On caps, Vajpayee and the Modi Trial

There is competition over who meets Muslim clerics among the two top political parties, and then both accuse each other of appeasement.

When Sonia Gandhi met the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Ahmed Bukhari, she apparently got an assurance from him regarding her plea that Muslims should not divide the secular vote. The BJP accused her of vote-bank politics. It was as though they had captured the Muslim votes already in that little meeting that has nothing to do with Muslims at all.

Days later, BJP president Rajnath Singh met a whole bunch of clerics – vice-president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board Maulana Kalbe Sadiq, Maulana Kalbe Jawwad, Maulana Hameeudul Hassan, Maulana Yasoob Abbas and Maulana Khalid Rasheed Farangi Mahali. The Congress hit back.

Both described these as courtesy calls, but when pushed the BJP said: 

“Rajnath Singh is a candidate and it's his duty to go door to door to everyone's house. Not be selective. All prominent persons in Lucknow are close to each other. So we have to call on everyone and reach out to people of all sections.”

These politicians talk about wanting to improve the lot of common people, so why are they meeting “prominent persons”? One of the clerics later told a TV channel: “We are scared of Narendra Modi, but Rajnath Singh has the acceptability of Mr. Vajpayee.”

Acceptability of Mr. Vajpayee?

Congress spokesperson Sanjay Jha got into a bit of trouble over his statement: 

“The weakest PM ever was AB Vajpayee, who wanted to sack Mr Modi for the ghastly Gujarat massacre, but succumbed to BJP bullying.”

Does anybody recall Vajpayee’s support of Modi post Gujarat riots, his speech in Goa at the time? Does anyone recall that he was famously called a ‘mukhauta’ (mask) by his own party man? He was positioned as the nice face and knew about it. Jha further stated: 

“The weakest PM India ever had was AB Vajpayee who despite the treachery of Kargil, gave Musharraf a red carpet welcome at Agra. The weakest PM India ever had was AB Vajpayee who was hugging PM Nawaz Sharif, even as 50 soldiers...”

Hindutva parties are so against Pakistan and would oppose any red carpet welcome, but now they have nowhere to look. So they call out the change in the earlier Congress stand where the former PM was praised. This is so churlish. I do not agree with Jha about using Pakistan as a touchstone to decide strength and weakness of our national leaders, but it is no big deal. The Sangh has been critical of Jawaharlal Nehru for years as well as Mahatma Gandhi.

Most of them are in a twist. No politician can keep religion out of politics because they themselves are blind worshippers of anything that will get them power.

Vajpayee’s photograph with a skull cap and Rajnath Singh’s recent one are making some kind of statement to transpose with Narendra Modi’s refusal to do so. In the by-now hyped-up interview he gave India TV, the loop on the skull cap was played in the promos and given prominence. My stand on it has been clear. I do not think it is important, nor is it evidence of secularism. However, if he talks about it, there will be some counter argument. This question should have been irrelevant, considering this was a major interview.

In a mock courtroom, he sat in the witness box. This effectively made it appear as though he was taking justice head-on. Nothing of the kind happened, and it was a horribly creepy show, where the audience clapped after every sentence. It lacked dignity and probity. It was a sham. The interviewer Rajat Sharma helped Modi sail through, not only with planned queries but his whole demeanour of agreeableness. 

The cap question was designed to give Modi an opportunity to softly peddle his views about a community. He gave it a lot of importance, and spoke about how he would respect all cultures, but not do what was against his “parampara” (tradition). I have an issue with this.

He positioned himself against one community, showing that they were outside his parampara, which I assume is Hindu. It better be, for India is not a Hindu nation and Indian Muslims, with or without skull caps, have a stake in it. Indian parampara is as much ours. To transpose this cap against the others makes for an interesting discussion when one is given the argument that he wears other caps because those are regional. How is the Sikh turban regional? Are the khasis not Christian? I won’t even get into his Buddhist outings, for he has cravenly started even using Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, who would find him an untouchable (pardon the use of the term).

When people get competitive about who is wearing what, then we need to shut up about secularism. These are ritualistic and gimmicky. However, if political leaders go to the Ajmer dargah to beg for favours from a dead saint, then they have no right to make distinctions about parampara. Modi knows that there are a few influential and rich Muslims in Gujarat or of Gujarati origin who contribute to development, his presence being absolutely incidental. Why, then, does he meet Muslim religious leaders? Why does he not go to the relief camps, instead?

One person in the audience asked in a pained voice how he coped with the aftermath of 2002. Seriously, nothing could be worse than asking a man who uses the “puppy” analogy for Muslims about how he coped during the period. He said it was “Satya ka saath, desh ka pyaar” – The side of truth and love of the nation. Such delusions.

I obviously did not expect any counter-questioning, but he was clear about his position as a grand mufti of sorts.

Pictures were shared of the big moment. People sitting out in the open on plastic chairs before huge screens when even slums have TV sets. This cannot be spontaneous; they were herded there to create a buzz. After all, this cleric was going to give his devotees a sermon.

© Farzana Versey

Also: Modi reads from The Satanic Verses

How He Turned The Tables: The Rahul Gandhi Interview

If you are looking for a parody or, more appropriately, a lame attempt at humour, then please skip this.

Rahul Gandhi may not be a great subject for a television interview, he may not even turn out to be a good political leader, but on the much-touted first-ever interview in 10 years (he clarified on camera that this was not the first, but the first formal one!) he did exactly what he set out to do. Say his piece. What seemed like repetition, if not ducking, was a strategy he adopted to bludgeon the inquisitor softly, if not tire him out.

Some in the media have dubbed this a Rahul vs. Arnab fight. I am amazed at the ignorance. No one, I repeat no one, in the higher echelons of power will give such a big interview without vetting the queries. Therefore, Rahul Gandhi must certainly have been aware of what Arnab Goswami (AG) would ask. If AG added specific queries later, then isn’t it funny that at the beginning of the interview he makes it clear and RG says “You can draw me back as much as you want” but would he be okay if he took a broader look? Think about it. Besides, it does not take rocket science (ahem, those Bharat Nirman ads) to figure out what the nation as filtered by the media would want to know. As he said:

"I have done a little media interaction, prior to this. I have done press conferences & spoken to the media. But mainly bulk of my focus has been on internal party work and that's where I have been concentrating, that is where most of my energy was going."

In the latter half I will reproduce some salient points, with quick notes.

First, the minutiae: This was not a live interview; it was conducted at Jawahar Bhavan; it lasted for a little under 90 minutes. According to The Telegraph:

But sources said the Congress leadership wanted to ensure that Rahul’s “outing” should be with a journalist who has a reputation for being unsparing. An off-the-record session between Priyanka Gandhi Vadra and Goswami, over pakoras and tea, also helped pave the ground for the interview, the sources said.

It just so happens that those who are building up this “unsparing” interviewer have rather short or selective memories. Some of us do recall his almost obsequious questioning of Bal Thackeray; even Raj Thackeray has managed to stand firm. So, let us not create heroes only because we need to look down on certain people.

Let us talk about some problem areas.

Why was RG not being specific?

Why should he? He will do so in his speeches when he addresses the nation, not for revenue-run TRP-driven media. Has Times Now donated to the Congress Party’s election campaign? Is there a quid pro quo? No.

Arnab did his business of mentioning names – as the tagline of his show states – and Rahul spoke about the issue. Yes, the issues are more important. It is the system that deals with individual offenders. If he took the names, or repeated them after AG, he would be a bloody stupid politician and VP of his party.

Why did he not take the Modi bait?

This was by far the best thing Rahul could have done. He treated Narendra Modi as just another guy. The persistent questioning about whether he would agree to a debate with the Gujarat CM elicited what I thought was a perfect clincher: “The debate is already going on.” This effectively took the battle to where it belongs – outside the TV studios.

Why did he not apologise for the anti-Sikh riots of 1984?

What would he achieve by doing so? Get brownie points from the viewers and a pat on the back from the media, with Times going berserk by claiming that it was their channel that brought about this major penance? The PM and Sonia Gandhi have both apologised, and if RG has to do so it needs to be done to the people who are waiting for justice.

Why did he not come clean about his degrees?

Here you have an anchor who has netted a huge catch, and he is quoting a shark lapping in the shallows. Arnab brought in Subramanian Swamy to put RG on the mat regarding his educational qualifications. With all his Ivy League credentials, Swamy comes across as an uncouth man. Besides, how is it important? This Oxford-Cambridge showing off might appeal to the urban upper middle class, not the majority of the population.

Has anybody bothered to check for how long exactly Modi ran a tea stall that he is using as his new USP? Is there any evidence of it?

Why did he not commit on the Aam Aadmi Party?

Simple. The AAP is not one that sticks to its own word, so how can anybody else? Here is one bit from the interview

Arnab: Are you using the AAP to split the Anti Congress vote bank, to keep Mr. Modi out of power
Rahul: You are implying that we have brought the AAP...

This was really giving it to those ones in the politest of tones.

Why did he keep repeating about RTI, empowerment of women, the system?

Because these are crucial subjects, though they don’t sound terribly sexy. Indeed, he used these terms to also answer unrelated queries, but as I said at the beginning, he was here to say his piece.

We have got so accustomed in the past few months to war cry rallies and dharnas that someone who comes across as vulnerable, yet refusing to fall prey, is not easy to accept. Calling Rahul Gandhi a fool might prove to be our biggest fallacy.

Here is how he answered some of the questions, from Modi to being attacked, and why moving off-track sometimes seemed to be just the right move:

Of kite-flyers, jeep-jumpers and junta darbars - The Modi, Rahul, Kejriwal bonanza

This makes news. Actor Salman Khan meets Narendra Modi and says he is a good man, a great man, flies kites, has lunch, shares a few laughs. This is news.

The BJP prime ministerial candidate could not contain his enthusiasm:

Earlier, Modi tweeted his picture with Salman saying he was having lunch with the actor on the occasion of Uttarayan.

"Having Undhiyu for lunch with Salman Khan. Undhiyu is a Gujarati delicacy and is a must-have during Uttarayan!"

The actor who was promoting his film said:

"See the good man is standing before me. I have come here after four years, have seen so much development. You tell me, I don't belong to Gujarat. It doesn't matter what I perceive...I got to meet Mr Modi I really feel nice. I believe Modi sahib should get whatever is in his fate and he will certainly achieve it."

BJP supporters who would otherwise have made a huge noise about the actor had he 'appeased' any other politician are now behaving like slobbering fans.

A few points:

• It is a sign of desperation that the endorsement from a Bollywood star carries so much weight.

• In one day, how much development was Salman Khan exposed to?

• Salman Khan has been taken to task for participating in the Saifai festival on the invitation of Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh. The BJP spokespersons have been criticising the Samajwadi Party, making Modi sound like an angel in comparison regarding the Muzaffarnagar riots. So, did the Gujarat CM take time out between the 'maanja lapet' (releasing the kite string, also colloquially used for lying) to ponder upon the film star's lack of sensitivity?

• Does anybody imagine that despite Salman's huge following he could help swing the 'Muslim vote'? In fact, why is it necessary at all? Besides, the Khan family does regular 'secular' outings, which often entails participating in several festivals, something that almost every Indian does with less ostentatiouness and without much ado.

• While promoting his film, did Salman Khan think for a moment about how his friend Aamir Khan's film (among others) was banned by the Gujarat government? Or, is looking for opportunity and freebies enough?

In that case, Jai ho-ho-ho.

***

Rahul Gandhi on a visit to Kerala jumps on the roof of a jeep. This makes news.

CPI(M) state leader Pinarayi Vijayan said:

"His candidature as the Congress's PM candidate is more or less finalised and yesterday (Monday) travelling on a police jeep on his state visit he behaved like a joker...He behaved like a person of unsound mind and the action should be taken against him for travelling on top of a police jeep."

What do the news channels do? They say he is doing an 'Aam Aadmi' thing. Every politician has mastered the art of jumping — whether it is the line, the gun, or over puddles. They carry babies, dance with tribals. Check out the pictures of all the current aspirants and you will see them in action.

We know why they do it. The more loyal than the king types could be their undoing. Take P C George who gushed:

"He belongs to the Nehru-Gandhi clan and I never thought he could just walk into the hearts of the average common man, like what he did yesterday. He has proved that his heart is there and he was able to connect with the man on the street."

Here he is affirming that the dynasty is removed from reality and whatever it does is out of magnanimity. Enough of connecting with the man on the street. A jeep rooftop view is not quite it. Just leave it as a charming gesture that makes for a good photograph.

***

An Aadmi Party leader who is planning to "challenge" Rahul Gandhi in Amethi has now hinged his hopes on the Dalit woman Rahul had stayed with in 2008. Kumar Vishwas "was shocked to see that the family was still leading a miserable life in a kachcha house with no roof in the bitter cold. He assured her that AAP workers would at least arrange a roof for the house".

It is back to making one person into a totem.

The manner in which Arvind Kejriwal and AAP are being portrayed one would imagine that the media is ignorant and juvenile. It is sickening to watch debates where other political parties are accused of "copying" AAP. I am surprised that the new party has not been credited with discovering the very existence of the common man.

Ministers have cut taxes, prices, and held open house on designated days for years. So, why did the party's "janta darbar" become a public spectacle that had to be called off? As a report says:

Police estimated that 50,000 people had gathered in front of the secretariat. The crowd mostly comprised contractual workers from various government departments like DTC, power company BSES, different government hospitals, municipal corporations, among others demanding permanent status.

The chief minister cannot push files. There are people to do these jobs. The very idea of being "human" gets a beating when barricades have to be put up, traffic is obstructed, and you have a raja-type minister listening to people's woes, dispensing justice. (Some have compared it to the Mughal courts.) There is a bureaucracy and a judiciary that has to deal with these issues, and although the criticism by the BJP that it is a parallel government is not entirely accurate, Kejriwal does make it look like a mass panchayati raj.

After the debacle, he said:

"We will have to improve the arrangements. If I had not left the place then there was a possibility of a stampede. Everybody wanted to meet me. We will streamline the system so that a similar situation does not recur."

One does not wish to sound alarmist, but in a politically fractious environment, it is also possible that rivals will try to scuttle such populist measures.

However, it does not mean there is fear. This is about sadism that comes with power — the power of being in a position of authority and of anarchy when out of it.

© Farzana Versey

Mr. KPS Gill, did the police tutor Modi on the action-reaction theory?

The fact that the Modi camp rejoices over a few statements by a tainted former deputy general of police reveals the desperation to get a "clean chit".

In May 2002, KPS Gill was called in as security advisor to Narendra Modi. On October 31, 2013, over eleven years later, he says the Gujarat Chief Minister cannot be held responsible for the post-Godhra riots.

His reasoning:

"In law and order situations, it is the police leadership which has to respond and not the political leadership."

It happened to be the anniversary of the anti-Sikh riots when he said this, so it sounds particularly unfortunate. For, then, people like Sajjan Kumar and Jagdish Tytler, who have been tried for their role in the 1984 riots, would also be seen as blameless.

Why should Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde, or even Bihar CM Nitish Kumar, be made answerable for the recent Patna blasts, prior and during Modi's rally? After all, they constitute the political leadership.

Why question Akhilesh Yadav and Mulayam Singh for what happened in Muzaffarnagar?

When protestors are beaten with lathis and tear gas shells are used, why does the police force not take responsibility? Why does the matter reach the political leaders, including the President?

KPS Gill has got to have answers to these allied queries, for he cannot be selective.

He was appointed by Modi as security advisor, which is a political process and position, to an extent. It was three months after the riots. What did he do? Whose responsibility are compensations, rehabilitation? Who should visit the refugee camps?

"I realised that people of all political parties who were anti-Modi and anti-BJP were taking advantage of this mayhem and making all efforts to defame Modi one way or the other."

There is no denying that political parties always come in to take advantage, and the BJP is no exception. Could Mr. Gill explain how exactly does defamation of Modi take away his lack of intervention? The fact is that the matter did not end with the "mayhem" (interesting choice of word).

The report further states:

He charged the policemen and the administration had become communal after the incident in Godhra and Mr Modi, who had just become the chief Minister, did not have proper grip over the state machinery...he said that after taking charge as the security advisor of the state, he had visited all places where violence had taken place and policemen from top to bottom refuted having received any direction of the type being mentioned.

• The police deal with communal issues on a routine basis. They are not supposed to be communally prejudiced. The manner in which Gill is running down the Force is rather surprising.

• If Modi did not have a grip on the state, how does it matter? Why did he start using his remote powers? Don't they go against the former DGP's own thesis that it is not a political issue?

• There was much that happened soon after the riots, including the transfer of senior police officers. So, if the police leadership has to take responsibility, why were they shunted out? Would they not stand up for what they did? They did not transfer themselves, right?

Those cases are documented and the cops have served/are serving sentences.

• If they did not get any directions, why has no senior cop from Gujarat come out and said so in clear terms about the murders, the destruction of property, the encounter killings?

And why did Narendra Modi speak about action-reaction at the very beginning? Was he tutored by the cops?

There is a limit to the whitewash job.

---

Speaking of KPS Gill, even a whitewash job by him is not really capable of cleaning. He has, after all, served a sentence himself.

In 1989, he was charged for sexual harassment with 90 IAS officers signing the petition.

Rupan Deol Bajaj, an IAS officer herself, had persisted with the case and later said:

"Gill was convicted of sexual harassment charges by the Supreme Court and it's high time the government withdrew the Padma Shri award it gave him."

It is important to understand the mindset of such a man before taking his clean chit at face value.

End note:

"The rank and file of the Punjab police force feared him. I cannot say that they respected him. He was very supportive of his subordinates as long as they co-operated in achieving his goals. Even delinquents and evil-doers were tolerated if their actions fitted into his grand designs."

- Julio Ribeiro, who inducted Gill in the operations in Punjab


© Farzana Versey

Tooth vs. Dentures: The Modi Bite

How do you deal with the hype? The answer is simple: You don't. It is already reaching saturation point. Having 7,200 "e-soldiers" is a sign of desperation. The Gujarat chief minister is looking for someone to head the minority cell, "but the BJP is finding it difficult to find a recognizable face to head its minority front in Gujarat". His soldiers who think the 2002 riots are old and it is time to 'move on' will never have the courage to come forth with a plea that Muslims need not vote for the party. If they did, then one might give them some credit for at least lack of hypocrisy regarding their persistent whining against vote bank politics.

I am often surprised at the naïveté of those who believe that the cyber world can win elections. This report in The Times of India gives us a few details about how it works:

"Try criticizing Gujarat CM Narendra Modi on social media and you will be ambushed by a cyber army. Praise him, and there will be hundreds joining the chorus...The sharp quips against Modi-baiters on the net are the coordinated effort of these youth, who use specialized software to add friends and ‘Likes’ to Modi pages on Facebook and Twitter and also send mass messages."

Getting urban youth is not difficult. Modi should give credit for this to Anna Hazare. His crusade brought out the Nike generation to embrace the Gandhi topi in the day and drown their new-found angst later in the usual haunts. Nothing has changed, except a new-found purpose that I have already talked about in the I Mislead India post.

So, he had a ready 'army', and it was not difficult to brainwash them into believing that all would be right and what was wrong was not the fault of Modi, but of those who were out to demonise him. The youth who were shouting for justice against rapists and scamsters have been silenced into believing in legalistic justice where foot soldiers take the blame and you need 'concrete evidence' to pin down leaders The dissent that they proudly claimed has been bought with a fake ideology. The recent history they are asked to forget is dragging them to the ancient past of Mughal conquerors. Irony cringes.

The group is incestuous and sharp, though. They will target novices with no known baggage. Try a red herring (RH) with them. They will not bite. The fear factor they use against others is really their own fear of any strong opinion. Watch them on TV shows and the moment they face an argument, the response is, "Look at you, you are getting nervous", even as they muffle their own nervous laughter. They cannot handle anyone who has a contrary viewpoint.

I have not come across a single person who is a Modi or a BJP person being critical of the way of functioning (no, L.K.Advani does not count!). If they cannot question anything, then how will they critique others? How different is it from the dynasty they abhor? It was this Narendra Modi Army that took out a morcha to Mr. Advani's house after he spoke out. Forget cohesiveness, it reveals bad taste and insecurity.

The electronic media has given way too much attention to these "Internet warriors". The unfortunate negative fallout is a response by the Congress camp of mimicking it. It ought not to be difficult. Prop up one individual, discuss achievements, rubbish the opposition. However, they have not been as successful. If the relatively secular forces (not just the Congress) have any sense they'd see that as a compliment,

They have a wider variety of supporters, not all creditable, but yet. They are not in denial mode about any of the riots during Congress rule. They are not in a desperate hurry to accept the words of disgruntled NDA allies, even if some politicians do. A Digvijaya Singh, a Sanjay Jha, an Abhishek Singhvi are often pulled up by their own even as they remain anti-BJP. One does not ever hear about any Modi bhakt criticising their spokespersons for speaking out of turn and, by Jove, they do.

In the superficial oneupmanship, where it is clear that the Modi army outnumbers, it is the loss of sensible debate.

Contrary to what the social media believes about the social media clout of the man, a war cannot be fought with invisible weapons and hydra- headed monsters with multiple accounts. This is an insult to the vast population of India. And it ought to be a lesson for every political party.

Ruling a country is not a hashtag you can latch on to. You can fool a few lakh followers — many talking to themselves — but not the millions.

© Farzana Versey

---

Also read: Advani and Modi:No Exit

Image source not available

Wharton Woes: Modi Gets a Feel of Poison Ivy League

Those applauding the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania for dropping Narendra Modi from its list of keynote speakers had better pause. 

If anything, Wharton can be seen as the ‘Vibrant’ wing of the university. By denying Modi the opportunity to address what is clearly a capitalist-driven agenda, it has managed to imbue itself with a liberalism it may not possess. It is essentially a conformist management institution and the sole concern is to further precisely what Narendra Modi is claiming to do.

The Wharton Economic Forum is run by students, so clearly there are many who did not consider inviting Modi wrong. Even the protests are conformist, and playing into a politically-correct pattern from the humanities stream, working the stereotype. The US administration had already denied the Gujarat chief minister a visa in 2005, and that stands.

Recall the last time this happened, senior BJP leaders like L.K. Advani, Manohar Joshi, Arun Jaitley addressed a rally when Gujarat organised a ‘Bharat Swabhimaan Divas’ (self-esteem day) to regain the lost prestige of a state chief minister who could not visit America to address some hoteliers in Florida.

Modi had responded with: 

“No court of India, or the world, has passed any judgment against either the Gujarat government, or its chief minister. The decision is heavily lopsided, against the tenets of democracy and human rights and a violation of natural justice. The American government, which prides itself on being a democracy, has indulged in the misdeed of insulting the Indian Constitution and the five crore people of Gujarat.”

Modi is not India. And he has gone against the tenets of the Constitution and degraded the self-esteem of his people.

Mr. Advani had said, 

“The US regards India as a ‘pushover state’. However, this time they have chosen the wrong person. The fight for swabhimaan initiated by Narendra Modi will become the fight of the entire nation. It must be noted that even those who are ideologically against us have stood by Mr. Modi.”

This was an insult to the country, for India has not fallen prey to US moves in its internal policies or even on how to deal with foreign powers. The entry of multinationals too is debated and argued.

If his self-esteem was so important, why did Modi agree to address the forum via satellite on March 23? This time the BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said, “It doesn’t matter as Americans don’t vote in India.”

But, a huge PIO population does exercise this right. Then, there is the funding and a promise of investment. Besides, America is itself an imperialistic power. How much does its antipathy towards Modi have to do with the fact that he "did nothing to prevent a series of orchestrated riots that targeted Muslims in Gujarat” and how much because it wants to ensure that the economic promises made by Modi could considerably reduce its leverage in the market and lead to the prodigals returning home?

The main sponsor, Gautam Adani, Chairman of the Adani Group, has backed out as a protest. Other speakers too are dropping out.  The Shiv Sena that has problems with Indians from other states coming into Maharashtra, has said, ”Wharton’s move is an insult to India.”

There is some noise about how Modi will become a martyr because of it. The rightwing parties have little opportunity to get sympathy votes, so clutching at such straws often helps ride a storm.

Why has the rejection of Modi become such a huge issue?

The educated middle class aspires to get into Ivy League colleges. One has to only see the desperation over getting an entry into this rarefied world. The alumni associations help these wishes come true with annual sponsorships. The universities are happy to gain a bunch of bright students who will add to the US economy in future. However, its mainstay is the significant contribution by India's rich. All the scions of business families have performed the ritual of that mandatory MBA, and the parental wealth has helped a good deal to keep these universities in a happy frame of mind.

That is the reason Wharton had no ethical or technical issues when Anil Ambani got a lecture series dedicated to his father Dhirubhai, a man who used the simple old-fashioned method of keeping people in fine fettle to get where he wanted without any management technique. Wharton is, therefore, not terribly picky. It is important to note that Anil Ambani has not commented on Modi's invitation being cancelled. Just a month ago he had hailed him as the "king of kings".

The Wharton Forum has no lofty principles. Described as one of the big-ticket “India-focused business conferences that provides a platform for leaders to discuss the opportunities present in India and the challenges that need to be addressed", this meet is essentially about how to make the most of the Indian economy that has suffered fewer blows than the US or Europe.

So, whether it is Modi or anyone else, this would be like a preview trade delegation. It has been doing so for 16 years and has never got much attention.

The protest petition states:

“We find it astonishing that any academic and student body at the University of Pennsylvania can endorse ideas about economic development that are based on the systematic oppression of minority populations, whether in India or elsewhere. Our role as scholars and students—and indeed as would-be entrepreneurs and business managers—must be to develop conscientious and efficacious modes of economic organization, not to piggy-back onto the inhuman policies of politicians who not only lack a commitment to human rights and to ideals of social justice, but whose political success is based on the suppression of substantial sections of their own citizens. Modi still does not have a US visa to enter the US, but Wharton plans to present him on Skype to the audience. Recently there have been efforts to whitewash Modi’s grim record and to grant him respectability. Wharton’s invitation lends itself to doing just that.”

All good. But business models anywhere in the world ride on political initiatives. The very idea of a liberalised economy lends itself to some amount of wiggling. The Occupy Wall Street Movement was not organised by big business and bankers. A group of Wharton students, essentially expats, are indulging in diaspora nostalgia. How many minorities are accommodated in US universities? Pointing out a universally-recognised wrong in India does not absolve the flaws within their own system. 
 
To make up for the snub, news has come in that the expats under the aegis of ‘Overseas Friends of the BJP’ have decided to redeem him. He will address them at Edison, New Jersey, Chicago, Illinois, of USA through video conference.

One hears that Aap Aadmi Party chief Arvind Kejriwal has been invited. This is irony for he will be the only aam aadmi they will get to see, as the university has no place for commoners. How many cabbies and corner store owners have been to management schools in the US or even in India?

Recently British Prime Minister David Cameron on his visit to India went to express his regret over the Jallianwalla Bagh massacre. He was not revisiting history; he was ensuring that the Southall population kept the UK economy buzzing via Amritsar. He assured that the brightest students and big bucks got easy access to the old colonisers.  And he is not against the Gujarat chief minister. Most political leaders use a convenient modus operandi of semantics and split ‘acts of commission and omission’ with proactive development.

This is what the Wharton Economic Forum had done.  And this is also what the protests are doing. They are merely denying him space to speak. Will any of them sign petitions that say they would not invest in Gujarat and do business with anyone associated with Modi and the state?

If they get a good ‘package’, they’d pick it up in the future when the T-shirts and the slogans are frayed and the management cap seeks out talking heads.

(c) Farzana Versey

Buoyancy vs. Vibrancy: Modi's Bubble

A Gujarati friend living in London was chuffed. "I think he's done it, he'll make it," she wrote. Her family could be here, but they are not. And will never. The excuse is "The children were brought up in a western culture, they won't adjust."

So, how globalised is it really? Many like my friend are mere cheerleaders. I avoided writing about it, but that note made me think.

Narendra Modi turned out in good form as a salesman during the recently-concluded Vibrant Gujarat Summit.

When a man hawking his state is trumpeted as hero, he is pushed into a slot. The background noises about Modi as national leader and prime ministerial candidate come from soothsayers, not pragmatists.

Modi has scuttled his chances at being a national leader, forget the candidate for the top job by acting as drumbeater. As he said:

  

"Once upon a time, Gujarat was the gateway to the Globe from India. Now it is becoming the Global Gateway to India. Gujarat welcomes you through open arms with this event which has grown far beyond the boundaries of Gujarat."

The statement proves just how regional he is. A good indication of a thriving global economy would be if migrants from the state have returned despite doing well abroad and not because of a slack overseas economy that forces them to invest in their roots.

For foreign investment, Gujarat has always had a thriving middle class. Modi has only given it a visible face, a name. He has made the trader his brand - marketing asmita, self respect. Curiously, this version of swadeshi is essentially based on a western model.

Much has been said about big business tycoons and their syrupy odes to him. Let us see what they really mean.

***

“I am proud to say that RIL is a Gujarati, Indian and a global company. We began from Gujarat and we come back here again and again to invest." - Mukesh Ambani

Indeed, Dhirubhai Ambani started from here. Their major benefactors back in those days were in Delhi. The AGMs of Reliance are held in Mumbai. They've built schools, hospitals in Mumbai. Their showpiece houses are in Mumbai. Their wives' promote cultural activities in Mumbai. They are not investing in Gujarat, but investing in property for their pollution-causing factories there.

***

"Narendra Bhai has been described in different ways. My personal favourite comes from what his name literally means in Sanskrit - a conjunction of Nara and Indra. Nara means man and Indra means King or leader. Narendra bhai is the lord of men and a king among kings." - Anil Ambani

This was probably the most treacly account, but we are a nation that deifies. Narendrabhai himself dresses up in mythological garbs and it pleases the junta, just as any road show would. Anil Ambani, like his brother, will pick and choose the options in Gujarat. They know they are the real kings, as Forbes keeps telling them.

***

“Gujarat has made a remarkable progress. We see almost every state embarking on an investors' summit now - a pro-active approach established with a walk the talk approach of the government here." - Adi Godrej

This is essentially playing politics. Investors' summits have often been organised by business organisations. You don't need a political leader for that. Giving Modi credit for it is the sort of palm-greasing industrial houses do before they get their files pushed. Here, it is a preemptive strike.

   

***

“There is something about the food in Gujarat that makes Gujaratis not just entrepreneurial but they are remarkably free of the fear of failure. And to me, this freedom from the fear of failure is at the root of entrepreneurship and innovation. In future we will talk not just of China model in India, but Gujarat model in China.” - Anand Mahindra

This is the consolidation of the state as a separate entity. When big industrial houses attend summits in Mumbai, do they reduce such talk to Maharashtrian food or the Marathi characteristics? No. It is redundant to their own aspirations. What Mahindra is in fact conveying is that this spirit was there before Modi and shall be there always.

The China reference was cheeky. China has gone ahead with its economy, but internally continues with its heavy-handed policies. It would be more than happy to clone any model and later make cheap fakes that will probably sell like hot dhoklas in Gujarat itself.

***

The state is an option like any other. Those investing here are contributing to its image- building much like a wedding family ensures a sturdy and trussed up mare for the groom to ride on to take back his wife.

Ratan Tata spoke about how he first did not invest and then he did, and is now convinced about Gujarat. He forgot to add that he was shunted out of West Bengal where he started his Nano project.

I felt a bit sad when Narendra Modi said in his concluding speech:

"All these people who are greeting us, trying to speak our language, they just want to be part of our economic success."

Foreign diplomats made the right noises and it was to ensure that the huge diaspora in their countries continues to add to the economy from their spice-laden havens in Wembley and New Jersey. Not in Jamnagar and Ahmedabad.

But it does not hurt to look through a bubble and see sudsy rainbows.

© Farzana Versey

Sanjiv Bhatt's Lost Rebellion

Sanjiv Bhatt with wife Shweta

There is a school of thought about fighting the system from within. It rarely works. The system eats you before you can even bring out your fork or finger it.

There is also the halo-giri, where it is assumed that the fight is being done for honour. One such instance is now before us.

Suspended Gujarat IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife Shweta on Friday announced that she will contest the State Assembly elections on a Congress ticket against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi from Maninagar constituency in the city.

This is most certainly not a decision she took on her own. She has the backing of her husband, who in turn is backed by the Congress now. I emphasise ‘now’ because he did depose before the Nanavati Commission against Narendra Modi when he, Bhatt, was part of the IPS cadre in Gujarat and wrote to the Supreme Court indicting Modi for complicity. He was suspended.

Shweta Bhatt says:

“We have moved far away from democracy in Gujarat and to restore it, everyone has to do whatever they can. Fighting election against Modi is the logical step in our quest for democracy and to curb anti-democratic forces.”

Electoral democracy means people going to vote and whoever wins is accepted. So Gujarat is a democracy in that limited sense. She could have chosen a word like secularism. Or even dictatorship. But, these are loaded terms and can apply to the party she is now with. By pitting his wife against Modi, he has lost the moral spine of a real dissenter. He stands bare, as one more opportunist willing to sleep with the enemy’s enemy.

Despite some obfuscation and delay on his part, Sanjiv Bhatt did offer a little hope for those who do believe the chief minister owes responsibility for what happens in the state he governs. In a state where Modi is master, the Congress has had no major role to play and, therefore, prove. It knows Modi will win. It does not matter whether they put up a lamp-post against him or Sanjiv Bhatt’s wife. That should concern the officer and gentleman. It will in no way help diminish the crimes he has been fighting against. If anything, he has placed himself in an awkward position where his wife losing could well be used by the Congress as evidence of martyrdom, of having suffered because her husband is a hounded creature.

Well, that is not the case. And Bhatt is probably doing this to keep his options open. A quid pro quo cannot be ruled out, with the Congress promising a Rajya Sabha seat or other goodies. These are political gains.

Modi must be happier than usual. The man who ‘took him on’ on a matter of principle is now playing ball on another court. 

(c) Farzana Versey

Sonia, Modi and Accountability

Narendra Modi is doing what he is programmed to do as a politician: rake up issues to show the opposition in a bad light. His latest salvo that turned out to be a whimper is to make public the travel and treatment expenses on Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.

The media has made it into a Modi versus Sonia war. The timing is obviously to cause some embarrassment, for Ms. Gandhi launched her party’s campaign in Gujarat today.  

The problem is that there is no embarrassment in politics – kickbacks and killings are par for the course. There is only one-upmanship. 

Sonia Gandhi in Rajkot...words, words

Ms Gandhi’s speech sounded rather lame:

"The Congress has laid down the foundation for growth in Gujarat. The Congress has tried to live up to its ideals, we have come a long way and still have miles to go. It is unfortunate that our opponents only see darkness and cannot see the development. The work the Congress has done for the development of Gujarat, no one else has done. The opposition always misleads people about our development-oriented policies. It is the habit of some people to take credit for the work done by other people, let them do it.”

This indirectly conveys that there is major development. People are not interested in who laid the foundation stone, how much money the Centre is pumping in. They see the glitz and the man with the Midas touch, even if it is fiction.

And then she went straight into the lion’s den without even realising it:

"The whole country is concerned about corruption today. We are too. The UPA brought in the Right to Information Act. People against whom there were corruption charges; the law has taken its course. I want to know what the BJP is doing about corruption. Why is there such a difference between their walk and talk?"

It is an RTI report that Modi has been flashing in public. The BJP may not walk their talk, but what happens to their allegations?

Indeed, Modi should realise that when he wants to target someone powerful outside his state he should come armed with facts that will not fall flat on their face. The bizarre figure spent he said was Rs. 1880 crore.

Ramesh Verma, whose petition, was used said:

"If Modi is referring to my RTI, neither have I received any such information nor have I leaked it to the media or any politician.”

Then, where did it materialise from?  The Congress has gone on the offensive on this slippery ground using invective to counter invective. If Modi is a liar, then nail his lie.

Modi with the other handy Gandhi

He is a shrewd player. It is quite probable that he used hyperbole precisely to get such a reaction. The Kapil Sibals, Manish Tewaris, Rajiv Shuklas are frothing at the mouth, and he is watching the fun. In fact, he has come forward with empathy:

"I say the government should spend as much amount as is required for treatment of Sonia Gandhi. We are for humanitarian cause. I would like to tell the PM to spend as much amount of money as needed but if people want to know the details of the expenses, should not the government give the details? Is it not the right of the people to know how much of their money is being spent? I am not questioning Sonia Gandhi. I am asking the PM how much money from the exchequer has been spent on Sonia Gandhi.”

There are some people who want to know: why now? Why did he or his party not raise the issue earlier? In fact, one is amazed at the media’s silence and ‘respect for privacy’ where Ms. Gandhi’s illness and trips abroad are concerned. Let us not forget that other politicians are made into public spectacles for their ailments, whichever party they belong to.

Modi may be using this time opportunistically, but is the query not valid? Why the secrecy about expenditure and trips made? I don’t think anyone should press for details of her illness, if this is a specific request. (In which case, the media should leave others alone, too.)

There is a suggestion that he won the 2007 elections by abusing Sonia Gandhi and is hoping it will work again. Much as I dislike his politics, Gujarat is in his pocket. The earlier abuse is replaced with a mix of concern for the nation’s wealth, at a time when the prime minister has just come out with his plan for the economy.

Sonia Gandhi’s speech has not helped. The Congress party spokespersons’ casual attitude could well be counter-productive outside Gujarat too when people have to shell out more for household items. If only they came out with a clear indicator, they’d earn goodwill and be seen as a serious political force, and not just a party of quiet hangers-on.

A few days ago, I got this email from a saffron party person:

"The latest India Today reports that Rahul Gandhi visited Singapore for three days to watch the Formula One race.  Since the race duration itself is about half-a-day, one has to wonder what exactly he did for the rest of the time.  Also, one has to wonder how the trip was paid for, since his wealth declaration, required at the time of filing the nomination to stand for Lok Sabha elections, indicates that he is a person of modest means."

Should these queries not be posed? Are they irrelevant to what else he does? In this case, it is possible that the F1 people invited him and sponsored his stay. It begs the question: Should a leader of a national party accept such freebies, if that is the case? Then, was not Narendra Modi invited by Gujarati businessmen in America? Expats have kept the Hindutva movement well-oiled. Almost all politicians make trips abroad; some take a huge entourage even on official trips. Industrialists lend their private jets. Helicopters are used for short sorties.

Where do we draw the line and for whom? 

- - -

Cartoon: Mumbai Mirror

Pix: NDTV, TOI

Noose for Modi?

The whole of India’s media is abuzz because Narendra Modi said, “Hang me if I am guilty”. This “candid interview” was given to Samajwadi Party MP Shahid Siddiqui, who is also in the news. It is interesting that he says the idea for the interview was hatched with some friends like Salim Khan and Mahesh Bhatt. No wonder Modi played the Bollywood plot.

Much is being made about this appearing in an Urdu daily, Nayi Duniya. What is so surprising? Urdu is one of the official languages of India, and it has little to do with Gujarat.

Modi and Siddiqui are entitled to their PR exercises, but this yogic meditation is absurd. Is Modi saying this to the Supreme Court? For all you know, he might be using this as a swipe against the new President who might have to entertain a mercy petition should such a sentence ever be pronounced. Modi has not dirtied his own hands, so this sort of declamation is just so much noise.

What we must take note of is the clause that if he is proved innocent the media should apologise for tarnishing his image. What exactly does this mean? Is he only concerned about his image? Is the media India? Even if some in the media do apologise, it does not count. He is answerable to the people of Gujarat, to the people of India.

And to those who think that giving an interview to an Urdu daily amounts to trying to win over Muslims, please do not forget the pamphlets that were distributed in the state in the local language against them, their culture, and a call to boycott their businesses. This man now talks about development of Gujarat when in 2002 a whole section of the population’s development was sought to be derailed, at a time when so many had lost earning members of their families, whose houses were destroyed.

Shahid Siddiqui and his band of filmi boys can go drum up a frenzy about this, and make it seem like he has done a huge favour, but if Narendra Modi has to apologise to anyone it is the people of his state, irrespective of whether he is personally guilty or not. All this happened when he was in charge and the noose was on his people.

Talk about hanging seems so churlish, if not insensitive, in the context.

Toppling Paper Boats: Modi At Sea

The red carpet walk where Narendra Modi pirouetted at the BJP’s national executive meeting was like a film star at Cannes endorsing a cosmetic company. It was not for a new film release.

If he was given the honour as the number one guy, it was just to keep the party’s face pretty. We will get to that in a bit.

His opponents are out of the woodwork. Two former chief ministers of Gujarat Keshubhai Patel and Suresh Mehta are helming what the newspapers call the banner of revolt.

Those in the party speaking against Modi are said to be close to Sanjay Joshi, an RSS leader who was a victim of Modi’s bullying tactics at the national executive. In their meeting, the dissidents spoke about an atmosphere of fear in the state. “A state of mini-Emergency in Gujarat is now being extended to the national level,” said Keshubhai, referring to Modi’s hustling Joshi out of the national meet…they felt BJP president Nitin Gadkari should not have succumbed to Modi’s blackmail or allowed him to hijack the party ahead of the Gujarat elections in December. Keshubhai, who yet again described Modi as a “dictator”, set the tone of the discussion, saying, “Crushing dissent is not the culture of the BJP or Sangh Parivar. We don’t want such despotic leadership.”

Why did they wait for the meeting to get over? Crushing dissent is very much a part of the Sangh Parivar culture; only, it is called party discipline. If it was all democratic, there would be a second rung leadership. Sanjay Joshi has become the rallying point because he isn’t big enough to be threatening. But don't forget he is a RSS man, and the RSS pulls the strings where the BJP is concerned where it matters.

They are talking about phone tapping. How is it then that Sanjiv Bhatt’s phone was not tapped when he says he has evidence of certain calls where Modi could be nailed?

It is surprising that they are complaining about it now when in 2008 Modi was all set to increase his spy network that would cost the state a staggering Rs 20 crore. Its main task was not to counter terrorism and foreign espionage. His spies were to watch every move of the state’s politicians, including the chief minister’s own men and rivals within the BJP, as well as prominent social workers and members of the business community.

Intensive spying by IB sleuths on local politicians at Modi’s behest have been doing the rounds since 2002, but six years later he increased it by almost 40 per cent. Around 400 government spies were active in the state and additional 93 spies were reportedly brought in from other departments or recruited afresh.

From Rs 17 crore spent every year on the spy network since 2003, the figure jumped to Rs 33 crore in 2008.

Politicians are an insecure bunch, and those like Modi use such blackmail tactics to stay in power and threaten people. It is entirely possible that all those who have been singing about economic development, including some Muslim businessmen, have been under such surveillance and just learned to keep their mouths shut.

Could Modi justify such expenditure? He is the one who rails against terrorism all the time, so why did he not deploy vigilante groups for more concrete efforts?

That is the point. I do not agree with this state of emergency in Gujarat extending to the national level. BJP president Nitin Gadkari knows that right now Narendra Modi is a good publicity stunt. The meeting was in Mumbai, and the message was not for the politicians of the party, but for the business groups in the city. Gujarat is the BJP’s piggy bank. Nitish Kumar may have streamlined infrastructure and made the backward Bihar liveable, and Modi has only added tinsel to gold, but the latter is, as I said in the beginning, a better photo-op.

Much is being made of L.K.Advani’s absence. Let us be pragmatic. Mr. Advani may not want a second term for Gadkari, but Modi is not his calling card. If anything, he has let a Modi flourish simply because the BJP needs a fishbowl. The senior leader is in complete command, as he was even during Atal Behari Vajpayee’s tenure as prime minister. He knows who to keep where. And Modi could push away a Sanjay Joshi, but not a Gadkari. This is the RSS at play, a game Advani knows only too well.

The more important point is that Modi has to return where he belongs. It is this sense of being rooted in one place that makes him both arrogant and insecure. His boasts are exaggerated and his fears result in paranoia about his own. Sometimes, I do feel a tinge of sadness for him. He has to live with so many ghosts and so many private moments grabbed from others. Does he have the luxury of a life of his own?