On March 10, 2014, I came across a rather interesting article by one Thane Richard about India crossing the moral line if it elected Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of the country. I was bemused reading some of the assumptions that he made through the course of this article.
He starts by quoting a lady who expressed a certain point of view and “fears” that the same view will be shared by most people who vote for Modi. This is the most absurd assumption that I’ve seen in the recent past about the Indian voters. Does he mean to say that all the people in Gujarat that voted for Modi share that point of view and are immoral as he suggests. He then compares the debate over Modi’s guilt to the debate between Delhi and Mumbai. The frivolity of this argument lies in the fact that he disregards the SIT report, the lower courts verdict and indicates that he has come with a certain mindset that refuses to change. Will he have the same view on similar cases worldwide? Was the ‘moral line’ crossed when the US citizens voted for Obama in spite of his policy in Syria which resulted in a civil war-like situation that resulted in women and children dying? We are talking about a thrice elected Chief Minister of a State. The argument is reduced to accusations based on a preconceived point of view which is used as an excuse to pass erroneous judgments against Modi.
“It is also said that if Modi walked into a Press conference and confessed to all the crimes that he is guilty off then…” — What are the crimes that the author is talking about? He has never been chargesheeted and there is no prima facie evidence to file an FIR against him. There is not a shred of evidence that can prove his complicity, yet this stick is sought to be used to beat the riot issue.
When people supporting Modi say that they stand for development, it’s not development over riots, it is development in spite of riots. Gujarat has always been a communally sensitive State. The author blatantly ignores the history of riots in the State prior to 2002. Successive Congress Governments had failed to prevent riots in the state. More than 40 riots had taken place before 2002. Since the 1960s, the State has seen a slew of riots but not a single riot after 2002.
In 2002, the Army was called within 24 hours and help sought from the neighbouring states, which were congress rules, was repeatedly denied. This has been reported in the SIT report as well. Since 2002, the State has been calm and has seen prosperity and development of all communities. Growth has been universal throughout the State. The Jyotigram Yojna does not differentiate between religions when it provides electricity to the entire State. The women’s welfare schemes, e-governance models, and SWAGAT, are all examples of good governance where the entire State is taken along. But obviously facts mater zilch when the author has taken a certain position against the person concerned.
Next, the author goes on to compare Modi with Hitler not directly but by alluding to it. Nothing could be worse than that comparison. The author writes about Modi as if he was not anywhere on the national stage for 12 years and that the State of Gujarat was somewhere out of India. I agree that governing India is not exactly similar to governing Gujarat, a lot of challenges will lie ahead and a lot of troubles will be in store. But not once is Modi’s development record mentioned, not once is it mentioned that the all the communities in the State have seen development.
Gujarat is not a perfect State and neither is its development model perfect. But to disregard all the good work that has happened and evaluate the candidate based on perception is not acceptable. The author says that he is not willing to give Modi the learning curve. Modi is the only candidate for the Prime Minister’s post with a proven record. The other options lie between a clueless heir, an anarchist thriving on entertainment and regional leaders who have no vision except ambition. The author is willing to make allowances for all these candidates but his tolerance ends when a proven administrator is named as a candidate.
The process of reconciliation in Gujarat has been underway for some time now. The Chief Minister hasn’t demonstrated a single instance in the last 12 years where he stands for a particular community or against a particular community. In spite of this, vested interests continue to propagate half truths under the garb of ‘ethics’ and ‘morality’. Activists like Teesta Setalvad (whose associates have questioned her and who has court cases against her) along with officers like Sanjiv Bhatt (whose wife, contesting on a Congress ticket, is taken as fighters for truth and justice). When these activists make baseless allegations against Modi.
People who have voted for Narendra Modi have not crossed the moral line. Nor have the ones who will vote for Modi. As a Gujarati, my head hung in shame when those 59 people were burnt alive in Godhra as well as when Gujaratis died in the riots. I still consider them all Gujarati victims of tragedies as Gujaratis unlike the author who chooses to classify them by their respective communities. My faith in my country’s system remained strong when it sentenced the perpetrators of the riots to prison.
No moral line was crossed when these people were sentenced, nor was it crossed when Modi came back after winning a thumping majority. The supporters of Modi go by the mantra of ‘India First’ and will continue to do so because they believe he represents the hopes of 1.2 billion Indians. And if the author of the article believes that these Indians, after respecting the Indian judiciary’s verdict and choosing to come out and vote for Narendra Modi as PM, are crossing a ‘moral line’ then the author is wrong. One cannot disrespect the law of the land and believe in democracy at the same time.
Originally published at : http://www.niticentral.com/2014/03/12/thanedar-richard-keeper-of-indian-morality-199335.html
No comments:
Post a Comment