The meaning of Modi’s victory

With Narendra Milosevic Modi’s third consecutive victory, Gujarat has taken a big step backwards and India has suffered a political setback. The result will raise Modi’s ambition to play a major role in national politics, as he so clearly indicated by delivering his victory speech in Hindi. But it will also infuse more strife, tension and communal-sectarian poison into Indian politics without removing the major obstacles that Modi faces in trying to win the National Democratic Alliance’s (NDA) nomination as its prime ministerial candidate.

Contrary to hype, Modi’s win is far from historic. He is only the 13th chief minister in India to be elected a third time. Jyoti Basu in West Bengal served five terms. Currently, five chief ministers are in their third term – in Assam, Delhi, Manipur, Odisha (Orissa), and Tripura.

Even the Bharatiya Janata Party’s uninterrupted (since 1995) win against the Congress isn’t unique to Gujarat. Other parties too have kept the Congress out of power in six other states for 20 years or more: Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Sikkim, Tripura and West Bengal – barring briefly this year.

The BJP won 115 seats in Gujarat, or 63 percent of the 182 constituencies it contested. But this is well short of the target it had set of greatly exceeding its 2007 and 2002 tallies (respectively 117 and 127). Its slogan was 150-plus!

At least 10, if not 15, of the 115 seats are probably attributable to the fact that midway during the campaign, Modi projected himself as India’s future prime minister. This mopped up the votes of many in the Gujarat elite who chauvinistically believe that the state gets a raw deal from the centre and yearn for the glorious days when it gave India high-stature leaders like Gandhi, Vallabhbhai Patel and Morarji Desai. Modi tapped this irrational resentment.

The BJP’s latest strike-rate doesn’t bear comparison with the Left Front’s three-fourths majority of West Bengal Assembly seats between 1977 and 1996, or the Biju Janata Dal’s strike rate in Odisha of exceeding 75 percent in the past decade. Modi isn’t Gujarat’s best electoral performer either. That record goes to the Congress, which won 141 seats with a 52 percent vote-share in 1980, and an even higher 149 seats with a 56 percent vote share in 1985 thanks to the powerful KHAM (Kshatriya-Harijan-Adivasi-Muslim) coalition.

The BJP’s latest vote share was 48 percent, one percentage-point lower than in 2007, while the Congress’s share rose by one percentage-point to 39 percent. The BJP did well among the middle and upper classes in the cities: Gujarat is India’s most urbanised state, with 58 percent of its people living in cities. But the party did relatively poorly in villages and in the 42-seat Adivasi (tribal) belt. The BJP’s performance was uneven across north, central and south Gujarat. In North Gujarat, Modi’s backyard, its tally declined from 25 to 16 seats and its vote share fell below the Congress’s. This highlights the limits of Modi’s victory.

Had the Congress put up a spirited fight on issues where it could effectively combat Modi – like his role in the butchery of 1,200 Muslims in 2002, his antipathy to religious minorities, and his elitist and slavishly pro-business policies – it could have given him a run for his money. But it did not muster the courage to do so, and repeated the weak-kneed strategy pursued since 2002 under Ahmed Patel’s stewardship.

There was no reference to secularism or justice for the 2002 victims in the Congress campaign, despite the recent favourable judgement in the Naroda-Patiya case. Nor did the Congress highlight the concerns of the underprivileged, or lambast Modi for neglecting social development and pursuing a shamelessly crony-capitalist pro-Big Business agenda. Sleazy corporations became all-powerful under him and infiltrated and corrupted the bureaucracy and the media. Modi won at least partly because the Congress in Gujarat has ceased to have coherent policies, a well-defined social base and a will to power.

Nevertheless, this was admittedly Modi’s personal triumph, not the BJP’s victory. Modi with his personality cult gutted the BJP and reduced to his personal fief. He emasculated the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh too. All Gujarat ministers are his minions and pawns, without agency. No other party leader counts. Brand Modi, based on his macho, aggressive persona and deep lack of compassion, is all. Gujarat’s middle class admires this brand and see “Mard” (or macho) Modi as a role model, who can deliver the distorted, lopsided elitist growth it profits from. Modi panders to its deep-seated social conservatism, absence of exposure to social reform, intense casteism and hostility towards Muslims.

Modi’s brashness, his brazen refusal to own up culpability for the 2002 pogrom, and his continuing derogatory invocation of the “Delhi Sultanate”, all impress the middle class. As does the praise heaped upon him by Gujarat’s numerous and reactionary pro-Hindutva NRIs based in North America, who dutifully obey the rule that migrants are even more conservative than their relations back home.

Modi claims that he won because of his development record, itself stellar. This claim is false. If development has anything to do with people’s welfare and quality of life, and at least reducing hunger and poverty, then Gujarat fares poorly. It ranks 13th among 17 major states on the hunger index. Even Uttar Pradesh, Odisha, Assam and West Bengal score better. As do sub-Saharan Africa’s poorer countries. Nearly 45 percent of Gujarati children under five are malnourished.

Employment has been stagnant in Gujarat since 2004-05. Its wage rates for casual rural workers rank 14th for males and 9th for females among 20 major states. Between 2005 and 2010, poverty fell in Gujarat by just 8.6 percent, much slower than in Odisha (19.2 percent), Maharashtra (13.7 percent) or Tamil Nadu (13.1 percent).

Between 2000 and 2008, Gujarat’s rank among 15 major states in respect of the people who attend any educational institution fell from 21st to 26th. Gujarat’s sex (female-male) ratio in 2011 was only 918, compared to 940 for India. Its female infant mortality is higher than the national average. Economist Indira Hirway argues that “the growth story of Gujarat is not inclusive, sustainable, equitable or environment-friendly”.

Gujarat’s GDP growth rates are relatively high because of its previous record. Yet, they are lower than in Haryana, Rajasthan, Odisha or Chhattisgarh. In per capita income, Gujarat tails Maharashtra Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, even Uttarakhand.

The Gujarat victory has strengthened Modi’s pre-eminent position in the BJP’s “second-generation” leadership. But it won’t be easy for him to claim the prime ministerial candidacy. No BJP leader trusts him. His bid will sharpen inner-party rivalries. The RSS is wary of him because he is too much of an individualistic autocrat and has destroyed the Sangh in Gujarat. NDA allies, especially Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, openly oppose his bid.

Most importantly, Modi’s general public acceptability remains extremely low. He’s too much of a divisive, aggressive and communal figure to have an appeal outside the Sangh Parivar’s rabid hardcore. Modi may well find that his victory in a bipolar state like Gujarat can’t be replicated in India’s essentially multipolar polity. He can’t get India’s top job – except in the unlikely event that the BJP wins 200-plus Lok Sabha seats and he becomes the prime ministerial candidate in a post-poll alliance.

The writer, a former newspaper editor, is a researcher and peace and human-rights activist based in Delhi

Email: prafulbidwai1@yahoo.co.in