Book extracts from Hasan Suroor’s Making sense of Modi’s India

A congress of party workers protesting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi Amid rising communal tension in Dadri days after the public lynching of Mohd Akhlaq Dadri in Allahabad. Amar Deep / Pacific Press / LightRocket via Getty ImagesShow less

Is personality politics new?

With record levels of voter participation – in some states over 80 per cent with the national average in the high 60s – Modi dominated the election narrative. Anecdotal evidence and press commentary suggest that Indians craved a strong leader. It is in this context that he was, and is, compared to other strong world figures, mostly to Thatcher and Hitler. Others argue that Modi has much in common with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, a comparison that goes well beyond a shared pride in their manly chest sizes.

The instructive comparison, though, comes from India’s own democratic history. Indira Gandhi destroyed the internal structures of her own party, which had not taken her leadership candidature seriously, and emerged in the early 1970s as the first person after independence to be completely identified with India. She cast herself in opposition to a sinister ‘foreign hand’, which became an excuse for remodelling India’s politics and its institutions. In government, the executive arrogated powers for itself that have endured ever since. Party bosses and big men, or the ‘Congress system’, as it was quaintly called (these were people who had converted an anti-colonial movement into a monopolistic powerhouse) were all suborned to take part in the cult and charisma of Mrs Gandhi. With a heady dose of populism and authoritarianism, she ensured that the party, the nation – even dissent itself – were all identified with her. Slogans such as ‘Indira is India’ were only matched by the urgent, if unheeded, calls to ‘end poverty’. The twin themes of economic development and political violence were as dominant then as they are now. In overwhelming a tired and fragmented Congress, she redirected and controlled its political fortunes, and India was transformed in the process.”

This extract is from the chapter “Modi and the Rise of Personality Cult” by Shruti Kapila

___________________

On diplomacy abroad

The consensus in Western corridors of power appears to be that whatever the unease about Modi’s conduct as chief minister [in Gujarat in 2002], it is indeed necessary to move on. The much expressed concern about his alleged culpability [in deadly riots] may make him determined to avoid any further communal violence on his watch. And an Indian leader who wants to strike a new, more positive note in his country’s engagement with Western powers needs to be met halfway. Narendra Modi has got off to a good start, and those major countries such as Britain that didn’t host him in his first year are anxious to do so. But to build on the buzz that he has undoubtedly created, there needs to be more substance to his diplomacy. The biggest game changer in India’s foreign policy in recent years has been the civil nuclear deal with the US which Manmohan Singh’s government saw through, not anything that Modi has achieved. He needs something to blog about which merits more than 140 characters.”

This extract is from the chapter “Modi’s World Beyond Selfies and Tweets” by Andrew Whitehead

___________________

Extremism versus secularism

The political rise and election of Narendra Modi as prime minister of India aroused anxiety in India as well as in Pakistan. Many Indians feared an onslaught on the secular values enshrined in India’s Constitution. Pakistanis were wary, given Modi’s anti-Pakistan, anti-Muslim history.

But while Modi may symbolize divisive forces in India, as prime minister he must deliver on the development agenda for which he was elected, and distance himself from the ‘saffron brigade’. In the long run, the deep-rooted democracy in India, for all its aberrations and weaknesses, is likely to eventually neutralize sectarian elements and prevent them from imposing their agenda.

Communal forces in both India and Pakistan broadly mirror each other. Extremists on both sides equate religion with patriotism and are quick to accuse others of being traitors or anti-religion. As much as there are lessons for Pakistan in India’s democratic political process (barring Indira Gandhi’s Emergency rule, 1975–77), India can also learn from Pakistan’s experience, where injecting religion into politics has led to disastrous consequences.

This extract is from the chapter “View from Pakistan: ‘Religious’ Politics and the Democratic Political Process” by Beena Sarwar. All extracts reproduced with permission of HarperCollins Publishers India.