On the first day of American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, the two most commonly used words were chemistry and optics. I wasn’t particularly good with chemistry while in school and had just a foggy idea of optics. During a panel discussion in a TV studio, the creditable performance of Mr Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi during “talk with tea” got me worried for insufficient knowledge of these two subjects. Eventually, I said that the chemistry bit was overplayed and that it was time to talk of the physics of the visit and the aerodynamic potential of the talks. Yet, the last headline to come out of the visit was still trapped in chemistry — personal warmth between Mr Modi and Mr Obama and similar background of the two were the major overtones of the radio show hosted by Mr Modi.
What should have remained trivia became central to the discourse on the Obama visit and what should have been the cerebral or central stuff became trivial. Analysts are pouring over the fine print of the joint statement, the Delhi Declaration of Friendship and US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region. But as far as people are concerned — and they remain the primary target of all Mr Modi’s actions because they are the ones who will vote for him — the entire visit was all about the bonhomie between Mr Modi and Mr Obama.
In a way this was choreographed to perfection by Mr Modi. He broke protocol to receive Mr Obama and hugged him in true Amreeka se aaya mera dost, dost ko hug karo style. For the first time, as Mr Modi escorted the Obamas to a place past the Beast, to ensure unhindered visual access for TV cameras, it became apparent that the denial of visa hurt more than it was ever accepted. If the “rock concert” at Madison Square Garden was a “revenge” for not being able to address pravasis from there in 2005, then this Obama visit would be the final denouement.
Let it not be missed that coming in the midst of an election campaign in Delhi, where the odds have been increasingly staked against the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Obama visit would also have a political purpose. Consequently, personal bonding between the two had to be projected to encash the inverted colonial mentality that a large number of Indians suffer from. But this is where Mr Modi also falls between two world visions: one where he lays out the red carpet propelled by overplaying the Atithi Devo Bhava sentiment. But such Bhartiyata is juxtaposed with the American style of addressing. A senior columnist has calculated that Mr Modi called the US President “Barack” 23 times in the course of Mann ki Baat.
Personal warmth apart, Mr Modi needed to have remembered that Mr Obama is no personal friend. International leaders have been on first name terms but that would be in private and must be reciprocated — after all, Mr Obama, or for that matter any other leader, did not refer to Mr Modi as “Narendra” or “Narendra Bhai”. Would Mr Modi call the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief “Mohan” or refer to his foreign minister as “Sushma”? Yet, Mr Modi resorted to such cheap gimmicks because he wanted to project this “arrival” on the international proscenium. For a man who was shunned internationally for the major part of the past decade, the acceptance is clearly seen as a personal triumph and not as acceptance because of the mandate that India gave him. But by behaving crassly Mr Modi is devaluing the mandate of the people.
This piece will remain incomplete without mentioning the trivia highlight: Mr Modi’s pinstripes. The story behind how the self-idolatry decision was brought to public attention must remain a secret to protect sources, but it was tough to believe that Mr Modi could have actually worn such a suit on such an important occasion. Clearly, the decision was his and was taken with the intention of being noticed. Mr Modi would hardly have been offended with negative comments that the news evoked because he has said on several occasions, even negative publicity is good.
Every criticism of Mr Modi enables him to consolidate support among the faithful and the fence-sitters. It has been no different in this case as many have rushed to defend him. The defence is two pronged: one group has argued on the “so what” basis, a justification built with brazenness and the same sentiment that justifies utterances of the likes of Sakshi Maharaj, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti and Sanjay Raut. In another line of defence, apologists become amateur sociologists. The argument is that the criticism of Mr Modi for wearing a Savile Row suit with his name woven throughout the fabric is an elitist response similar to criticising Mayawati for her jewellery, B.R. Ambedkar for his immaculate suits while giving similar censure a miss for the likes of Rajiv Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and, of course, Jyoti Basu for their immaculateness and elitist tastes.
It needs to be recalled that Mr Modi was an immaculate dresser even as a child. As a young pracharak, he never sported the just-out-of-bed look of most pracharaks of the time (not any more in the era of TV though). After he became chief minister of Gujarat, he indulged further but with designer pens, watches and spectacles. True, Mr Modi did not himself source the fabric of the suit. But getting the suit stitched and wearing it was demonstrative of his self-obsession, while wearing expensive accessories is restricted to self-indulgence. As a result, the three most important takeaways from the Obama visit for the people will remain the pinstripes, “I and Barack” and, of course, the repeated bear hugs. In any case, they are not getting power from nuclear plants in the immediate future. They have to seek solace in things that were thrust in their faces by Mr Modi.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times
