Not all charismatic leaders are astute administrators. Efficient governance has little correlation to the ability to seduce the electorate. Presiding over a state is no guarantee for performing well as Prime Minister. Among Indian PMs, Morarji Desai, V.P. Singh, P.V. Narasimha Rao and H.D. Deve Gowda were the only ones before Narendra Modi to have been chief ministers earlier. Of them, only Rao’s government is remembered for its success in governance. But he was chief minister two decades before becoming PM, and in between held crucial portfolios at the Centre to learn how running the Central and state governments must be handled differently. With almost half his tenure gone, pressure is mounting on Mr Modi to deliver on his promises.
The growing sense among ordinary people, bureaucrats and the intelligentsia and, most important, those in the financial sector, is that expectations were over-hyped and at best one can hope things don’t get any worse. Mr Modi’s skill in assessing people’s mood can’t be faulted and his recent actions suggest he knows the dismay on the ground. This is the reason for the desperate attempts to get his political campaign up and running once more. In the past week, Mr Modi made three key interventions in the political controversies raging in India for weeks. The statements — on gau rakshaks, attacks on dalits and the infinite circle of violence in Kashmir — reflect at one level the contradictions that have been an ingrained part of this government. At another level, the assertions unmask Mr Modi as a man of words, but of little or no action. Take the first statement on gau rakshaks, which raises the spectre of Mr Modi’s core constituency deserting him.
The contradiction between so-called fringe forces and Mr Modi was rooted in each interpreting the BJP’s victory in 2014 differently. Was it due to Mr Modi’s charismatic brilliance, the unprecedented efforts of the Sangh Parivar foot soldiers, or was it due to anti-incumbency sentiments against UPA? Each of these two groups overplayed their role, while underplaying other factors. During the campaign, Mr Modi cleverly camouflaged support for divisive politics and put his development spiel at the forefront. This deceived supporters of Mr Modi’s Vikas Purush avatar, who presumed he had undergone a heart transplant, but the tactic didn’t mislead the “core” supporters — for them, he remained the Hindu Hriday Samrat. Mr Modi maintained duality to such an extent that it dismayed the domestic and global community and led to US President Barack Obama issuing a not-so-polite reminder on constitutional obligations.
In the past 27 months Mr Modi has alternated between courting the two groups, balancing Hindutva hardliners and development hopefuls. Mr Modi’s silence was music to the ears of the rabble-rousers, though it alienated the other group, undoubtedly queasy about ghar wapsi, cow vigilantism, love jihad and other ways of promoting social prejudice against minorities and marginalised groups. Whenever worries about losing support of this group began to nibble at Mr Modi’s heels, he makes half-baked statements. He has done so in the past and often creates ludicrous demarcations like between so-called good gau rakshaks and bad gau rakshaks. Or when he offers to sacrifice his life to protect dalits! The two statements won’t win him back either dalits or the other group. As intentions and declarations by several rabid Sangh Parivar elements indicate, Mr Modi is likely to fall between two stools. He can be a Janus-faced leader as a campaigner, but not as Prime Minister.
RSS general secretary Bhaiyyaji Joshi’s reiteration of Mr Modi’s assertions can’t be interpreted as the backing of the entire Parivar. The RSS hasn’t been a monolith for a long time since its expansion in multiple sectors. Every affiliate functions in highly competitive fields and has to vie with rivals. The likes of the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh, Bharatiya Kisan Sabha and Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad are mass organisations, and rivals are affiliated to other political parties, and they are ones who go out to campaign during elections. But such organisations can’t be seen as apologists for the government. Consequently, they oppose policies that violate their charter. The RSS leadership arbitrates between warring forces and Mr Modi’s best chance lies in playing cultural nationalists against economic nationalists. If Mr Modi aims to pursue market reforms in the remainder of his term, he must turn a blind eye to the activities of the VHP and its associates, and vice-versa. Mr Modi is now showing evidence of trying to please everyone alternately, and is faltering on every count.
The Prime Minister’s attempts put back his political trajectory on a rising flight path is rooted in the limited success of his government so far. If, like in the UPA’s first term, political shortcomings could be offset by the success of policies and programmes, Mr Modi could have taken tougher steps against those unsettling governance. The blame must be shared with the RSS leadership, which squandered the opportunity the 2014 verdict provided to widen the Sangh’s social base. Till the time the poor and socially marginalised groups doubt the Sangh Parivar’s commitment to their betterment, the BJP will at best get an occasional shot or two at governance. All claims about the BJP being a natural party of governance might blow up in its face, and 2014 will not be seen as a trend-changing election result, but a freak one, with the next election leading to another change.
As a consequence of several self-goals, the BJP campaign in Uttar Pradesh is almost over even before it could begin in real earnest. In Punjab, even if the Akali Dal has limited relevance in areas of its traditional dominance, the BJP’s urban Hindu voter is alienated because of Mr Modi neo-activism directed at gau rakshaks. The change of guard in Gujarat serves the cruellest message as it signals a subtle distancing between Mr Modi and his closest aide, Amit Shah, whose stature has undoubtedly risen within the party and the Sangh. Mr Modi still has over two and a half years to break his stumble, and he certainly has the skills to do so. But for that he’ll have to focus more on governance and not be content that there’s currently no alternative in sight. Historians in future will judge if this period triggered corrective measures or marked the beginning of Mr Modi’s decline.
