16 May, results day, is less than a fortnight away, and as India’s general election draws to a close, a drumbeat of alarmism is making itself heard.

Its target: the frontrunner, the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) prime ministerial nominee Narendra Modi.

Irrespective of their form or substance, here is the gist of these alarmist arguments that play on Modi’s alleged errors of omission and commission in Gujarat, particularly the 2002 riots in the state: an era of communal and political repression is in store if the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance does form a government.

The arguments simplistically assume and imply that the existing democratic institutions—Parliament, judiciary, media—and citizens of India will be incapable of containing Modi. The authors of this fear syndrome define themselves as secularists.

Among them, there are those who genuinely fear, in the backdrop of the 2002 Gujarat riots and the strident Hindutva ideology of the BJP, that communal harmony is at stake. Then, there are others who belong to what I call the secularism industry. My quarrel is with the latter.

I have seen something similar in poverty alleviation initiatives. Given that India has had a long and unnecessary tryst with poverty and only recently managed a substantive reduction in its numbers (lifting nearly 150 million people out of poverty in the last 10 years), it has spawned an entire ecosystem dependent on it, comprising stakeholders from government departments, politicians, not-for-profit organizations, multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and, of course, wealthy individuals.

This ecosystem’s biggest fear is that the reduction of poverty will rob it of a cause and, in some instances, livelihood. My claim may sound fantastic, but it is a fact that the business of fixing poverty runs into billions of dollars and it is very important for these people to ensure poverty remains the primary social challenge (Capital Calculus, 5 August). So it was hardly surprising that the news about the reduction in poverty received the silent treatment from the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). It is only with the onset of elections that it staked claim to this superb achievement. Too little, too late.

Similarly, those operating in the so-called secularism industry are keen to keep alive the fear of communalism. We have already seen what such misplaced opportunism has achieved in Uttar Pradesh under the oversight of the self-proclaimed defender of minorities, the Samajwadi Party. The attempt to calibrate polarization went hopelessly awry leading to one of the worst communal carnages in western Uttar Pradesh—over 50,000 people have been displaced from their homes, many forever. The subsequent blame game has spilled over into the election campaign. Like I wrote last week, people would be mistaken into believing that this election is a Hindu-Muslim face-off. In reality, it is one about electing a political formation that can fulfil aspirations.

It is also possible that those opposed to Modi fear him for being an outsider in Delhi. As a politician who gained a reputation (some would say notoriety) at the state level, he is a virtual newcomer to Delhi. And he has signalled his intent to alter the status quo. This, I believe, is the real fear of the cosy cabal that dominates India’s polity.

It is the country’s worst-kept secret that a cabal of politicians, bureaucrats, journalists, rich individuals and power brokers controls Delhi’s power equations. In the aftermath of the scandals that surfaced in the second tenure of the UPA, this cabal had developed structural fault lines, but has recouped since. For Modi to survive, he has to either make peace with this cabal or spawn an alternative power structure. The latter can only mean an end to the status quo, and the growing insecurity among members of this clique suggests that this might be his preference.

Finally, let us assume Modi does succeed in wresting political power and forms the government on 16 May, and let us also assume the worst fears of the secularists do come true.

Even if this were to happen, is our faith in our democratic institutions so weak? They may be flawed or in urgent need of repair, but they are very much around.

And what of civil society that nurtured the political phenomenon of the Aam Admi Party? As Alan Moore said: “People shouldn’t be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Anil Padmanabhan is deputy managing editor of Mint and writes every week on the intersection of politics and economics. Comments are welcome at capitalcalculus@livemint.com

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters * Enter a valid email * Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

Share Via