Instant judgements are an occupational hazard of journalism — the proverbial “first draft of history” that is inevitably modified with the passage of time. The general election of 2014 was marked by a series of instant judgements on the man most people, apart from a tiny clutch of influential intellectuals, believed would emerge the eventual victor. Between September 2013 and the final day of voting on May 10, 2014, there were divergent perceptions of what Narendra Modi stood for. To the committed Hindu votebank, the leader from Gujarat appeared as a modern-day version of Chhatrapati Shivaji — a man who would right historical wrongs and restore the rightful inheritance of Hindus. To modern centre-right ideologists, he appeared as a desi Margaret Thatcher, who would bring out the true economic potential of India by rolling back the frontiers of an inefficient and venal state. To a large section of voters in the backwaters of Middle India, he was the backward caste “outsider” determined to put an end to the politics of privilege and entitlement. And finally, to those relatively unconcerned with the intricacies of politics, he was the only available alternative to a decade of blundering governance by the Congress.
These different expectations persisted (and continue to persist) after the BJP’s famous victory on May 16. They were, in fact, sharpened by scholarly interpretations of the mandate. The vote for “change” was the universal explanation. But was this desire for transformation also backed by a “conservative revolution” that had led to Indians extricating themselves from old assumptions of the prevailing consensus? Alternatively, was Modi merely expected to “fix” a leaky system through a combination of patchwork and improvisation?
To aggregate the different impulses that propelled Indians across the land to vote for a “strong leader” such as Modi is a hazardous venture. It is an exercise that, by and large, politicians rarely attempt — preferring to swim along with the tide. Yet, seven months into Modi’s India, is it possible to detect the hazy contours of an India that is still bubbling enthusiastically in anticipation of “achhe din”?
Narendra Modi on his knees on the steps of Parliament House as a sign of respect as he enters Parliament for the first time, on May 20, 2014. (Photo: PTI)
For a start, it would be safe to conclude that the principal preoccupation of the Modi government is economic. This is understandable in view of the fact that it was the young voters between the ages of 18 and 35 that really added weight to the Modi surge. More than anything else the Prime Minister has to cater to their expectations of better opportunities and a better life. Nearly everything Modi has prioritised in the initial months of his government seems centred on two objectives: to dramatically improve the ease of doing business in India and to inject the “Make in India” — a euphemism for creating jobs and profiting from its multiplier effects — principle into governance.
Whether it is his much-publicised and frequent overseas visits, his charm offensive directed at overseas Indians, his Swachch Bharat initiative and even his insistence that babus attend office on time, the thrust is on creating an environment that enables entrepreneurship and productivity.
What is interesting is that in attempting to convert India into a powerhouse of economic activity, Modi has chosen the route of extreme pragmatism. Deng Xiaoping was reputed to have remarked that it didn’t matter if a cat was “black or white, as long as it catches mice”. On his part, Modi has created a variant of this hard-nosed pragmatism: bring in “rupees, dollars or yen, as long as it creates jobs in India”. He has shied away from doctrinaire impulses such as privatisation for its own sake. Indeed, there is disappointment among Modi’s pro-market supporters that he has chosen to empower the bureaucracy and make it more purposeful and focused rather than dilute the powers of the state. Does Modi have a social agenda? Judging by the pronouncements of India’s intellectual class, the Modi government’s main priority is the “saffronisation” of education and civic life. This, to my mind, is a fundamental misreading of his priorities.
Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama during a visit to the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial in Washington DC on September 30, 2014. (Photo: AP)
Since he assumed charge, Modi has been concerned with preventing the intra-parivar civil war that marked the last two years of the Atal Behari Vajpayee government. In a desire to involve all stakeholders of his successful march to power, the Prime Minister has accommodated some of the more explicit concerns.
But in the main these have been in relatively peripheral areas such as the direction of the Indian Council of Historical Research and the encouragement to the teaching of Sanskrit in schools. He has, for example, not concerned himself with restaffing a large number of public institutions with people who are ideologically inclined towards the BJP.
As a result of Modi’s victory, India is far more receptive to intellectual and cultural currents that hitherto existed outside the dominant Nehruvian framework. But the advance of centre-right thinking is not a consequence of affirmative government action. It has flowed from the larger changes in society and the economy. The priorities of the government remain narrow and very focused.
Swapan Dasgupta is a senior journalist
