Leaders of several political parties have cautioned us of two Modi traits: an inadequately masked majoritarianism and an autocratic abuse of authority. Intending to be incisive, some have evoked the epitome of ethnic imperialism - the German who caused the death of tens of millions of people before killing himself in his bunker. Independent India, of course, has experienced emergency, and the woman who threatened her, it is well documented, had ambitions of being an empress, if only one elected endlessly by the voters as per her will. Now, I am not sure if Modi has such ambitions, but I only intend to make the case that he will mostly be foiled if he pursues them.
The unity that we see in the BJP, notwithstanding the piqued proclamations of leaders who have been political deadwood for a while, is perhaps expedient and inadvertent and not an enthusiastic endorsement of the Gujarat CM. The BJP is devoid of leadership, and given the similarity of its manifesto to that of the Congress, it cannot hope to win the elections solely by unleashing a vision for the nation that is more pertinent and potent than that of its principal rival. Given Modi's popularity, even if it is the result of good governance and meticulous marketing, they have been dealt with a card that could change their fate. Appealing for votes on behalf of Modi offers an easier passage to Parliament despite a candidate's being bereft of ideas and goodwill. Yet, I do wonder if the allegiance being pledged to Modi will remain in tact if the BJP or the NDA garners a substantial majority in the Lok Sabha. Will these leaders, in the same sycophantic and spineless manner of Congressmen from the 1970's, submit themselves to Modi's commands? Modi, for all his popularity, does need the BJP, if only because the law doesn't permit him to represent 272 constituencies, though he may well claim to be capable of this feat. As such, Modi, despite not being constrained by coalition compulsions, cannot ignore the insider intransigence. Unlike in Gujarat, he cannot hope to discard every dissenter, for some of them may be significantly influential in their respective regions.
Next, the BJP, unlike the Congress, is not spread throughout the country, thus, limiting the reach of Modi, who cannot be the de facto CM or leader of opposition of every Indian state. The disintegration of the Congress in this coalition era has had a strangely beneficial consequence for Indian democracy: the emergence of strong regional leaders. The Amma from the South, or the Didi from the East are unlikely to take it upon themselves to ensure subservience of their people to the whims of a PM who does not have a telling sway in their states. Given their nascent or immanent desires to be the PM of India, such regional powers might see in opposing Modi, on the basis of principles and values, a means to consolidate their own power and relevance. The nation cannot be brought to its knees if the states decide to stand tall in defiance.
As strange as it may seem, Rahul Gandhi's pledge to selflessly sacrifice himself in service of the nation is bound to be another guard against an autocrat taking over. He has the resources to rally people to oppose obscene ambitions and the know-how that he may have inherited from the dusty diaries of his grandmother, detailing the checks in the Indian system that can derail pretensions of supremacy. That the Congress has many eminent lawyers who can utilize these insights to petition the courts that have demonstrated a sanguine streak of activism in recent years does bode well. It is equally significant that the President, who has to be complicit in bringing about a dictatorial order, is a former Congressman and a seasoned politician who witnessed the last such effort from rather close quarters.
Then there is Arvind Kejriwal, who has no desire for power and would prefer to complain and criticize instead, willing to withstand the sternest of environments, conjured whether by the weather or the BJP's bellwether. His ability to persuade people to pour into the streets and protest for what is theirs would surely make it impossible for the citizens of India to remain indifferent and docile in the face of a developing dictatorship.
Also, India's economy is not what it was under Indira Gandhi. The globalized economy necessitates other nations to take an interest in the internal churns that sweep through the country. With the significant investments and commercial interests that their enterprises have in India, it would be impossible for the wealthy westerners to ignore a turmoil. They would be forced to secure their nationals and their assets, be it by the imposition of sanctions and embargoes, or, as a last resort, by military intervention. The penchant of the Americans to use their multi-trillion dollar military for the emancipation of the world is certainly heartening.
Finally, because of the unquestionable integrity of the armed forces and their dedication to the Indian cause, one can rest assured that a military installed dictatorship is improbable in India, unlike in some of our neighbouring countries.
So, perhaps you could vote for Modi if you want to without fearing the sketchy snatches in your memory of der Fuhrer.
Comments