My view of a possible chasm between the political class and the voter on the question of seeking political mileage from communal violence met with a well-articulated critical response from Dilip in the comments section.
Today, I found some endorsement for my stand in the article written by Dipankar Gupta in Mail Today. Gupta is fascinated by the similarities in the electoral success of Vladimir Putin and Narendra Modi. He says: “Both are ruthless yet they enjoy enormous popularity. This appears contradictory. How can people forget Godhra? How can Russians forget Chechnya? Easy, just don’t think about it!”
Although Putin’s popularity is based on well-documented facts, Modi’s popularity, I would suggest, is the creation of the media. Gupta says Modi has set up small dams, hydel projects, better transportation systems and enterprises that spell jobs. Modi has claimed at the recently-held HT summit in New Delhi that Gujarat leads the country in power generation, in education, and water distribution, and school drop out rates are down to 3 per cent. The State purportedly has more than 18000 villages with uninterrupted power supply. Much of these claims is drawn from Ernst & Young’s Gujarat: Beyond the Obvious, released with State Government’s support in early October. For a critique of the Ernst & Young report, see this news item.
I have not found any serious examination of these claims of the State Government in the media, even in the context of the ensuing assembly elections. Therefore, I am eagerly awaiting the results to know whether the Modi got a mandate for his development agenda.
The purpose of this post, however, is to draw support for my thesis of a chasm from Prof.Dipankar Gupta. Gupta says:
In 2002, Modi just about made it as CM if one were to look at the percentage of votes received. In 36 constituencies it was neck and neck with the Congress. Then there were places where the BJP won by just 0.5% of votes. In numerous contests, such as Gondal and Jodiya, the BJP would have lost had the Congress, NCP and Janata Dal come together. That is why reports of Modi’s popularity today are all the more striking. If after riding the passions of the post-Godhra riots his vote share was not that impressive, how is it that today, many years later, when tempers have cooled, he is still so popular?”
Gupta suggests Modi’s continuing popularity rests on laurels other than riots, though it is true that he capitalized on the riots and got quite a bang for his money.
If I am correct, I cannot recollect any ruling party or a combination of parties in recent times in any State or at the Centre (except Left Front in West Bengal and Digvijay Singh in 1998 – there may be a few more exceptions) securing a second term at the hustings on the development agenda.
Chandrababu Naidu got reelected on development agenda. Shiela Dixit government in Delhi was reelected without any wave(Possibly due to development agenda). Left was not elected on development agenda. There is no comparative development in WB. Gujarat figures on any count Before and after Modi is impressive
Interesting article.His point about Modi’s victory in 2002 being achieved by a very narrow margin is of course consistent with YY’s observations that Godhra and its aftermath changed everything.
As you point out, Putin’s popularity is much better documented. Modi’s popularity in the survey, though higher than all the other CM contenders, was nothing spectacular and may well be lower this time around in the absence of any wave of any kind. Chandrababu Naidu’s popularity with the media did not prevent a washout in the last assembly elections (though he too, like Digvijay Singh, won a second term on a development plank).
I found Gupta’s analogy with Putin’s actions in Chechnya noteworthy. The widespread human rights abuse followed up with a massive reconstruction effort by his man Akhmed Kadyrov seems to have paid off (a link to a NYT news item is here). Does this mirror Modi’s own strategy? The election results might indicate what the people think.
On a completely different matter, the Hindu’s partisanship came to light again in its recent editorial lauding Putin’s relection. There have been numerous and consistent reports of Putin’s efforts to control the media, intimidate voters and use every instrument of State power to harass his rivals (several reports in the BBC, Guardian, NYT). Everyone agrees that he would probably have won without these excesses. Clearly though, his actions in recent times have ramifications far beyond the immediate and portend a grim future for democracy in Russia. And yet, there was not so much as a whiff of disapproval in the write-up (Even the reporting has been biased.The first edition made a bare mention about the OSCE report which appears to have been removed in the final edition). Instead, it was hailed as "promot[ing] Russia’s progress along the role of parliamentary democracy" (last sentence). If there is any residual doubt about the Hindu’s selective blindness to facts, this should settle it.
And yes: reading hindu is dangerous to the naive mind..haha
Have found its article on nandigram, nuclear deal(and also its cartoons) relying on blunt direct counteracts based on mockery than it’s classical ‘intelligent’ talk it used to give..