Opinion - News Analysis   

Gujarat elections: some reflections

— Photo: Sandeep Saxena

Narendra Modi after meeting the former Prime Minister, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, in New Delhi on December 29.

Narendra Modi’s success in the recent Gujarat elections has been described as a great victory for him; as a shot in the arm for the Bharatiya Janata Party; as a vindication of Mr. Modi against unfair vilification; as a serious setback for the Congress, with possible consequences for the nuclear deal; and so on.

The primary concern of this article is not with the electoral prospects of the BJP or the Congress. Whether the victory was Mr. Modi’s personal triumph or a major success for the party, and if the former be the case, what its implications are for internal party politics and for party leadership, will not be gone into here. Equally, what its implications are for the Congress party leadership, whether the possibility of a mid-term poll has receded, and whether the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal will be shelved, will not be discussed.

Let us also consider and put aside another (secondary) issue, namely, the Election Commission’s pronouncements on the charge of violation of the electoral code of conduct by Mr. Modi and Sonia Gandhi. Two points need to be made here. First, the Commission’s censure of Mr. Modi may have been overshadowed by the electoral victory, but it would be quite wrong to treat that pronouncement as no longer relevant merely because Mr. Modi has won. Secondly, the charge that the Commission has not been “even-handed” as between the two parties, made by Mr. Modi and by the BJP, is strange. Why is the Commission required to be even-handed if it finds that the offence is greater in one case than in the other? It is indeed possible to argue with some justification that the Commission was excessively concerned about appearing to be even-handed, and that the issue of a notice to and the passing of an order on Ms Gandhi was not really called for. If, in fact, she believed that the events of 2002 were a disgrace to Gujarat and to India, and that the state was complicit in that horror, (and that view is held by many), it was not only right to say so to the electorate but a duty. The expression “merchants of death” that she used was not personal vilification but a criticism of a grave failure of rajya dharma (recall Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s exhortation to Mr. Modi at an early stage). If this understanding is correct, the Commission’s judgment that she had violated the code of conduct was questionable. But leaving that aside, the more important question is whether a censure by the Commission has any meaning. The Commission can disqualify candidates, countermand elections and adjudicate election disputes. All these are practical measures. What practical consequence does a censure have?

We are also asked by some: why talk only about Gujarat 2002 and not about Delhi 1984? Here again the plea is for “even-handedness.” Undoubtedly, both Gujarat 2002 and Delhi 1984 were deeply horrifying events and profoundly disturbing in their implications. In both cases, what might have started as mob frenzy became an organised pogrom targeting a particular community. In both, the police and the state machinery in general either failed to perform their duties or were actively complicit in the violence. In both, the guilty remain at large. In scale, duration, and the number of people killed, Delhi 1984 was possibly worse than Gujarat 2002. However, in comparing the two events and trying to be “fair” and “even-handed,” we fail to note two points. First, it is meaningless to compare the two horrors; abhorrence, grief, and shame are the appropriate responses in both cases. One horror does not mitigate the other. Secondly, while some politicians and groups might have been actively involved in Delhi 1984, the Hindus of Delhi as a whole were not complicit in the anti-Sikh violence, nor did they condone it. Of course, the state was complicit, and ipso facto the citizens could be said to be indirectly complicit too, but we cannot say that the madness of those few days had social sanction. In Gujarat, one fears that the horrors of 2002 had, apart from direct participation by some, widespread social acquiescence among Hindus. In Germany, the people renounced the Nazi madness, undertook severe self-criticism and experienced remorse. One is not aware of any similar development in Gujarat; perhaps it will happen in due course. On the other hand, there is anger at “Gujarat bashing.”

In the light of the foregoing, what does the recent Gujarat election mean? Three observations are warranted.

(1) There is no doubt that Mr. Modi has won a remarkable victory. In the absence of complaints to the contrary, the elections must be presumed to have been free and fair. This is a demonstration of Indian democracy and must be accepted as such. We may not rejoice at the result. Democracy does not guarantee that only the sanest and noblest will be elected. In this case, a person about whom many thinkers in the country have profound misgivings has been elected. Our celebration of Indian democracy has to be tempered by the realisation that this can happen.

(2) Has the election vindicated him? Was he being unduly demonised? Were we all wrong about Gujarat 2002? Must we change our thinking? The answer is a clear ‘no.’ Our judgment about Mr. Modi is indeed a matter for examination, but the election results have no bearing on that examination. Either Mr. Modi was the demon that he was said to be, or he was not. If he was, it was right to describe him so; there is then no question of demon-ising, much less “unduly.” If he was not, it was simply wrong to have so described him. What is the truth? We can draw our inferences from a study of what happened in 2002, the manner in which the Gujarat Government responded to the outbreak of violence, the Chief Minister’s role in that context, the inferences that can be drawn from the Tehelka tapes (if they are authentic), his impugned election speeches, and the Election Commission’s finding on them. Plenty of material is available: reports by persons such as Harsh Mander, Swami Agnivesh, the National Human Rights Commission, and so on, and now the Tehelka tapes. What is needed is a proper investigation. Investigations and consequential action must not be put off merely because he is back as Chief Minister with a strong popular mandate. Those who boasted on camera about criminal actions must be brought to book. State failure and possible complicity must be looked into, and the officials concerned proceeded against. If the trail leads to the Chief Minister, that too must be followed up and action taken. The election changes none of this. One has to state this obvious position because media reports seem to take it for granted that the elections have indeed changed everything; they have begun to portray Mr. Modi (earlier excoriated as a villain) in admiring, flattering terms as a hero.

(3) Finally, what matters is not the future of Mr. Modi but that of Gujarat. It would be comforting to think that the people of Gujarat have voted for good governance and for personal efficiency and integrity, but that would be a delusion. Good governance — or perceptions of good governance — may have played a part, but the people were also responding to Mr. Modi’s roaring Hindutva rhetoric, and to his appeal to Gujarati pride.

There may be some — perhaps not a small number — who think otherwise, but their voices are not heard.

What should worry us, then, is not whether Mr. Modi is a demon, but the change in the Gujarati psyche. What has happened to Gujarat? Is it still redeemable?

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

A preventable tragedy
Obama-Huckabee surprise
Pakistan People’s Party and “Mr. 10 per cent”
Gujarat elections: some reflections
Barack Obama’s big moment
Benazir murder may isolate Islamists
A united plea to ‘save Kenya’
Corrections and clarifications
Shocking incident
Appalling

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu