main point of contention comes up. You cannot get away from it. Modi was chief minister of Gujarat when some of the worst communal riots of Independent India took place. Over six months, in 2002, more than 2000 Muslims were killed in riots, mainly across north and central Gujarat. The flashpoint was the burning of a train coach on February 27 where the victims were Hindu kar sevaks coming back from Ayodhya. As the news flashed that 58 Hindus had been killed allegedly by the Muslims of Godhra, anger started to build up. Newspapers also reported that the bodies of the victims would be taken around Ahmedabad. And so the carnage began.

Much has been written about this, about the so-called justification, much hatred expended, much debate about who deserves what. But this is the problem. Modi was chief minister and even if you discount the evidence that involves him in the planning and execution of the riots, he had a Constitutional responsibility to fulfil. The state apparatus utterly failed to protect its own citizens. This is a primary charge against him and it is a dire one. After the Bombay riots of 92-93 and the failure of the state government to control them, the Maharashtra chief minister was changed. After the November 26 attacks, the Maharashtra chief minister was changed. When was Modi held responsible for his actions and inaction? Like the 1984 anti-Sikh riots remain an enormous black mark against the Congress, so does the Gujarat pogrom for the BJP and Modi.

And that is why Modi possibly may not make it as India’s prime minister. Getting lots of money for investment cannot be the sole criterion. Chandrababu Naidu was called the CEO of Andhra Pradesh once. So what? It’s not good enough and neither is Modi.