Revisiting Modi - I
Previous Posts [1], [2]
Prasannaji revisited his earlier post on Narendra Modi, which is the motive behind this post. To reiterate what I have said earlier, here is my stand on Modi. I support any verdict arrived by due legal process, however knowing the state of judiciary, I doubt that any verdict will be arrived. Further while I doubt that Mr Modi is complicit in any act of commission or omission, I am more or less sure that there must have political involvement at local level. This is no insightful revelation, it is how riots have always happened in India. Lastly I do find Mr Modi guilty of not following his Dharma, of not doing his best in order to prevent riots, in short a failure of morality.
This will also explain why I oppose a national role for him.
First, he will be a liability to any allies during elections, as while BJP may not be dependent on Muslims votes its allies are, and any consolidation of Muslim votes against Modi will harm their prospects.
Second, I don't know how many people remember how BJP carefully created an image of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, as the leader who could be PM and lead India. This was done with the help of media. In order to create enough buzz all over India, a defining campaign is required, again with the help of media, which at present his candidacy is not capable of.
Third, and one which concerns me most is that to promote Narendra Modi means promoting demagoguery, one which cultural nationalism can do without. This is not because I have suddenly found a conscience. I still remain the same Hindu fascist, but point that I want to emphasize is that while Modi and Togadia are useful in combating a Hinduphobic intelligentsia, there is no advantage in making a virtue of compulsion.
5 comments:
I knew it. You're a bloody closet secularist.
As I might have said before - it isn't clear that anyone else in India would have done better - unless anyone bothers to show data involving previous riots. The Godhra incident was on February 27, troops were flown in during evening on March 1.
I agree that national role for him would be dangerous, atleast as of now, for the reasons you mentioned.
And further, why only Modi? Aren't you falling into the same trap that media created - there are so many officials in the state administration. Why would you attribute everything to one chief minister? Did they do it for the 1993 Bombay riots?
Isn't it similar to what is mentioned in update 1 here ) here?
Sorry for keeping on commenting on this post but please see the allegation on congress leaders for Gujarat riots mentioned here.
Ritwik,
You got me.
Frog,
Sorry for late reply (I am feeling very lazy nowadays). I am mostly repeating my post.
1.It is up to legal system to find who is guilty. However I don't think Modi per se has committed any crime.
2. But I "believe" he could have done better. For riots always have political involvement and to some extent police complicity at local level, so "perhaps" with the correct signals could have been different.
3.You are right about comparing the data from past, but as I pointed out in the post also, there has always been political involvement.
4. 3) also answers your point about only indicting Modi, I do not indict only Modi, which is why I have hardly written on Gujarat. As I said earlier unfortunately riots are long standing issue. My concern is demagoguery will be end of cultural nationalism.
Post a Comment