This Election has degenerated into a slug fest involving all political parties. Every party is leaving no stone unturned, no punches reserved, and is actively engaging in a no holds barred verbal combat. Amidst all the cacophony, two things stand out - a. Every Single Party opposing BJP, or more particularly Modi, are working towards just one goal - Stop Modi. Stop Communal Forces. b. BJP and Modi is all about one man - Modi himself.
Everyday, I find one or the other article quoting the above two by the respective sides of the political divide. This two part post tries to look as to why opposing Modi appears to be on a flimsy platform, and why he should become the PM of India. Having said that, Modi is second on my list of preferred PMs. The Iron Lady from South still ranks first. Atleast based on what I have seen in the past two years.
Knowing very well that JJ cannot become PM of India, and her own aspiration is nothing more than pipedream, it basically leaves us with just Modi. I frankly don't think any other person is even half as fit as him to be the PM. Though I do find many of speeches reeking of hollow rhetorics, looking at the other aspirants, I am motivated enough to consider him the best bet for the India PM Post.
Look at the two of other aspirants - Rahul Gandhi and Mulayam Yadav. Imagine their faces. Now enough. That's motivating enough to forget them, and pray against them becoming the country's top man. Just imagine RG embarrassing himself and the entire country he represents with his dimwitted answers operating in an endless loop. And Mulayam Yadav.... Enough said about him. Arguably, the most eligible person for the Most Opportunistic Indian of the Century Award, nudging out Lalu Yadav, Paswan, Ramadoss et al.
What are the primary arguments against Modi becoming PM -
a. He is communal.
b. He is not Secular
c. He will divide the country.
d. He snooped on some woman.
e. He did not acknowledge the existence of his wife.
f. He refused to wear skull cap and therefore has insulted Muslims.
g. He is dictatorial.
h. He is not the best CM since Gujrat was already growing before Modi came into picture, and that there are other states that grew faster than Gujrat.
Let me check if any of the arguments can be held against him in a realistic and rational sense -
a. He is Communal
Fact is that every person who treasures his religious identity more than his personal identity (defined based on what he does), is communal. An Islamic Imam is communal, because the way he dresses obviously presents him primarily as a Muslim and that he is proud about his identity. Similarly, a Brahman who smears the Shaivaite Mark or a Vaishnavaites Mark on his forehead presents to the whole world his identity as a Brahman, and that he is proud about his identity. So is the case of a Missionary Nuns and Fathers and Pastors etc.
This pride could probably stem from their belief that they belong to the perfect or the most respectable community or religion. And that their religion and its prescriptions towers over all other religions of the world. They would relate to their own 'ilk' better, and would ideally deal with their 'kind' of people, than others.
Is Modi Communal? The answer is yes and no. He is because he takes pride in his Hindu identity and RSS roots. He is not because he doesn't roam around carrying that as his principal identity. Every talk of him primarily projects himself only as an efficient administrator, somebody who would get things done, rather than somebody procrastinating over simple things for years. When somebody who presents himself with that kind of identity, that of a doer, one that is based on projecting his efficiency and skills, I don't hold that person to be communal. He cannot be communal.
b. He is not Secular
Secularism is arguably the biggest joke of our country. The conventional understanding of Secularism and the Indian understanding of Secularism would pretty much convey where we stand and why many of our leaders would believe they are secular.
Secularism in the strictest sense is the principle of separating Government Institutions and people entrusted with Governance and mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. Public activities and decisions should not be influenced by religious beliefs and practices.
And the Indian understanding or the Indian Politician's understanding (probably driven by our own Constitution's misdeclaration of Secularism) is defined as thus (Wikipedia)
Secularism in India means equal treatment of all religions by the state. Unlike the Western concept of secularism which envisions a separation of religion and state, the concept of secularism in India envisions acceptance of religious laws as binding on the state, and equal participation of state in different religions
Most Indian politicians think that "not siding with the Majority Community" is Secularism. They'd believe that supporting and siding with the religious minorities is Secularism. The Indian definition or the Indian Politician's definition creates a moral obligation on every citizen of this country to not to be seen as siding with the Majority Community. The Indian definition operates on that moral fear, and probably casts an obligation on the citizen to "disown" their majority community identity to hold oneself as Secular.
Most politicians think that wearing a skull cap or sharing the dias with some Minority Leader and wishing people on the various festivals and sanctioning big budgets and all such minority appeasement is Secularism. Needless to say, most of these buffoons have no idea what Secularism is all about. If only they had known, the rather infamous Shah Banu case and the resultant enactment of a law to nullify the Supreme Court ruling wouldn't have happened. For most of these idiots, secularism is opposing Modi. How much stupid can one get?
Modi has repeatedly highlighted that for him Secularism means "Country First". This is not the smartest of the definition, but definitely holds far better base and substance than the one that is professed by his rivals.
c. He will Divide the Country?
The biggest division this country has ever seen was presided over by Chacha Nehru and Father of the Nation Mahatma Gandhi - both of them Senior Congress Leaders. The second biggest division was probably presided over by Rajiv Gandhi and Arjun Singh and Sonia Gandhi when they ferociously pursued their Mandal agenda and went ahead with Reservation in Higher Educational Institutions. Independent India's youth were divided like nothing else before by these developments.
Enough media writings and reports are available evidencing that states ruled by parties other than BJP, but including Congress, have a far worse track record when it comes dividing. The Dravidian Movement in the South is a case to the point. UP of the modern day is another case to the point. Delhi 1984 is another. Telengana 2014 is the most recent contribution of the Congress to India. No. I am not talking about carving out a separate state, but the uncanny ability and shameless audacity to go ahead with the separation purely on political grounds of winning some seat in the 2014 Elections.
As on date, the albatross of 2002, and his refusal to accept responsibility by symbolic apologizing (he is right in being that way), is the only thing that Media and Congress and the opportunistic parties such BSP and SP, and the unproductive souls of CPI have been harping on. When the entire atmosphere is vitiated by repeated rhetoric "opinions" holding Modi guilty is freely broadcast, people are bound to take sides - those who believe him and believe int he Supreme Court appointed SITs conclusions, and those who refuse to accept SIT or any investigations.
If the Country is divided on his name, it is not due to him. It is divided by his opposition. It is divided by the Media who are in some kind of rat race to somehow find something on him and bring him down, and thereby stake claim to be the most secular and righteous entity ever. I don't hold Modi responsible for dividing India. He will not. He will instill fear in those who attempt to. And those who are attempting it are the ones whose survival depends on it.
d. He snooped on some woman
All that I have to say on this is - Please don't try to fan a fire when there isn't even a smoke. All that you have is some dead wood, and a dead end. A Non Story. Nothing like the sleaze associated with a certain very famous and tall Leader of the past of the ruling party. Nothing salacious like the ones associated with Abhishek Singhwi or ND Tiwari.
[To Be Concluded in Part 2]