Just as there is no Modi model of economics, there is no Modi model of governance, if by model we mean something original that can be replicated.
Some years ago, in late 2002, a few months after the riots and a year after he had become chief minister, I visited Narendra Modi in Gandhinagar. On my flight returning to Mumbai, I was next to a middle-aged man who was interested in the device I was fiddling with, an iPod, which was almost unknown then. We got talking and it turned out he was an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, one of the secretaries in the Gujarat government. He asked what had brought me to Gandhinagar. When I told him it was to meet the chief minister, he laughed: “My boss (the minister) hasn’t had a meeting with Modi in six months,” he said. That was the first time it struck me that Modi was running a fairly autocratic administration.
The strongly individualistic style of Modi’s performance, in which he is uninterested and disregarding of the views of others, is thought to be his key asset in governance. The belief is that he brings something entirely new to government and that explains his success. I have been speaking to a few officers who are serving or have served at the highest levels in Gujarat’s bureaucracy recently. I wanted to learn from them what was unique about Modi’s government.
To know this, we must look first at how the old system works, in Gujarat and elsewhere.
The British system of administration has given India a powerful, non-elected bureaucracy. In it, the political system makes decisions, in which it is assisted by the higher bureaucracy, meaning IAS officers. Implementation is done entirely by the bureaucracy and this has led to the problem we refer to as red tape.
In taking decisions, officers in Gujarat told me, there was usually a free exchange of ideas in the time before Modi. Some named Chimanbhai Patel as the chief minister who had run the best and most effective administration. The cabinet met and agendas were fully discussed. Once the decision was taken (for instance, to privatise the construction of some state highways), the bureaucrats prepared a note on the issues relating to execution. From the lowest rungs of those working on the field, the note progressed up, till it was cleared, after being analysed at each level.
What is happening under Modi in Gujarat is that this consultation has ended. Modi decides something and instructs the bureaucracy to implement it. I asked the officers if this was unique to Gujarat. In reply, they said that such things happened in many states. However, in no state was the higher bureaucracy as totally disregarded as in Gujarat, they said. What had made this possible, I asked. It was easy for any chief minister to be autocratic, they said, because decision-making and implementation were segregated so clearly. But only Modi has chosen to do this to the full extent.
So, what did the bureaucrats think of this? Some of them thought that this disregard for their view was something they had to live with. They were not happy at their view being dismissed but they would carry on. Some of them had sided with Modi and profited in the way that IAS officers close to the elected officials do.
This seemed to me to be just a minor change in the functioning of the government. Were there any new systems that Modi had brought in? No, there were no new systems that had been put in place, I was told.
What had been the result of this? The officers were unanimous in saying that it had resulted in one-man rule. It is true that the files move faster in Gujarat than they do elsewhere because of the lack of consultation. But the dangers associated with dismissing opposing views remain.
What about the idea that there is something called a Modi model of managing the economy? Has he produced something that is radically different from before 2001? Of course not, and those who call his manner of functioning in this matter an economic model are basing this on insufficient understanding of Gujarat’s economic history.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 14th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
"Besides,the link u provided was an Q&A with someone who is a talk show host"
Like Najam Sethi and Hasan Nisar of Pakistan. How come then you adore these personalities for their honesty, intelligence, and integrity while look down upon an Indian journalist (Editorial Director, Hindustan Times), columnist, and media personality of similar profile. Or, when you praise Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, Kamran Shafi, and many others of the ilk, you never question about their background. I guess, for you the only credible are those people whose point of view matches with your (Hindus) narrative.
"He’s sceptical about a fact which was proved by Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 who proved that there was a temple in that place"
What the presence or absence of a Hindu Temple has to do with Buddhists and Jains plight in the hands of Hindus. Anyway, this is what ASI report says in the conclusion.
“So, the present excavation of Ayodhya confirms at least three different temple structures present underneath the disputed structure. The structure of temple 1 belongs to the cultural sequence of period VIII of the excavation of 8th century AD to the early medieval period; structure of temple 2 was of period XI of the 9th century AD, while the structure of temple 3 is of the 12th century AD in which foundation of the walls of the disputed structure were laid after cutting its floor and pillar bases,” said Prof Mishra."
1- Three different temples? So where is the Ram Mandir. 2- Even the oldest structure was constructed some 6,000 years later after the birth of Ram. 3- There is no possibility of correctly identifying the exact location of his birth place after passing of 6,000 years.
This was exactly what the Vir Sanghvi was pointing out.
"and the excavators included many muslims who made sure there werent any wrongdoing"
"three archaeologists — Prof RC Thakaran of Delhi University, Dr Jaya Menon of MS University (Baroda) and Prof AK Mishra of Dr RML Avadh University (Faizabad) — to have a close vigil on the excavation work which was carried out with the help of about 130 labourers, having an equal ratio of Muslims and Hindus."
@Lala Gee: Although I gave you the tool which would have enabled you to dig gold out of the mines yourself, but like a spoiled child you are insisting upon to be mouth-fed as well instead of making little bit of effort yourself
I believe in the world of Science,when you assert a claim,you have the burden of proof to prove it....
Suppose if I say Unicorn exists and you ask for evidence...its my responsiblity to show a unicorn to you,rather than u finding it....
Besides,the link u provided was an Q&A with someone who is a talk show host,not a historian...There are no footnotes in the page to assert what he said everything was right...because there is also another flaw in what he said
1. Was there a Hindu temple on this site? And was it destroyed to build a mosque? Ans. We don’t know. Archaeologists are divided on the issue and sadly, these divisions often reflect ideological biases
He's sceptical about a fact which was proved by Archaeological Survey of India in 2003 who proved that there was a temple in that place and the excavators included many muslims who made sure there werent any wrongdoing....
@VINOD: @Rakib: OK, Point taken. I should have been precise on how other religion came in to the subcontinent. Can i say at least that to an extend it happened this way.I hope we can agree to the line that Islam came in peacefully into South India & somewhat in a complicated way in North. Thanks both of you for the valuable info.
@thor: Dear thor, I slightly beg to differ with you on the point that Islam came to this subcontinent through invaders only. In fact Islam came to India much much before the Invaders came through Northern passes. South India had trade links with Arabs much much before and they had established mosques and spread Islam in ares like Malabar and beyond. Regards.
"Why cant you post the links which u think have credible evidence,rather beating around the bush everytime I ask"
Although I gave you the tool which would have enabled you to dig gold out of the mines yourself, but like a spoiled child you are insisting upon to be mouth-fed as well instead of making little bit of effort yourself. I won't be giving you the whole long list of links and references (though I have enough of the stuff to fill several pages - you have to trust me on that), I am going to provide you just one reference due to shortage of time. Read this column by Vir Sanghvi, "December 6, Ayodhya for dummies", printed in Hindustan Times on December 06, 2009. Here is the relevant part for you as you don't seem to have patience for some hard work.
"3. Wasn’t this terrible?
Ans. Yes it was. There is no getting around that. Religious tolerance was not always a quality prized by medieval Muslim warriors.
But let’s keep in mind that those were different times. There was an era when Hinduism had been eclipsed in much of India by Buddhism. When Hinduism made a comeback some centuries later, Hindu kings destroyed Buddhist monasteries, more or less throwing Buddhism out of India.
So nobody’s hands are entirely clean in these matters."
I am still willing to provide you, or anybody else for that matter, more details if asked, but in some another active OpEd.
@VINOD: Thank you, Sir! @thor: I am not trying to split hair (I fully agree with everything in your post & with views of VINOD) but to the best of my knowledge Judaism,Christianity & Islam (in that order) came in peace first to Kerala (& Zoroastrianism to Gujarat) before the various invaders. All religions came in peace & were so received. Trading between west coast of India & Gulf & Mediterranean ports predates both Islam & Christianity. Christianity came to India much before it was introduced in the British Isles or even many parts of Europe. Invasions & attendant cruelty are more strongly recalled because of traumatic, cataclysmic nature of such events.
@Lala Gee: Told you already, you need to learn. Google does not stop after displaying the first line.
Sorry,I'm not as intelligent as you to know that Google has more than 1 links...
ET doesnt have any problems in posting links...Why cant you post the links which u think have credible evidence,rather beating around the bush everytime I ask...
"Are you by any chance Zaid Hamid?"
LOL. My reply would be, keep guessing.
P.S. Sorry for noticing your comment so late though.
@VINOD: Agreed with you 100%.. Islam came in to the subcontinent through Invaders & Christianity through Britishers. I see no reason why anyone should disagree to the fact that present day Muslims are not the conquerors, they are sons of this soil and there forefathers were living in this subcontinent from hundreds of years even before the Muslims came. There are many factors on why people converted to Islam & Christianity & we should remember that conversion still an ongoing process in many parts of India. Religion has always been a personal choice, & it remains so. But we also have to agree to that fact that around the world, religion is also about power & every religious power tries to outdo their counterparts through different means.
"A sign of inferiority complex."
LOL. Look, how lucky you are! Being in majority, 76% has every right to have superiority complex.
"There I could get any specific paragraph which tells about any Hindu king committing genocide against Buddhists"
Told you already, you need to learn. Google does not stop after displaying the first line.
@ashok: We keep confusing between the Muslims who conquered India and vast number of Muslims who today live in this subcontinent. The present day Muslims are not the conquerors, they are sons of this soil and there forefathers were living in this subcontinent from hundreds of years even before the Muslims came. The basic ideology of Hindu Mahasabha.... RSS is flawed and there hatred is miss directed. Today's minorities are 100% genetically same as the majorities and the biggest truth is that we have to live and live together; the path of division in the name of religion or culture or language is a sure way to disaster and destruction of this Nation.
@Rakib: Dear Rakib Saheb, After a very long time I have read such logical and informative writing on a discussion board. It has given me an insight to understand the dogged attitude of Mr. Modi. I have a gut feeling that if he comes to power every one like MEDIA, judiciary, administrative services, police will have night mares. But those who will suffer most will be BJP party men. The people of India will cry and curse the day they voted for him. And all those who are dancing around him will see the silence of grave yards. You have rightly said " A monochromatic RSS doesn’t permit Reconciliation. RSS doesn’t like its hatred to get diluted. It never apologises for anything ever. That’s sign of weakness for a macho ideology! Modi the Pracharak (demagogue) has a vested interest in schism."
@1984 Now you are using other’s answers as piece of evidence…Bravo again!!!!
A sign of inferiority complex.. He believes others are far more credible than him
@Strategic Asset: ( However, I prefer to look at individuals rather than parties. Right now the only thing that scares me more than Modi coming to power is Rahul Gandhi becoming PM.)
As you know Indian voter can at best elect an MP, not a PM. Some make it appear as if it is a presidential election with Modi & Rahul as candidates & voters are going to directly vote for either of the two. That is a sensation-loving media's creation wanting to turn Raisina Hill in to Capitol Hill. I note that you want to vote for the individual, may be even Modi, once you make up your mind, and not necessarily the party. Possible only if you live in the yet-to-be-declared constituency where Modi will stand for election in 2014. Voting for the individual instead of Party is only a wish. If you discount "Independents" the voter has no choice but to vote for a candidate put up by some party or the other,thereby endorsing willy-nilly that party's ideology.
@Lala Gee: I did check "Google" as every layman would and the query "reasons for decline of Buddhism in India" led me to a Wikipedia page.... There I could get any specific paragraph which tells about any Hindu king committing genocide against Buddhists...However it talks about a certain "Mahmud of Ghazni",Muhammad of Ghor,Muhammad Khilji, are mentioned.
Unless you suggest that these historical figures are Hindu kings,there are no evidence per-se which suggests of a Buddhist genocide by Hindus.....
Now you are using other's answers as piece of evidence...Bravo again!!!!
All the anti-Modi Pakistanis as well Indians, the fact is - love him or hate him, he has virtually changed the whole state of Gujarat and it is now one of the fastest developing states in India, right after Maharashtra. Also, to all you "Hindu-hating" Pakistanis, BJP sometimes makes issue of Hindutva especially during elections, but it is all a publicity stunt for votes. You should know one thing - after a long while, India and Pakistan's peace process were started during the time BJP-led government under Atal Bihari Vajpayee was ruling India. India's constitution does not allow religion to interfere in the activities of the state. That is why, inspite of all the hatred you might have for BJP/RSS for being "anti-Muslim", it is only all talks. Besides, BJP has recently (about an year ago) changed itself into a Secular party and also has few Muslim party workers now. If you were to believe this, India right now needs a leader like Modi to fix its problems in the upcoming years. And not only India, Pakistan TOO needs a Modi to fix the nation. Because, even though India has some grave internal problems, Pakistan has become a total disaster compared to India. A recent news article on ET said on national government level, Pakistan loses ~209 billion Rupees annually (every year) because of all the corrupt politicians.
"still waiting for ur links and book references for the Buddhist genocide by Hindus"
Here is the most wonderful link anybody could ever give you: "http://google.com/". It will works like a charm for any queries you might ever need in your life, including the "reasons for decline of Buddhism in India" (just ignore what Hindu historians say to get to the truth, as offenders cannot be their own judge). However, you have to learn how to use this link, and I am honestly hoping that you won't ask me to teach you that as well, as any wise person would already know that this forum is not an online school teaching how to Google. Perhaps joining some school may help.
In the meanwhile, until you learn how to Google, here is a snippet from another article explaining how the Buddhist population vanished in India from 40% to near zero (I could have told you all this myself, but it would be unfair not to give credit to @Ejaaz, and perhaps would also come under plagiarism). .................................................................. Ejaaz Jun 15, 2013 - 2:58PM @Gaurav. very convenient to lay the blame on a single person. When nalanada was raised buddhism in India was already in decline. Historian SR Goyal attests this partly to the hostility of the hindu priestly class of brahmans. In addition, the kings Gauda and Sunga were already burning down stupas as well as killing monks well before the Islamic conquest of India. By 8th century CE, buddhism was already on the down foot (the time of Adi Shankara) .................................................................. Gp65 Jun 15, 2013 - 9:38PM Ejaaz: you are not wrong that some Hindu kings were intolerant. But they are not our heroes unlike Bin Qasim and Ghaznavi who are yours. ..................................................................
Hoping you will never need to ask me again for online links and references.
This is for Lala Gee.
Willliam Durant in his epic "The History of Civilization" has dedicated a chapter about "Mohammadan Conquest of India" and has described the cause behind the disappearance of Buddhists first from north India. You can also read the burning of monks and Nalanda University in East India, the most reknowned repository of Buddhist learning established during 600 BC, done by Muslim invaders in 1192 under Bakhtiar Khilzi, a Turkic General from Ghor Afghanistan; this event is seen as a final nail contributiing in the decline of Buddhism in India.
@Rakib: I have been trying to get a better sense of the candidates for the next election, but unfortunately cannot see it your way. Bear in mind that I am a minority myself. By your logic, I should never vote for the Congress since one of its leaders was the only dictator we have known in India. The Congress should be saddled by history and we should all remind them of their shameful role during Emergency. However, I prefer to look at individuals rather than parties. Right now the only thing that scares me more than Modi coming to power is Rahul Gandhi becoming PM.
@Lala Gee Perhaps this would help quench your curiosity for something new. Taken straight out this Wikipedia entry “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#India” provided by @Gp65: some time back in support of her arguments. I added nothing from myself.
Unless you are suggesting that Narendra Modi himself committed all the rapes,I just cant understand how that is related to this article.....
BTW,I love how you divert topics,still waiting for ur links and book references for the Buddhist genocide by Hindus
@Chethan: Little knowledge very dangerous. How can he rope best IAS officers from India please tell?
@Strategic Asset: Pointing out more matter based on Internet links is difficult. I know what I know simply because I know Gujarat. It's a mistake to think of Modi only as BJP.. You can't understand Modi unless you understand RSS & his role in it. He is a lifetime RSS which is far more important a body than BJP.. A political party is never rigid, it makes adjustments. An apparatchik of a patriarchal, regimented body makes no compromises. An average Gujarati BJP-wallah is both pragmatic & emotional. He knows how to quarrel, he knows how to make-up. Revenge & Reconciliation. that's how Gujaratis have managed their diverse society for so long. A monochromatic RSS doesn't permit Reconciliation. RSS doesn't like its hatred to get diluted. It never apologises for anything ever. That's sign of weakness for a macho ideology! Modi the Pracharak (demagogue) has a vested interest in schism. Once a year Gujarati Jains that outnumber Muslims say to each other & to everybody "Mitchhami Dukkadam" in Pali language. It means "Forgive Me" if I have hurt you knowingly or unknowingly. Even non-Jains say that to each other. All that it takes for Modi is to do what normal Gujarati do. Modi is not the one to say so. He lacks grace & like all bullies lacks courage to say sorry & take responsibility for failures of his subordinates.
His supporters make song & dance about "no-riots-since-11-years". Fact is, he & RSS dare not start it. International media is watching him with hawk's eye & only a hair's breadth separate Milosevic & Modi. The West, much accused of being anti-Muslim, is waiting for a chance to nail some other Islamophobe to earn a few brownie points from domestic Muslim population & countries. Modi doesn't know how to make peace with Muslims at large (a few Dawoodi Bohras & Khojas garlanding him means nothing) & Muslims worldwide will not let him be at peace if he becomes a PM & shows signs of cracking up. His hubris & arrogance will damage India & that's a pity since the man is quite efficient in his own way. Let him not reach his level of inefficiency by being made a PM...
"Strange again, you summarised Pakistan in very few words"
I fooling your own self makes you happy, I am happy too.
@Lala Gee: Sorry for responding so late. The simple answer to all of your questions is: when you live in a glass house, you don’t throw stones at others. Simple as that Thanks for your reply. Strange again, you summarised Pakistan in very few words .
@Strategic Asset: Dear Strategic Asset, I thank you for courtesy of replying my post. Well you may be having reasons for not posting your name and address, I have no such issue. Would love to be on your mailing list. Now coming to the point raised by you. 1 "How many people should you consult? Is there a limit?" Sure there is. It will depend on the office a person holds and the nature/level of responsibilities he carries. Even the Queen of England or President of America have their cabinet and executive staff to consult with. A democratically elected PM is also only "First among equals" and not a Feudal Lord/ Dictator whose "wish is a command" These are the people about whom one should be careful about. First sign of such people is that they think no end of themselves and sincerely believe that they are the solution to every problem. Like you,I have not only liked bold and clear decisions but also, throughout my career have done so. But there is a vast difference in a bold decision with consideration and consultations with concerned and a bold decision depending on self glorification. You listen to all the speeches of Mr Modi it is only I did this I did this and I did this. As you have not made up your mind I am in the same state. Any way please read about Hitler coming to power.Thanks again.
"@Lala Gee: quite curious , I have been more of silent reader but have been reading your comments often and it makes me wonder ,,,,"
Sorry for responding so late. The simple answer to all of your questions is: when you live in a glass house, you don't throw stones at others. Simple as that.
I am amazed to see, how much Indians love someone involved in a massive genocide. Now I understand the reason behind so many separation movements in India.
@Lala Gee: " ... I understand your (Indian Muslims) compulsions, but had had the people were so noble, then what was the need for a separate country for Muslims? ... "
That is a question you should be putting to the Muslim elite who got you Pakistan.
"Do understand the meaning of NEW?"
I am sorry if that information didn't turn out to be new for you, personally. I was already suspecting this and that is why I mentioned "or perhaps not, and they already know all this". After all, 76% is quite high a probability to know, personally, My mistake.
@VINOD I despise those who keep posting on discussion boards with hidden identities
On the Internet???? seriously???
@Lala Gee: I agree with you that Secularism has to be adopted in true spirit. In a democracy one learns to tolerate the intolerable so long as the other party hasn't broken the law. From my point of view Hindutva is a pernicious ideology practiced by vicious men of perverted intelligence. But, that doesn't make it illegal or unconstitutional. Believe me, if Hindutva were to be unconstitutional by now there would have been a spate of PILs in Supreme Court & BJP would have been derecognised long time back. Issue is of definitions. It depends on how one defines Secular, which is a Church related word, in the Indian context and what does one understand from Hindutva. Both have to be only as per the Indian narrative & only so.
I can't impose on ET to hold forth with my views on definitions.I tried to define it in previous post but then I had to edit out the para for the sake of brevity. Indian State has no religion, interferes with none & has no opinion on any religion. It is not concerned with the Hereafter. Do Hindutvas claim that if elected to power they will change that & make Hinduism faith of the State? Not to my knowledge. If I say Hindutva is not the same as (or even similar to) Hinduism the religion, not many non-Indian/non-Hindus will get it. Even some devout Hindus confuse the word with "Hindu-Sattva" that is, Essence of Hinduism. If I say to such men that Hindutva is un-Hindu enough to negate every tenet of Hinduism they will howl in protest.
Neither Hindu nor Muslim nor Sikh parties need be banned. Banning will only make martyrs out of them & popularise them. They need to be countered, ridiculed, defeated at hustings & disgraced. But hounded, never. That's my opinion.
A stupid, illogical and biased article by Aakar. Lets take his arguments one by one. 1]Modi taking all the decisions in an autocratic way:- A state like Gujarat has around 18 ministries. How can one person take all the decisions? It would be impossible even for a super computer to keep track of all the projects going on in his state. Politicians rely on skilled bureaucrats for all the technical details of project. They can understand that there is a power shortage and need to build new power stations, but beyond that they will not have a clue on what kind of power plan, what capacity, place to build etc. and these details are always filled by bureaucrats. Modi is no exception. But what Modi has changed is that, he has roped in some of the best IAS officers in our country and he has given complete support for them to bring out the reforms. For Manjula Subramanyam, an IAS officer who was very capable, but badly treated in New Delhi was appointed as secretary for energy and power by Modi and gave her full freedom and in three years, Gujarat was power surplus and first state in India without any power-cuts. There are lot of examples like this, But it looks like whoever the higher bureaucrats that Aakar mentions looks like some bunch of losers who are whining after they have been sidelined due to their mediocrity.
@Lala Gee Perhaps this would help quench your curiosity for something new. Taken straight out this Wikipedia entry “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#India” provided by @Gp65: some time back in support of her arguments. I added nothing from myself.
Do understand the meaning of NEW?
It is already mid-night, so I will be very brief. This is what you wrote a few weeks ago on June 15, 2013 7:35 PM in another article: "Many tend to consider “Secularism” and “Tolerance” and related Inclusivism, Pluralism and Eclecticism etc to be synonyms. They obviously aren’t. Tolerance is a trait. Secularism is an ideology.". Well, if Secularism is an ideology, then what is 'Hindutva'? Isn't it an opposing/different ideology? An ideology at cross with Secularism which is guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. This is what I was referring to in my comment.
Moreover, you seem to be still living in a non-existent ideal world, and trying to defend it based on whims rather than reality, and that too despite admitting the fact when you say "Hindutva mobs delivering mortal blow to very ethos of Secularism that is central to idea of India". I understand your (Indian Muslims) compulsions, but had had the people were so noble, then what was the need for a separate country for Muslims? I could only prey that the people of both the countries realize sooner than later that the only way forward lies in adopting and implementing Secularism in its true spirit, at least while dealing with its citizens rights.
@Rakib: I generally find your views illuminating. For the past few months, I have been seeking information regarding Modi with an open mind. You made a certain statement in your post, could you please point me to more matter regarding it apart from the oft-repeated one? Thanks.
@Lala Gee: Indira G. added the Word & it became by Law & then it was a competition among Parties to out-secular the other! Today in India everybody has claim to Secularism!! It is both fashionable & necessary even for religion oriented party to call itself "Secular" & the other a "Phony" or a "Pseudo". It has become an epithet almost! No one among them was out there defending the rights of Muslims when Babri mosque was demolished in 1992 by Hindutva mobs delivering mortal blow to very ethos of Secularism that is central to idea of India. Both Congress at Centre & BJP in U.P. State failed India. What irony! We now have only epithets to throw at each other about who is more or less Secular or Communal.
And yet, Democracy, which has a precedence over any "ism" should not ban or muzzle voices. Constitution bars neither BJP nor Shiv Sena nor Akali Dal (Sikh) nor Indian Union Muslim League,All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham etc. What is not allowed by Election Commission (EC) is soliciting votes based on religion or bad mouthing another religion. Some years ago Bal Thakre of Shiv Sena openly asked for votes based on Hindu religious sentiments. That charge was proved & he was debarred from contesting elections for six years. Some similar punishment may come the way of Akbar Owaisi of Majlis too if he doesn't shape up. Modi has never publicly solicited votes based on religion or has condemned Islam or Christianity though he clearly hates Muslims. To avoid issue with EC he used to couch his hatred in euphemisms. He is too smart to get caught. But then that is the tragedy that a noble idea is followed in word & not in spirit, much less in deed.
Hope lies with the native wisdom of our masses who know the value of syncretic culture & interdependence & old fashioned tolerance & mutual respect. Due to them India is bigger than the sum of its parts. A few individual flotsam & jetsam of politics may come & go; the majesty of Idea of India shall remain undiminished.
@VINOD: How many people should you consult? Is there a limit? Should we have a country-wide referendum on all governmental matters? Should we seek consensus and only then proceed? No, I do not agree with you. Unlike you, I prefer a leader who takes bold decisions (of course within the framework of the constitution) and is willing to face the flak in case those decisions peter out. . I have made it clear at the start itself, that I am keeping my options open. What it means is that I have not made up my mind. Comparing Modi to Hitler takes your argument into the realm of the illogical, hence I will not comment on it. But I do know that the current government and the PM to me looks like Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. . In Kerala, it was well-known when A. K. Antony was CM that any person could put a stop to any project by simply writing a letter to the CM regarding financial impropriety in that project regardless of whether that was true or not. The CM would immediately suspend the project and order a probe whose report rarely saw the light of day. Contractors who succeeded did so by bribing almost everyone they came into contact with while many others incurred losses. Is this the environment you are seeking? Then nobody will invest. . Regarding not showing my name, suit yourself. Would you care to post your full name and address here? I won't.
what a pathetic article.
@Lala Gee: II Indira G. added the Word & that is Law & then it became a competition to out-secularise the other! It was the great Akbar who had said that "in India everybody has a claim to divinity". Today in India everybody has claim to Secularism!! It is both fashionable & necessary to call oneself "Secular" & the other a "Phony" or a "Pseudo". It has become an epithet almost! Neither was out there defending the rights of Muslims when Babri mosque was demolished in 1992 by mobs delivering mortal blow to Secularism. Both Congress at Centre & BJP in State failed India. What irony! We now have only epithets to throw at each other about who is more or less Secular or Communal.
And yet, Democracy should not ban or muzzle voices. It's dangerous. Indian Constitution bars neither BJP nor Shiv Sena nor Akali Dal (Sikh) nor Indian Union Muslim League nor All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen nor Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham. What is not allowed by Election Commission (EC) is soliciting votes based on religion or bad mouthing another religion. Some years ago Bal Thakre of Shiv Sena openly asked for votes based on Hindu religious sentiments. That charge was proved & he was debarred from contesting elections for six years. Some similar punishment may come the way of Akbar Owaisi of Majlis too if he doesn't shape up. Modi has never publicly solicited votes based on religion or has condemned Islam or Christianity though he clearly hates Muslims. To avoid issue with EC he used to couch his hatred in euphemisms. He is too smart to get caught. But then that is the tragedy that a noble idea is followed in word & not in spirit, much less in deed.
Secularism is not a routine ideology or an ideal. It is a necessity for India. IMO, there are three Indian ways to look at it.(1) The Agnostic's Sarva Dharma Nirapekshata (Indifference towards all religions) (2) The Theist's Sarva Dharma Samabhav (equal attitude towards all religions) and (3) the noble Gandhian Sarva Dharma Sahishnuta (Total Empathy with all religions). We have failed all ways & frittered away our heirloom. Only hollow words remain.
And yet hope lies with the folk-wisdom of our masses who know the value of syncretic culture & interdependence & old fashioned tolerance & mutual respect. Due to them India is bigger than the sum of its parts. A few individual flotsam & jetsam of politics that are currently occupying column-space may come & go; the majesty of Idea of India shall remain undiminished.
@Lala Gee: You have a very strange name which does not reveal you identity. One thing I have observed is Pakistanis never check facts before commenting. Secularism orginally did not exist in Indian constituion . It was added by Indira Gandhi when she lost popularity to get muslim votes. We are having parties like Muslim League which are communal but still they call themself secular. If BJP talk of Hindu , it does not make them non secular. Our secularism means respect for all religion unlike western form of secularism where religion has no place in security.
"Excellent observation. Should’ve been obvious to all, but perhaps they believe more in luck, unlike the West. What you think they put ban on Modi out of humanitarian compassion? They think much ahead than our imagination would permit us."
I had asked this question the other day. Moderators thought it was offensive and it wasn't allowed.
Are you by any chance Zaid Hamid?
I ask this because, you write lies and conspiracies very well. With a lot of confidence and little to no grammatical mistakes.
Also, I ask this because, perhaps, Lala Gee is a pseudonym chosen by Zaid Hamid subconsciously. Mind you, he has an obsession with Laal.
Lal topi, Lal saffron band, Heera Lal...etc
@Strategic Asset: Dear Strategic Asset, I despise those who keep posting on discussion boards with hidden identities.To day we are well aware that Mr Modi has invested huge amounts in hiring very efficient agencies for image building and launching a campaign to project himself as a very efficient and progressive person. You have very emphatically said "I do not agree that as a leader that you have to consult with everyone." Please look into history, all the autocrats and dictators like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and others who adhered to this theory only brought disaster, misery and destruction to their people and their country. There is no doubt that Mr. Modi is a great megalomaniac and thinks himself as the most wise,knowledgeable and authority on every subject from history to education systems, economy, security, defence, foreign relations, world affairs to name some. Such people with an exaggerated sense of self importance are pure poison. Hitler with his oratory, arm twisting tactics, and kicking emotions against a community succeeded in capturing power but what did he brought to his people. Sir, I would request you to read in detail all available material about Hitler coming to power and you will see very striking similarities. India is a multi culture, multi religious country that has lived on the basis of unity in diversity.
@Optimist: These people were dictator and not democratically elected unlike Modi. so please stop comparing if you dont know the difference between dictator and democratically elected leader
@Rakib: Looking forward to the second part of your post as promised.
@Rakib: Well said Rakib one needs to have a secular mindset and not be secular by law .
@Lala Gee: I simply fail to understand how any party other than the Secular parties could even be allowed to participate in elections in open violation of the Indian Constitution
Following is only an opinion: The idea of India takes precedence over any ideology. India is first & foremost a Democracy. And then everything else, including Secular. A democracy shouldn't deny space, despite aberrations, to any political party which generally believes in peaceful democratic process to pursue its own ideology. For the Founding Fathers India was a "Sovereign Democratic Republic" & that's how the Preamble remained for first 25 years. Only in 1976 the superfluous words "Secular Socialist" were added by Indira G. to the Preamble. Constituent Assembly (1946-49) was proper both in its rectitude as well as in humility while setting its priorities. That is, it did not commit the nation to a particular religion nor did it bind future generations to 'no-religion' or any ideology.. Certain things are best left unsaid, & Nehru was a master of that. He was familiar with paradoxes like a Monarchy that ran on democratic lines thru the oldest Parliament, which had a State religion and yet was Secular in its administration but had no written Constitution even!. India the Democratic Republic peopled with multitudes that were divided on religious lines & yet united would surely run its affairs out of necessity & instinct for self-preservation on Secular lines without being commanded to do do so. That's how probably the dreamer that Nehru was, thought, and that's how it has run & IMO, he was right.Can't ram secularism down the throat of all. And yet fact remains his daughter thought otherwise & she added "Secular" & what about that done deed now?(p.s. second part will follow if permitted.)
The fact the likes of Patel, teh Congress, Mayatai and many more are already ranting, raving and sweating tells me that there is something about Modi winning that scares the daylight out of these guys. Modi is any day a much better bet as compared to Rahul Gandhi and his poor momma, Mayawati,, the corrupt Indian Congress party, and the bleeding herat liberals. My vote and votes of millions like me will go to Mr. Modi only whether Patel and his agree with Modi or otherwise.
@Lala Gee: quite curious , I have been more of silent reader but have been reading your comments often and it makes me wonder what makes you so fanatic and hateful towards India ? Lets assume everything you write about India is true and it's land of all vices does that makes Pakistan any better ? My dear its just another way of satisfying yourself by portraying someone lowly than you and refuse to look into weaknesses inside yourself or your country . Are majority of Pakistanis like that ? An alien race that is so superior and above all vices or master of whole world ? Yes , I'm Indian but I do admire courageous girls like Malala or many other Pakistani women who are fighting the battle against fanaticism. There is nothing easy than finding faults with others, go through internet you may find more negative material about India to satisfy your false ego .
"Just as there is no Modi model of economics, there is no Modi model of governance, if by model we mean something original that can be replicated."
Simple answer, for running a government without corruption you don't need new idea, you only need honesty.
I don't think you are a Pakistani otherwise you won't be praising Modi. Modi's state is not what it seems through RSS propaganda. . He himself once said that 80% of Muslims in Gujrat don't have toilet and their women have to go outside for toilet relief. He said: 'where is Muslim's shame now'. . He makes fun of poverty of Muslims in Gujrat.
Aakar let me tell you another story when i was in mumbai for my interview of ifmr chennai which was conducted in kj somaiya i was amongst intellectuals and i knew everyone will ask about namo was asked by my parents to be calculated with my words so a guy strated speaking about how gujaratis work so as always at last he not me went on topic of namo he told me which was opposite of what you say that any ias officer can go in his room to complain about something or for some suggestion believe me i have may friends who work in sachivalaya (legislative and executive office of gujarat) and they say that if a file is pending for 7 days and is of public welfare you have to explain for the delay and during vibrant summits he himself works till 2 am and with him whole of office that's real modi we live here we know his work and seen our state develop like anything.
"A combination of arrogance, autocracy and big powers in New Delhi can be detrimental to India’s future."
"It can be very beneficial to India’s future also if Modi remains incorruptible and keep India’s interest at the center of his policies."
"But to me, it looks like the toss of a coin. It could go either way."
Excellent observation. Should've been obvious to all, but perhaps they believe more in luck, unlike the West. What you think they put ban on Modi out of humanitarian compassion? They think much ahead than our imagination would permit us.
@Rakib: Thanks, appreciated.
"I simply fail to understand" how any party other than the Secular parties could even be allowed to participate in elections in open violation of the Indian Constitution......."
"Tell us something new"
OK. No problem. Perhaps this would help quench your curiosity for something new. Taken straight out this Wikipedia entry "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#India" provided by @Gp65: some time back in support of her arguments. I added nothing from myself.
1- Rape cases in India have doubled between 1990 and 2008
2- India is a destination for child sex tourism, as laws are rarely enforced in such cases.
3- 20% of men admitting to forcing their wives or partners to have sex against their will.
4- Closely knit family life in India masks an alarming amount of sexual abuse of children and teenage girls by family members.
5- Delhi based organization RAHI says 76% of respondents to its survey had been abused when they were children - 40% of those by a family member.
I think the above facts are new to most of the Indians, or perhaps not, and they already know all this. Let me me know if this served your curiosity or not.
@Lala Gee I simply fail to understand
Tell us something new
A Gujarati Muslim on Modi listen to the other side https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1WFaJ9GtaU
@Rakib: Thks for the correction
May I know whom does Sonia consults to run the country???
we want narendra modi to become prime minister of india,,,,in some times autocracy best,,we r tired of these sycophantic congresss,,we want the man who rules india like a grandprix car ,,not with a walking stick like congresss!!i think modi's win is inevitable!!!
@jssidhoo: He mentioned "iPod" (not phone) & that was launched in 2001.
He said he had iPod not iPhone.
When you are no one, mud slide on some one to become one. :-)
I don't care if he runs an autocratic administration, as far as he is running it well.
Power corrupts. Absolute...
You know how the line goes.
This is what scares me about Modi : autocracy. I want to vote for him. But his autocratic ways can be very dangerous.
To top that, let's not mince words in saying that he is quite arrogant.
A combination of arrogance, autocracy and big powers in New Delhi can be detrimental to India's future.
It can be very beneficial to India's future also if Modi remains incorruptible and keep India's interest at the center of his policies.
But to me, it looks like the toss of a coin. It could go either way.
I simply fail to understand how any party other than the Secular parties could even be allowed to participate in elections in open violation of the Indian Constitution which guarantees Secularism would be the only way of governance. Either the Hindutva parties are fraud and defrauding their voters, or the Indian Constitution is a fraud and a cover-up. It is just like Taliban declare themselves Secular, or the Pakistan government declare herself Secular government in the presence of discriminatory laws.
@Parvez: You make an astute observation Sir! Aakarbhai is a shrewd Gujarati & I think he is playing a wonderful game of his own survival in the jungle. As a media man Aakar knows virtue of paradoxical marketing of "brand-Modi" by using reverse psychology. A controversial Narendra M. is a better read than a wishy-washy Rahul G. anyway. For Modi even negative publicity from a columnist leading to heated arguments among readers is beneficial. It's beneficial to the columnist too! Aakar has begun well considering our desi Antony has a full election-year ahead to deliver his speech: "I come to raze Modi, not to praise him".
It is impossible for one person to run a municipality single handed, let alone a whole state. This seems like an attempt to portray Modi as another Hitler. This isn't the only one either. There are others also who are working to this end. Since it is your hearsay evidence against mine, here's my two bits. I spoke to a Gujarati only last week and he said that the governance was fine and Modi was fine too. "Wo na khud khaata hai aur na khaane deta hai," were his exact words. Perhaps that explains the frustration among certain IAS officers?
Wikipedia says the first generation iPhone was launched in the USA on 29/6/2007 if that is correct then how did Mr Patel get one in 2002
NO WONDER people support Modi so much in India because of his administration skill.
Honestly We badly need ruthless administrator and quick decision maker like Modi in all state of Pakistan if we have to be out of present economic mess and dark future of our country !
Even after 65 years of independence our leader can not provide basic necessities like water,electricity,education to half Pakistan. I read that Modi's Gujarat is only electricity surplus state in India which provide 24 * 7 power to its people ! I dont see that happening in Pakistan in next 50 years !
Maybe u also need to tell your readers that out of the 1059.64 MW of solar power produced in India 709.54 MW is produced in Gujarat all of which have been installed in Modi's time here is the link http://urvishdave.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/list-of-solar-projects-installed-in-gujarat-state-wise-installed-solar-projects-in-india/
A PM/CM,s responsibility is to provide jobs so that the common man can have roti kapda aur makan . For jobs u need development which is not the agenda of the bureaucracy they just want to push files . You write a lot about Gujarat why not a article about the lack of corruption in Gujarat as compared to other states and the center .
Mr. Aakar Patel, who probably hasn't ever created a single job, a single opportunity or a single dime in wealth has suddenly become a management guru. As they say, those who can do, those who can't preach. Looks like Modi critics are scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to come up with new stingers.
India's current PM has a management style known as "deaf-mute". The policy paralysis in New Delhi is well known and has as a far larger impact. I don't think Mr. Patel has ever commented about that.
Pakistan mostly had such rulers (like Ayub, Zia etc). Such rulers are dangerous for the country. . Even if we progress under them, the moment they are removed, we start paying a heavy price for generations to come. . Autocracy perfoms better while things are under control (like Egypt)!!
Only interesting information of the article: Mr. Aakar Patel had an iPhone in 2002.
This came across as a very cleverly written piece........are you for Modi or against him ? I think you're for him because you build him up as a dictator who gets things done.......someone the public can relate to.
Aakar Ahmad, we have heard enough about Modi from your and others articles on a daily basis. And we appreciate your input. For comparison purpose we need to know what you think are the possible alternatives for India voters. Could you write one article on Congress's party's style of leadership such as MM Singh, the current PM and Rahul Ganghi, the future PM or Sonai Gandhi, the real PM?
CONgress does not deserve to rule anymore.
At least Modi's existence keeps Aakar Patel employed
Get a life Mr. Patel! Achieve something like Mr. Modi has achieved and then start criticizing him.
Did u checked any identity proof to know whether he was actually gujarat cadre ias officer. And what is the proof that you are saying truth? And if actually this is truth, i cant believe you waited for 10 years to reveal this story as you said you met this so called fictional officer in 2002.
what is wrong with you aakar,one week it is pro modi,the next it id anti...make up your mind my friend otherwise you will lose all credibility
we have seen too much consultation and no descision under congress.........the economy has slowed because of that..........The so called policy paralyses.
Too much consultation=more bribes for ministers and babus........ Mr patel should also write about the model in which Prime minister is run by a party President......
@Author: With less than a year to go for the elections, I like many Indians are keeping my eyes, ears and options open. . However in reading this article and your previous ones, why do I get the impression that you have started writing based on hearsay with accounts by others instead of what you have experienced yourself? This article began with a good premise. You were on your way to meet Modi way back in 2002. What transpired when you met him? I guess I shall never know. . I do not agree that as a leader that you have to consult with everyone. You do need to take dissenting opinions, but leadership is never fully by consensus. A leader takes a decision and sticks with it. There will always be those opposed to it. Take the case of the Kudankulam Nuclear Plant. Has the current government taken the consensus opinion of the protesters? Then why the charade and delay for so long? In the case of FDI in retail which would have singlehandedly boosted foreign investment, created tens of thousands of jobs and set up a cold chain, the current government has vacillated for so long that even companies like Walmart have begun to lose interest.