Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal.. 3 leaders... what morals?

India's moral compass swings widely

In the 66 years of independence, India has lived with a certain set of moral codes that called for respect of regulation, sacrifice for a greater good, duty towards society, accountability. An accepted definition of what was expected from members of society and from those in power gave the country its navigational apparatus and heroes. That definition allowed heirs to rise from the miasma to take over the reins when those in positions of authority stepped down. It also marked the scales on which people were measured and judgments passed. It is difficult to deny that moral codes were the cornerstone of trust between all parts of society, and the grease that allowed society to function.

There is a need for a new morality in India today, or at least for a call to recognize the new morals we live with compared with those of six decades ago. One may ask why, and the answer is simple, if we don't recognize new morals and spread them, the result can be unrest. Things are already changing in India - look at who we consider our leaders, look at who we put in jail. We get affronted when our film stars are held up at foreign airports and derive a sense of pride when citizens of other nations though of Indian ancestry achieve recognition in their country.

Our "philosopher kings" are businessmen who equate foreign investment with national prosperity, who see environmental protection and concern for the marginalized as being bad for the country. They decry government expenditure on the economically bereft while seeking tax breaks for themselves. We find solace in the deep voice of a septuagenarian who made his mark in the country's dream factory. We seek the counsel of the glitterati who tweet from their ivory towers and from TV studios far removed from the humdrum of daily existence. For what we value to change, wouldn't our moral scales have to change too?

The fallout
As citizens of a democracy, Indians have become inured with our choice of electoral candidates. They swing between brilliant home-economists whose assets magically increase annually and Houdini like magicians who can't be confined within the thick walls of a prison cell.

Though most citizens' views have gone beyond contempt for the politician, there is a burgeoning group who are now involved and committed. This is a class of people who not only have ideas on who should be in power but also do what they can to get these people in power. There is a meeting of minds here; the dreams of the common person and the politician merge. There is also a belief that these chosen ones can make such common dreams come true.

The triumvirate
Let's narrow down to three people on whom many pin their hopes in this year's general election: Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal. The three are very different politicians, heir socio-economic backgrounds, political philosophy, manner of functioning and experience all dissimilar. But they have one thing in common as the first surfers riding a new wave of morality.

Narendra Modi became the prime ministerial candidate of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) after stomping all over the patriarch of the party, Lal Krishna Advani. The very same person who stood by Modi after the 2002 religious riots, where many allege Modi played a role in the what can only be called a state-sponsored pogrom. His form of governance is held up as the way ahead.

For a party whose philosophical fountainhead is the desire to bring back Ram Rajya (something everyone is unsure what that connotes) and which speaks about Raj Dharma (rule based on spirituality and positivity), the Machiavellian machinations that went to create Modi were the very antithesis of their foundation. That the patriarch was discarded and shouted at goes against the Hindu dharm (respect for elders) that the party wishes to preserve and promote.

Then there is the whole idea of protecting the weak and the helpless, which is part of Raj Dharma. In the case of Modi, this was tossed out in the 2002 riots and continues to be ignored, with economic policies that has led to increased state debt, child malnourishment and low wages in Gujarat, where he is chief minister. Given all this, Modi is still a darling of the many. The very same people who espouse respect for the elderly and speak in glowing terms of India's past - and even the need to protect the weak - say goodbye to all this when it comes to bringing Modi as the nation's leader.

Is the new morality that allows support for Modi based on less concern for our elders and the weak? And if so, wouldn't this go against the many tenets of Hinduism, a religion (or way of life) that the BJP wishes all Indians to convert to?

Then we turn to Rahul Gandhi, the scion of a dynasty. While many of us speak against dynastic politics, we have no qualms in ensuring that wealth and power remain within the confines of our family. Most marriages in business families are fixed on the basis of love - a love of money and finding ways to increase it. Marriage ceremonies are a time to repay or exact debts. The power that congregates in one location during such occasions could create a new industry, light a city, bring down a government or even create a new one.

Given this state of affairs one wonders why many think awry of the "dynastic politics" of the Congress Party. How different is that from Narayan Murthy of Infosys bringing his son into the company as his executive assistant and then promoting him to a vice president? There was hardly a peep from the business community after this action from a man many consider to have sound ethics. Why shouldn't sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander?

So the second moral dilemma is the support by many for Rahul Gandhi as India's future prime minister. Proponents of that cause choose to ignore that Rahul, whose candidacy has yet to be declared but is widely regarded as a shoe-in, has absolutely no experience in politics or in working in government. The political statecraft that goes with such a position, along with the knowledge of the workings of the government and the country, is not easily acquired. It could be argued that his name and the experience of those working with him would pave the way for a successful stint as premier. One wonders, why is such an opportunity not given to others of the same age and similarly haloed backgrounds but of more experience?

The pertinent question here concerns the differing moral scales used by those opposing the Congress, but silent on other similar issues, and by those within the Congress who promote Rahul on the one hand and on the other do not give Rahul's party members similar opportunities.

Arvind Kejriwal, chief minister of Delhi and the force behind the Aam Admi Party (AAP), is a different kettle of fish. The reasons for his rise to power range from public disaffection with entrenched politics to a collective victimhood that is finally raising its head. During his journey to power he tarred all government institutions with the same brush - everything was dirty - and promised to clean up their mess. Having achieved power, he seems to have gone a step further and is now living by the "heads I win, tails you lose" philosophy.

Kejriwal seems unable to work with the power given to him by the people but undermines it by sitting in protest, a protest which has led to no resolution and instead is converting an inability to channel powers to make change into a form of martyrdom which allows him to continue functioning by attracting people's sympathy and even admiration.

The AAP leader, whom the party has yet to declare as its prime ministerial candidate, is a dream come true for Indians who in general have no love for authority or social order. Here is a man after their own heart, a man who though in a position of authority does everything to undermine it. The protest warms the cockles of the common person because they see a man with immense power acting as if helpless. So they believe he is still like them - an outsider fighting a firmly dug-in cabal.

No one questions the fallout of such actions - if people in power begin to protest in this way then what will the common person do? Kejriwal is destroying institutions without providing an alternative while also usurping public space used by the truly powerless to make themselves heard.

His code of conduct has not only diminished the office he holds by portraying it as one without power but has also left the common person bereft of means of communicating with higher-ups. Kejriwal has not shared his idea of what a leader should be and for what he should be held accountable, while he is simultaneously laying to waste institutions that have been the bulwark of society. So he has given himself an open canvas to do what he imagines to be right, which may soon inspire the common person to imitate him.

Though Kejriwal calls himself an anarchist he cannot absolve himself of the trust and the mantle of leadership that people have reposed in him through an institutionalized election process that he was part of, and which people believe in. Can an anarchist be a leader? It goes against the very grain of anarchic philosophy. Or is he using the term because he realizes that today most Indians don't know what it takes to be a leader and are quite happy with someone who can destabilize the establishment?

Society becomes redundant and dysfunctional in two instances - when it has no morals or when society's thoughts and actions far outpace its moral strictures. With Narendra Modi, Rahul Gandhi and Arvind Kejriwal we seem to have arrived at the latter. Their presence and their impact indicates that subliminally moral codes in India have changed. Isn't it time therefore that we shout it out from the roof tops and get everybody on the same page?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-01-290114.html

Look out for my soon to be published travelogue '1400 bananas, 76 towns and 1 million people'

Reasons why some Indians love Narendra Modi

A 'Modi'-fication' of Indian politics

 The first time the world heard of Narendra Modi was following a 2002 religious pogrom in Gujarat - he was then, as now, the chief minister of the state. It is alleged that he fanned the flames of hatred by permitting the bodies of brutally slain members of a fundamentalist Hindu group to be paraded, and that he told the police to "let the Hindus vent their anger" on Muslims.

Modi had of course taken an oath to uphold the Indian constitution, which includes the principles of protecting life and property.

The next time Indians heard of Modi was in 2010 when he was called in front of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) looking into the riots. He hummed and hawed for some time before presenting himself to the SIT. His mien was that of someone going on a Sunday picnic, the only people who looked a bit uncomfortable were his highly trained security.

Then there were the annual investors summits which drew in investors promising millions of dollars in investments to the state of Gujarat. The scene at such summits was reminiscent of those in Mumbai dance bars where men throw money on their favorite dance girl. Newspapers would announce the many deals swung in by the Gujarat government while Modi would look on benevolently like an omnipresent god.

In the last few years, Modi gained prominence for the much touted economic performance of Gujarat, and for unhinged attacks on Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the ruling Congress party.

As the man has grown from strength to strength his fan following has followed the same trajectory. Everyone from the top echelons of business to youth are in a state of awe, all hypnotized by his oratory skills which promise a better tomorrow - but make no mention of how. There is no doubt that as an orator he is in a class of his own.
 

 Tall tales and untruths
But that aside, there is a new aspect to Modi - his ability to tell tall tales. The Pinocchio side to Modi is slowly revealing itself both in the case of his economic policies and also the yarns that he has been spinning. The web of deceit spans the current to the past ie from Gujarat's socio-economic health to India's history.

For a state given as a glowing example of good governance, economic growth and openness to industry a recent Comptroller and Auditor General report stating that one out of every three children in Gujarat is underweight leaves one wondering what lies beneath good governance and economic growth. Even Gujarat's Women and Development Minister has stated that at least 600,000 children in 14 districts are malnourished, while data for the remaining districts were "not available".

Christophe Jaffrelot, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King's India Institute, London, recently wrote in an article titled "No Model State" that Gujarat's progress is because of the freebies handed to industry at the cost of the state exchequer. It adds the state's progress is fueled by huge debt which has grown from 45 billion rupees (US$8.39 billion) in 2002 to 1.3 trillion rupees today.

Then there is the case of the recent Modi fib that India's first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, did not attend the funeral of India's first home minister, Sardar Patel funeral. This was made at a public speech - and there was nary an apology when he was caught out nor was there any public outrage that a prime ministerial candidate could lie so barefacedly.

The man of the hour moved on nonchalantly to his next move. Modi's penchant to emulate Pinocchio does not seem to have affected his credibility because there have been no consequences - the affliction of a longer nose for every lie.

Maybe people know Modi lives in La La land but they don't seem to mind. The fact that he comes up with tales involving living people too which are actually figments of his imagination seems to indicate this - he recently said that he, the chief minister of Bihar - Nitish Kumar and the prime minister were at a meal together where Nitish refused to eat. Nitish clarified that such an event never occurred.

The business of Modi love
This does not seem to bother even the CEOs. One does not quite understand the love the business world has for Modi given the fact that if there was a scandal of the malevolent and Machiavellian proportions of the 2002 riots it is the CEO who would have to step down - because the buck stops at his desk.

There may be an iota of truth when one says that these scions of business wish that this "Modification" in politics trickles into the business world so that they are absolved of the irregularities and scams which form part of their business repertoire. However, it would be highly presumptuous to think that this is potent enough to sully their clear thinking. There must be something deeper that makes them align themselves to Modi.

Maybe they believe that with him in power there will be ease of doing business. However, this ease of business makes other people in his state uneasy. Though compensation for acquisition of agricultural land for industry is high in the state, farmers not willing to sell of their land are forced to sell at a lower price for not accepting the 'Consent Award' which is first offered. This form of land acquisition by the Gujarat government has got certain sections of farmers up in arms - most recently in the case of Maruti.

The CEOs could be besotted with another fact in Gujarat: the average pay is lower than the rest of India. According to the National Sample Survey Organization average daily wages for men and women in Gujarat are 276.48 rupees and 213.10 rupees respectively. The national average is 332.37 rupees for men and 253.02 rupees for women.

This is why business loves Modi - no demands for better compensation and higher wages. There is not a peep for higher wages - one wonders why? Is this what one means by creating a sound business environment which our business leaders hanker for?

One is not even going into the current spate of bloopers that are emanating from Modi - he recently got the name of Mahatma Gandhi wrong; earlier he got the names of past right-wing ideologues mixed up with those of respected and well known thinkers of a more liberal bent. This goes to show that Modi does not do his home work which seems to be a habit and could have major ramifications if he comes to power.

The common Indian's love for the man
Therein lies the issue - we humans are willing to sidestep issues of social morality to safeguard our future and herald a new personal dawn. Business is one side, there is then the individuals who seem to have made up their minds.

Modi symbolizes the freedom from and irrelevance of morality and personal accountability. This is the philosophy that draws the crowds - you may be a bigot and culpable of various crimes but if you are able to keep a section of people happy then nothing else matters.

This is an attractive proposition because it allows people to be two-faced or be a modern version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. They may be vicious rapists or murders or unscrupulous financiers, but if they seemingly maintain a socially accepted facade or observe the law on other small matters, then everything else becomes a non-issue.

Such a social concept is very Bollywoodian in nature - the hero may harass the heroine and even browbeat her but he still remains the hero and she still falls in love with him.

So taken in are the common people by Modi's oratorical skills and bikinied statistics that they transform into frogs of a tiny pond who know nothing of the wider world. Their belief in him does not stem from "there is still good in the man". This fact is easily recognizable because these people don't hold him guilty or even culpable for the Gujarat riots.

They are not concerned about basic socio-economic fundamentals of Gujarat that point to Modi's lies. To them these and the Gujarat pogrom are a non-issue, what is important is what he represents - standing up to authority and thumbing a nose at it; not being accountable even when facts demand otherwise and being able to strip those in positions of authority of all dignity with aplomb.

Worse still, the supporters of this man come up with the specious and wholly indefensible argument that members of other political parties have taken part in riots too; inadvertently giving the game away and pointing to his culpability.

Modi is a personification of what most Indians aspire to - being able to climb out of fetid waters smelling of roses; and having the gumption to mock those in power knowing that they can't reply in kind because of the position they hold.

This is the kind of freedom Indians seem to yearn for after being in servitude of monarchies and colonial powers. Modi represents a kind of freedom that is not guaranteed in the Indian constitution but what some Indians fantasize about - power without responsibility and accountability.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/SOU-02-271113.html