Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Telegraph India
Date: June 15, 2017
URL:   https://www.telegraphindia.com/1170615/jsp/opinion/story_156799.jsp

- Narendra Modi's opponents could do with some sagacity

One of the most important lessons of the recent assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh was that anecdotal evidence and, more particularly, media accounts are not very accurate barometers of public opinion. Indeed, they can often be terribly misleading.

At the best of times, assessing the public mood in a country as vast and varied as India is daunting. Today, it has become doubly so due to public narratives that are dramatically at variance. The commemoration of the third anniversary of the Narendra Modi government brought these sharp differences in perception to the fore, almost suggesting a generous measure of schizophrenia.

On the one hand, there were the opinion polls. The ABP News-CSDS-Lokniti Mood of the Nation Poll that surveyed sample voters in the first half of May concluded that in the event of a snap poll the Bharatiya Janata Party-led alliance would get 45 per cent of the popular vote and win 331 Lok Sabha seats, an outcome that would quite easily give Modi a second term. The survey suggested a spectacularly high correlation between support for the National Democratic Alliance and endorsement of Modi's leadership. More interestingly, it indicated that as much as 63 per cent of the electorate, including 66 per cent of Hindu voters, believe that the promised achche din have been ushered in by Modi.

Opinion polls, as the international experience indicates, are not even remotely infallible - not even when accompanied by robust methodology and rigorous sampling. In India, mid-term surveys, particularly when no election is in sight, have traditionally given an extra bounce to the incumbent. This bounce often dissipates once the sharp rhetoric of an election campaign becomes a reality and passive grievances yield way to opposition in the voting booth. This cautionary note notwithstanding, it would be safe to hazard the conclusion that with less than two years to go before the general election, Prime Minister Modi appears to be sitting pretty. A feeling that things are chugging along famously has favoured the incumbent.

During the third anniversary celebrations, functionaries of the BJP - apart from highlighting specific achievements - suggested that Modi has given governance an extra energy. This is undeniable. For the first time in living memory, many departments of the Centre and many of the ministers have conveyed the impression of being in a tearing hurry to achieve targets that many had thought unrealizable in the past. What has also given the Modi government's image an extra boost is that in attempting to inject efficiency into governance, it is not tarred by the brush of corruption. Modi has often been pilloried for policy misjudgements, but his integrity and his sincerity of purpose have not been challenged. This remains the government's most effective calling card.

At the other end of the spectrum, there is another narrative that has no resemblance with the mood of India captured in the opinion polls. But it is one that finds frequent reflection in the English-language media and in the academic community. This alternative perspective was vividly narrated by Arun Shourie, a former BJP minister now turned critic, in his speech at the Press Club of India, Delhi, in the meeting called to protest against the raids by the Central Bureau of Investigation on a TV channel promoter.

In his characteristically eloquent speech, Shourie made four points.

First, he suggested that the impulses of the Modi government are totalitarian and its objective is "total domination in the entire geography of India, in every sphere of life". Shourie believed that the basic freedoms of India have been compromised and that even censorship is in vogue.

Secondly, he argued that the decision-making structures of the government are extremely narrow. "This is the government of two-and-a-half men" he said, setting off speculation on who the 'half' man was. In short, despite being a parliamentary democracy, the government is driven by the personal proclivities of Modi. The BJP president, Amit Shah, translates Modi's vision into political action.

Thirdly, Shourie argued that it is neither possible for sceptics to engage with the Modi government nor adopt a position of neutrality. There can be no "neutrality between the man who sets fire and the fire fighter". He felt that the real opposition must come from three quarters: an intelligentsia bound in solidarity, the judiciary and the foreign media, which will trigger international concern. Moreover, he called for a total boycott of all government functionaries, including a media blackout.

Finally, although Shourie did not allude to this in his speech, there is the contention that the Modi government is embarked on a vast ideological transformation of India and destroying the 'idea of India', which is grounded in a liberal Constitution and Nehruvian political assumptions. The hyperactivity over the eating of beef and the slaughter of cows is often cited as a telling example of growing 'majoritarianism', as is the undeniable reality of the BJP winning the UP election quite decisively, securing over 40 per cent of the popular vote, without fielding even a single Muslim candidate.

There are some inescapable conclusions from Shourie's, arguably over-stated, manifesto of protest. The most significant of these is the tacit admission that the uncompromising opposition to the government has become the prerogative of notables and the media. Implicit is the recognition that, for the moment at least, the alternative narrative does not enjoy mass traction. Hence the argument is not that the Modi government will be voted out - as, say, the JP movement in the 1970s believed - but that, like all things, this phase of politics will end one day. The point is not to prevail democratically but to keep the flag of protest flying and put roadblocks in the path of the government.

Secondly, in its over-reliance on groups or individuals who were part of yesterday's Establishment, the Opposition has given further ammunition to the claim by Modi's supporters that the real objection is to the loss of power and influence. That the Modi-sceptics decry the vocal support for the prime minister in, say, the social media as either manufactured or born out of cultural illiteracy is revealing. It suggests that Modi has also set in motion a social churning that is proving unpalatable to those who were earlier at the helm.

Thirdly, that the dissent isn't based on Modi's failures in governance but on his underlying political philosophy and his style. The 'idea of India' is an interesting subject for a seminar but it does not easily connect with voters in a democracy. This necessarily limits its reach and naturally excludes all those who see the fundamental role of government as the improvement in the quality of daily existence of the average citizen.

Finally, in their distaste for 'majoritarianism' - a shorthand for the political empowerment of the hitherto passive Hindu identity -the critics appear to rely almost entirely on the misgivings of minorities. This is not illegitimate but when it is accompanied by a disregard for prevailing sensibilities, it can drive opposition to the fringes. The recent attack on the Indian army on its conduct in the Kashmir Valley and the equation of Bipin Rawat with General Dyer of Jallianwala Bagh are cases in point. Likewise, for all its implications for the cause of food freedom, the slaughter of a cow by Congress protesters in Kerala points to blind hatred of Modi having subsumed political common sense.