Modi is not a “Leader” but a “Thought”

Foreign observers, lacking in knowledge about India’s political culture and society, are likely to make errors in their analysis about India’s strategy and foreign policy. This is but natural. Modi’s, India’s Prime Minister, retirement, dismissal, or termination is expected to reverse his policies with respect to India’s national goals is a misplaced reading. Modi is not a person, but a thought and is wholeheartedly supported by the majority of India’s population. After Modi, as a thought Modi will continue to dominate India’s national strategy.
Since 2014, it was for the first time that people of India elected a government that was aligned with India’s history, culture and values. Previous leaderships, mostly under the Congress party, did not pursue the policies inherent to India’s national ethos and values and continued as a legacy of its colonial past. Many in India believe India attained freedom in 2014.
It is in this context that, one needs to analyze if Rahul Gandhi’s assertion that India’s trade deal with the US and its impact for the agriculture sector will cause uncertainties for Modi. Foremostly, Rahul Gandhi, according to many political experts, has lost the plot and is no position to secure a political career. Rahul Ganhi and his politics does not resonate with Indian people. Moreover, Rahul Gandhi’s aspiration to contend for the top position (Prime Minister) is constitutionally impossible for many reasons. First, Rahul G holds two passports, one Indian and one British, this makes him ineligible to hold public office, second, Rahul G is a drug addict and has many corruption cases which are at a final stage of hearing at supreme court. Moreover, Rahul G has no political ideology or vision to convince the people of India.
It is in this context that one needs to analyze Rahul’s political strategy and thinking.
It is true that impact on India’s agriculture sector is holding the negotiations on a trade deal between India and the US.
The agriculture sector in India constitutes 16 % of its economy, yet 50% of India’s population is dependent on this sector which grows very little. This is the structural reason for India’s poverty. Any political decision with respect to the agriculture sector can also impact the political stability because of India’s electoral democracy.
Few years ago, the Modi government had introduced new farm laws but had to recall them because of mass protests by farmers. Although India claims to be a socialist country, it has left the agriculture lands in the private hands – a contradiction.
Allowing the US to sell more farm products in India will have a direct impact on Indian farmers and their incomes, hence Indian government is very cautious about this this during the trade deal with the US.
It’s not about trade, it’s about jobs, income, self-reliance and food security that’s holding the deal. Compared to the US, India’s farmers cannot compete due to many reasons. Making the agriculture sector competitive is very important for India, this requires radical changes.
The US is India’s largest trading partner, and as per the joint vision India and US wish to achieve 500 billion $ trade. For India this trade deal is strategy and limited to trade alone. It is difficult and has costs involved, but also important. The present negotiation is limited to goods, and agreement on services will come at a later stage where India has some advantages.
The problems related to this issue are structural and beyond politics, for the opposition to blame India is meaningless, any political party that comes to power has to make tough decision and deal with this situation. The problem and solution are same for all political parties.
To predict what may unfold one needs to account for how events unfolded in the past. Within a globalized world India is faced with many challenges amidst many opportunities and the process of navigating through this process is often painful. India’s politics has exhibited some unique patterns in this regard.
IBM first came to India in 1970’s. India kicked it out, only to adapt many years later and emerge as a software giant.
Coca-Cola was kicked out as well and later accepted, in the name of anti-capitalism.
Prime Minister Narasimha Rao – the political power behind India’s economic reforms in early 1990’s lost elections and was not celebrated by his own (Congress) party, this shows that India’s politics is not determined by economic success alone although it may have an influence from time to time.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh – Chief architect of economic reforms under Narasimha Rao and Prime Minister for two consecutive terms although achieved remarkable economic growth, is not considered as a great leader for his failings in the national security domain, for example Mumbai terror attack. In his own words, the most important achievement during his tenure was the signing of the nuclear deal with the United States.
Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee from BJP responsible for India’s nuclear power status lost the election for running India shining election campaign.
India’s political loyalty and preferences are by and large shaped by its less understood culture and the correlation between economic well being and political objectives do not express a satisfactory correlation. Indian people don’t believe in dialectical materialism – that the material condition determines mans life. India is a very unique country in this regard. Yet material success remains crucial in the conduct of politics in India, but does not determine it.
Modi’s political success rests on his alignment with deep rooted Indi’s interpretation of its history and national psychology. Modi has been successful in connecting with people of India at level that can neither be measured or described. This means invoking sense of nationalism that all Indian people crave for subconsciously. This means a failure in securing India’s economic development may perhaps be less consequential for Modi’s power base.
Yet, opposition to Modi is on the rise and his popularity has dented in his third term. The present situation presents many opportunities for Modi to regain his lost power – China, Pakistan, Economic growth, Reforms etc.
With respect to India-US trade deal, India’s competitiveness is the main problem which can be resolved by more reforms, legal measures, and state support to farmers. To carry out these changes political power and leaders with a vision is needed. Modi has the potential to carry these out and this government is aware of the challenges it faces and is likely act accordingly.
As far as Rahul Gandhi is concerned, he has no future in Indian politics. It will be difficult for him present himself as peer competitor of Modi.
More than anything, Rahul Gandhi’s secret MoU with China is under investigation, and this is a big threat to him.
Indian people must understand that in a globalized world there is no other way to survive but to be competitive and lead the process of globalization. Opposition effort to criticize the government only fools the people and people are fools sometimes. It is true that there will be a black clash and mass protest and this is unfortunate and just part of the process which manageable.
For China, it is very important to understand India outside the Marxist framework, India for some strange reason dismissed two important developments in the field of economics and psychology – Marxism & Freudism, only time will can tell how wise or foolish India was.

Modi is not a “Leader” but a “Thought”

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply