Fiasco of Modi at Wharton - Rajeev Srinivasan

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/03/05/fiasco-of-modi-at-wharton-52433.html

Fiasco of Modi at Wharton

By

Rajeev Srinivasan on March 5, 2013

 

 

Now that it is official – Narendra Modi is no longer invited by the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School to their India Economic Forum to be a keynote speaker – it occurs to me that the whole thing could have been foreseen. Indeed, I was mildly surprised when I first heard Modi had accepted the invitation – what about his visa, I thought to myself. In fact, I thought this whole thing was going to end in a fiasco, remembering how Subramanian Swamy had been summarily despatched by Harvard, and how Witzel has mocked Indians.

The outcome could not possibly have been any different, considering the dramatis personae – the Left-lib types in academe, the religious fundamentalists, the US Government, and the Government of India. All of them have acted perfectly rationally, as per their points of view and their objectives.

First, the leftists. The Left-lib types are on the ascendant in US universities, and they are feeling their oats as their favorite, Barack Obama, handily won election last year, and has appointed two Atlanticists as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence. It is not a conjecture that the halls of academe tend to be full of very Left-leaning people, who are far more leftist than the average citizen. This is as true of the US as it is of India.

In India, I have been appalled at the kinds of opinions held by faculty at one of the most prestigious colleges in the country, where I taught for a while. These people were dismissive of points of view that did not fit with their comfortable axioms; I also suspected they got their views by just listening to some TV anchor – it was so superficial and incoherent. And this at a top-rated school; I dread to think of what it must be in lesser schools.

At Stanford, I have found a palpable hostility to Indian, specifically Hindu, interests. Now Stanford, partly because of the gravitational pull of the conservative Hoover Institution on campus, is relatively less leftist. Yet, there too there is animosity – it is perhaps the conservative Christian hostility to anything other than its own dogma. In any case, a clique of far-leftists, including an execrable group of Indian communists, have hijacked the agenda there. Most Indian-origin people invited to lecture there are fiercely anti-Hindu, if not anti-India too.

So you can't win. It is either the holy-rollers intent on 'saving' the pagans by taking their land away from them; or it is the leftists intent on spreading their wacky ideas for world conquest. Christopher Hitchens, in another context, quoted Dante Allighieri who said that "the Pope was fornicating with the Emperor". Similarly, here it is the communists fornicating with the fundamentalists. India is the easiest target as it is full of fifth columnists.

Second, the Islamists. They, too, see themselves on a winning note in the US, as they have an immense, and rather baffling, ability to intimidate, browbeat, or guilt-trip people, as and when required. There are entities such as CAIR that forcefully push the Islamist agenda. Besides, if the stick doesn't work, there is always the carrot. Just look at how much petro-money Islamists are willing to throw around, especially on campuses – Faigate, anyone?

Let us also remember that it was a Hyderabad, India-born Muslim librarian at MIT who spearheaded the earlier campaign to deny Modi a visa to the US. He was attached to the Aga Khan Foundation. The idea of keeping the Modi/Gujarat riots issue alive is to reinforce their positioning of Muslims as 'victims' almost by definition. And we all know that Westerners, ignorant of the situation on the ground, can be induced to support ridiculous positions if these positions are well-marketed: As happened in the case of Binayak Sen, saint and healer.

Third, the US Government. Obama has decided that all his vaunted bipartisanism is for the birds, now that he never has to stand for election again. His brinksmanship on the sequester, as well as his naming of John Kerry and Chuck Hagel shows that Obama does not plan to compromise (of course except where he is forced to).

It is a fact that America has been defeated in Afghanistan, or is pretty close to it. They have to declare victory and run like hell. It has become a tar baby for them, and they simply want to exit, having accomplished nothing other than spending a trillion dollars and having thousands of their soldiers die. They want to walk away, and the simplest thing to do is to leave Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the Pakistanis.

Of course, the Americans brought about their dependence on Pakistan through their own orneriness. If they had not been so dogmatic about Iran (okay, admittedly Iran is a dubious ally, but it is not possible to find a more dubious 'ally' than Pakistan) they could have cut Pakistan out of the loop entirely by approaching Afghanistan from the west. As things stand, they have to swallow their pride, even though it is plain as daylight that Islamabad is playing a double game, and mollify Pakistan.

And what is the Americans' favorite mechanism to please Pakistan? Why, giving them Kashmir (that was Chuck Hagel's preferred solution as he held forth in a Press conference). The small matter that Kashmir is not theirs to give away is a minor detail. Nor does it matter to them that, like Oliver Twist, Pakistan will never be satisfied, but will keep asking for more.

Finally, the Government of India. In many respects, it is the real culprit. It may well be happy that this issue is diverting attention away from the many scams coming to light, and also from the rather brutal Budget that was presented just a few days ago. Very convenient to act all pristine and chaste and feign injured innocence. It may even have initiated this diversionary tactic. Well, even if it didn't, it is quite capable of diversionary tactics – remember how the gravely ill rape-victim was flown to Singapore to divert attention.

The Government of India, specifically the Congress, is also demonstrating that it remains deathly scared of Narendra Modi. They have tried every trick in the book, and even set up an official Dirty Tricks Department (or words to that effect) to denigrate Modi. Their attempts at tejovadham are going nowhere, but they do not let up on the constant propaganda. They have at their service a truly motley crew of characters: Angry Dancer, Police Officer 1.0 and 2.0, Ex-Babu-Now-Saint, and the allegedly Witness-Coaching Activist who was told to keep away from their locality by the victims who were allegedly being helped.

The irony is that this may become one of those stories with unintended consequences. The real losers may well be the Left-lib types. I am reminded of Oliver Goldsmith's 'Elegy on the Death of a Mad Dog': This may come back to bite the Left-libs' posteriors. Here is what the elegy says:

But soon a wonder came to light,
That showed the rogues they lied:
The man recovered of the bite,
The dog it was that died.

That may well be the epitaph of the story. It is Wharton, and the Left-libs and their fundamentalist pals that are facing the fallout. The serenely unconcerned Modi may well benefit from this incident, wherein he was plainly wronged.

 

Rejoinder to “Reinventing Narendra Modi” – by Dr Hilda Raja

This is in reference to 'Reinventing Narendra Modi' by Arati R.JERATH(March 6th TOI) (article given below ) The dynamics of reinvention is essentially the making of the media and of writers who does not spare a chance when it comes to bashing Modi. Modi will be Modi and cannot be Vajpayee and surely that is not called for. Each one has one's own  background, learning experiences and perception to deal with the problems of Indian politics. Vajpayee had his own. I would not want the same of Modi because times have changed. Each leader leaves his/her own footprints in the sands of time. Why should one fit into the other? If Modi invocated Vajpayee as his role model he had the right to do because Vajpayee is his leader.

Modi from what one perceives is capable of handling two constituencies-namely the core Hindu support and the 'multiple disparate ego-centric regional satraps'.Vajpayee had his own ability to draw a consensus. He yielded easily to these 'ego-centric satraps'. The DMK joined the BJP for all its anti Hindu stand when Vajpayee most willingly offered the plum post of a Cabinet minister to Murasoli Maran. When on the death of the latter the BJP refused to take his son Kalanidhi Maran as a minister then the DMK withdrew its support calling the BJP communal. Similarly with Mamata who was roped in by yielding to her whims and fancies and offering plum posts. This is what Vajpayee did. May be Modi will have his own way of dealing with the coalition partners.

Today what India needs is a strong Prime Minister at the centre who can withstand the combinations and permutations of coalition governance. Nobody appears on the political horizon with a wealth of parliamentarian experience. One learns in due course by dealing with problems and governance. It is a bit strange that the media and Congress considers Rahul Gandhi  fit for the PM's post when he has none of the stature,  sharpness and vision for such a job. The one fact being that he is Nehru-Gandhi family. Still the fact that he is even considered shows that no eligibility or criteria of abilities, perception and political acumen are called for.

How effective will Modi be is to be seen. The test of the pudding is in the eating of it. He has been effective in whatever he has so far undertaken. He certainly does not need to fit himself in the shoes of Vajpayee because he has his own. He does not belong to the dynastic category to fall back on his grandmother and father. He is on his own. A self made man. More important he belongs to the ordinary class/caste. And hence he understands the problems of the ordinary.

The Gujarat riots are the only sad episode that is being held against him. Even here it is prejudice and a double standard that is being applied. Why Rajiv Gandhi was not made accountable for the Sikh massacre? Why was the Congress an acceptable political party to govern this country when it failed not only to protect a minority community right in the capital but its leader even  went to the extent of justifying the genocide? Its leaders who indulged in brutality and in massacre were rewarded for this. How has the media taken to this? How have writers been soft pedaling this issue?

Why only Modi is being arraigned for something in which the courts have not found him guilty? Is the Congress and others afraid of having a strong man, a man courageous in words and actions-whom writers term as 'muscular brand of politics' unacceptable? Do we need a soft approach-some blue eyed mamma's boy so that the country can be continued to be looted and expose the country to scams on every aspect of governance. But then was there governance at all with the UPA 1 and 2?

Call it dictatorial but a firm and strong man/woman we need at the helm of affairs if the wrongs has to be righted and if right has to be upheld. What Modi can dream of doing and not doing is his business. It is unfair and illogical to prejudge. As one sees Modi is the right man for the top job-if he thinks he needs to reinvent himself-reinvent he will. He has the ability and the foresight to meet challenges and accordingly act. Is this worrying the Congress and a few anti-Modi-writers? He will carry everyone along with his governance-the majority and the minority but he will at all costs uphold the Constitution of this country.

Dr Mrs Hilda Raja,
Vadodara

 

*******************

From

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/paint-it-black/entry/modi-is-trying-to-cast-himself-in-the-vajpayee-mould-but-he-lacks-the-necessary-political-virtues

 

REINVENTING NARENDRA MODI

By

Arati R Jerath

 

It would have been amusing if it weren't such a travesty. Narendra Modi's invocation of former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee as his ''role model" at the BJP's just concluded national convention not only struck a false note, it smacked of blatant opportunism.

The faithful and the committed fell hook, line and sinker for Modi's fulsome praise for Vajpayee's moderation, as is evident from the adulatory res-ponse of his mesmerised audience. But the tension that marked the Vajpayee-Modi relationship in the aftermath of the 2002 Gujarat riots is too well documented for this belated appreciation to be anything more than a hollow ploy to widen his constituency.

Politicians are entitled to reinvent themselves. And because we live in an era of instant coffee, they believe, perhaps, that masks can be worn and shed at will and images changed with the wave of an adman's hand. Modi has clearly decided to cast himself in the Vajpayee mould for his march to Delhi. But can he abandon the muscular brand of politics that has served him so well in Gujarat and made him a runaway success with the BJP rank and file, for the conciliatory approach that made Vajpayee an effective coalition leader? Can he shrink his 56-inch chest and soften his machismo to deal with the likes of Mamata Banerjee, Mayawati and Jayalalithaa?

The harsh truth is that despite the hype and the crescendo of the Modi worship in urban India, the BJP is simply in no position to win a majority on its own. Not as yet, not until it increases its spread in the south and east. The next government will necessarily be another coalition. At best, the BJP can hope to lead it; that too, if it manages to repeat the Vajpayee formula and win 180-plus seats in the Lok Sabha.

But to attract enough allies to reach the magic majority figure of 272, the party will have to throw up a prime ministerial figure with the ability to straddle two constituencies: the core Hindu supporter of the BJP and the larger political establishment in Parliament that is made up of multiple, disparate parties led by egocentric regional satraps. In other words, it needs another Vajpayee.

It is farcical for Modi to aim to do a Vajpayee. They are as different as chalk and cheese and the contrast goes beyond the well-worn secular versus communal argument. Vajpayee ticked two important boxes which Modi cannot dream of doing. He had a wealth of parliamentary experience that gave him stature and acceptability. And he genuinely believed that consensus was the way forward in a parliamentary democracy. It was not an image crafted by a clever brand manager to win allies and sit in the PM's chair.

There must have been some spark in Vajpayee for Jawaharlal Nehru to mark him out way back in 1957. So impressed was the Congress stalwart with the young Jana Sangh MP's parliamentary skills and oratory that he predicted that Vajpayee would one day be prime minister. Vajpayee's long years in Parliament with stints in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha not only helped him understand the nuances of the Westminster model, they also ingrained in him the importance of consensus building – something which he perhaps learnt from Nehru.

He was a staunchly Hindu leader of the right-wing Jana Sangh, but he never allowed political and ideological differences to get in the way. In fact, he was often jokingly referred to as the ''right man in the wrong party".

It was inevitable then that the BJP should have chosen Vajpayee, not L K Advani, as its prime ministerial face when the time came. No one but Vajpayee could have brought on board allies like the TDP and DMK, prising them out of the Left fold to turn Right and help form the first ever BJP-led government in New Delhi. And although the art of coalition management involved plenty of give and take, Vajpayee was always able to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. He had the stature, clarity of purpose and a sharp enough political sense.

These are the shoes Modi has chosen to try and fill by invoking Vajpayee. The irony is that in many ways, Modi is more like Advani than Vajpayee. His aggressive, confrontationist style of politics has echoes of Advani at his peak. Like Advani, Modi too appeals to a yuppie, urban middle class whose motto is survival of the fittest.

It was Advani who prepared the groundswell of popular support for the BJP with his rath yatra but he could not take the party beyond a certain point in terms of votes and Lok Sabha seats. When the time came to push for government formation, the BJP was forced to turn to Vajpayee who had what Advani lacked: support from the political class. The party has an Advani in Modi today. But to lead the next government, it may require a Vajpayee. In trying to do a two-in-one, Modi could end up as neither fowl nor fish.