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.
