Hype Vs reality of Modi-mania
By Praful Bidwai
“Modi moves centre-stage!” “Modi storms in as the BJP’s PM candidate.” “It’s Narendra Modi vs Rahul Gandhi!” “In PM mode, Modi spells out strategy on big issues.” “Modi wants to repay the debt he owes to India by serving the nation” (read, becoming Prime Minister).
Thus scream the headlines in leading Indian newspapers and TV channels as they ask, “Is he the man India awaits?”—repeating Big Business’s pitch for Atal Behari Vajpayee in 1998. At work is a systematic corporate blitzkrieg to build up Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi as a messiah of “development” and “dynamism”, who is destined to lead India.
In contrast to this media hype, totally unprecedented in Indian history, Mr Modi remains a deeply polarising figure not just internationally and nationally, but even within the Sangh Parivar, which is reluctant to name him as its Prime Ministerial candidate. He has done nothing to reduce the horrible stigma he earned for Independent India’s worst pogrom of a religious minority, in 2002.
The European Union’s myopic governments, driven by crass economic greed, may have ended their Modi political boycott and partially legitimised him. But Narendra Milosevic Modi continues to be an abomination to conscientious citizens globally, as well as to millions of Hindus and non-Hindus in India, who treasure political decency and the Constitutional values of secularism, tolerance and social inclusion. Internationally, he’s the most hated Indian.
This was once again demonstrated by the spirited protest against the invitation extended to him by Wharton Business School at the University of Pennsylvania in the US to speak long-distance, which caused its cancellation. The issue at stake was not Mr Modi’s right to free expression, but hate speech and sanctification of the Gujarat butchery and his own pivotal role in it, documented by over 40 independent citizens’ reports.
The protest was wholly in keeping with the ethos and culture of universities in the US and elsewhere, which registered their opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s by organising successful demonstrations against its apologists and preventing them from venting their bellicose imperialist views. The demonstrations played no mean role in ending that unjust war, with its three million Vietnamese casualties, and in advancing the causes of global justice and peace.
The mandate of universities is to promote critical rational thinking, the noble ideals of universal citizenship, and a culture of tolerance and inclusion, not one of exclusion, bigotry and violence against vulnerable minorities. The University of Pennsylvania protesters must be applauded, as must the thousands of Indian-Americans who have campaigned against a US visa for Mr Modi since 2002.
In contrast stands the ignominious chanting of support for Mr Modi by Indian business groups and the media they control. Their campaign lionises Mr Modi by depicting him as a Knight in Shining Armour who will rescue India from economic stagnation, grinding poverty and missed opportunities towards “progress” and apply the “Gujarat Model” to the whole country.
Politically, it would be egregiously wrong, and morally wholly impermissible, to normalise a perverse, autocratic and crassly communal politician like Mr Modi—who has repeatedly justified the 2002 violence, covered it up and shielded its perpetrators—even if Gujarat under him had registered India’s best growth rates and the “Gujarat Model” were progressive and worthy of emulation.
As it happens, the model is in large part a hyped-up invention and otherwise deeply flawed. Contrary to propaganda, Gujarat’s rank in per capita GDP has fallen since 1996-97 from 4th to 8th among 19 major Indian states. Haryana, Punjab, Maharashtra, Kerala and Himachal Pradesh are ahead of it. Bigger states like Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka are only a notch below. And smaller ones like Goa, Delhi, Chandigarh and Puducherry are well above.
True, at 10.1 percent a year, Gujarat’s GDP growth between 2004 and 2012 exceeded the 8.3 percent national average. But growth was even higher in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar (respectively, 10.8, 10.3 and 11.4 percent). Even Uttarakhand and Madhya Pradesh have recently outperformed Gujarat.
In 2012-13, Madhya Pradesh with 10.1 percent growth displaced Bihar (9.5 percent) as India’s fastest-growing state in GDP terms. It posted impressive agricultural growth of 18.9 and 14.3 percent in the last two years. Since 2003-04, MP’s revenue collection has risen fivefold and its capital outlay sixfold. Its revenue deficit has been wiped out despite a fourfold expenditure increase.
Unlike Gujarat’s “trickle-down” model, MP follows a state-interventionist approach in providing food and electricity to its people. Its growth is also more balanced and inclusive—unlike Gujarat, which has neglected agriculture and the social sector. Industrial growth in Gujarat is also uneven and unbalanced, dominated by sectors like toxic chemicals production and textiles processing, ultra-hazardous shipbreaking and diamond polishing, and of late, polluting power generation.
In 2004-2012, Gujarat grew 3.6 percentage-points faster than in the pre-Modi period (1994-2002). But the comparable pace was even higher in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Bihar (respectively, 5.8, 4.7 and 6.5 percent). This does not speak to exceptional performance or “Vibrant Gujarat”.
Gujarat’s agricultural growth has been unstable, with the annual rise in cotton output slumping from 40.8 percent in 2002-07 to 8.6 percent in 2007-11, and that in oilseeds decelerating from 34.1 percent to just 0.9. Foodgrains output did rise from an average of 6 percent to 19.9 percent, but Gujarat suffered two sharp dips of 22 and 11 percent in intervening years, highlighting its vulnerability to the vagaries of agriculture on which 52 percent of its people are dependent.
Turning to the ballyhoo about Gujarat’s unique success in attracting foreign direct investment and becoming its preferred destination, Maharashtra, Delhi, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have beaten Gujarat since 2000. In fact, Maharashtra drew in 6.78 times more FDI than Gujarat in 2000-2012.
If Gujarat’s GDP growth story isn’t outstanding—the state largely built on its well-established past gains in industry and infrastructure—its human development index (HDI) story is at best mediocre, and mostly poor. Its all-India HDI rank fell from six in the mid-1990s to nine in the mid-2000s. Gujarat ranks a poor 18th in literacy rates among Indian states.
In infant mortality, Gujarat stood 25th among 35 states and Union territories in 2010-11. Its female infant mortality rate (51) was higher than the national average (46). Worse, its sex ratio in 2011 was an abysmal 918 females per 1,000 males, much lower than the national ratio of 940. The 0-6 sex ratio was just 886 compared to 914 nationally, giving Gujarat a shameful 27th rank in India.
In poverty reduction (8.6 percentage-points between 2004 and 2009), Gujarat lags behind not just Tamil Nadu (13.1) or Maharashtra (13.7), but also Odisha (19.2), Madhya Pradesh (11.9) and Rajasthan (9.6). Employment has been almost stagnant in Gujarat since 2004-05. [IPA]