The illiberal face of the liberals is seldom commented upon in India because if you do, the pack labels you as illiberal. That is their power.
Few Indians today remember Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President of the US. He broke US law by obstructing justice and was forced to resign in 1974, halfway through his second term.
But today, by common consent, he is regarded as one of the three most successful 20th century US Presidents. But at the time the liberals got after him — even before he had broken the law.
Only those who have been persecuted by liberals know that when they get after you, they become almost entirely illiberal. There is no one more dangerous than a liberal out on a fox hunt. Ask Indira Gandhi.
Indeed, the utter illiberality of the liberals is one of the greatest paradoxes of our time. Academics have pondered long and deep over it and failed to come up with a solution. They seem as helpless as when trying to explain the depravities of the deeply devout.
What happened to Nixon is very similar to what has been happening to Narendra Modi since 2002. In a nutshell, the American liberals had decided that Nixon was unfit to govern the US and went after him.
In exactly the same way, the urban Indian liberals have decided that Modi is unfit to govern India. And they have been going after him, prepared like the Americans in the 1970s, to accept incompetents instead.
Modi’s mulishness
I have spoken to Modi only twice in my life. The first time was when, after reading something I had written in November 2009 (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/will-manmohan-acknowledge-the-modi-model/article1068726.ece), he called me up and spoke at length about his government’s achievements.
The second time was a year later. I was visiting my cousin in Ahmedabad and, taking up his invitation, I called on him.
Mainly, I wanted to find out why he was shying away from cultivating the liberals of Delhi. It seemed to me that exactly like Nixon, Modi too seemed to have an inferiority complex and that this was preventing him from engaging with the liberals.
He insisted he would not come to Delhi to meet them. Then let them come to Gujarat, I said.
Organise stay-over seminars twice a year in remote places from where they cannot run off. Spend a weekend with them. But just as Nixon didn’t budge, Modi too has remained adamant.
Nixon paid a heavy price for this obstinacy in terms of his reputation, just as Modi is paying. Nixon could do nothing right, just as Modi can’t.
Silence of the lambs
This illiberal face of the liberals is seldom commented upon in India because if you do, the pack labels you as illiberal. That is their power.
To see just how illiberal the liberals can be, you only have to compare Rajiv Gandhi’s first week in office in 1984, when the anti-Sikh riots took place, with the Gujarat riots of 2002. In four days, over 3,000 Sikhs were killed by Hindus. Rajiv’s government, till late on Day Four, simply stood by and watched.
In 1998, after Sonia Gandhi became Congress President, a slow ‘liberal’ whisper began in Delhi. It said it was on Home Minister Narasimha Rao’s advice that Rajiv had not called out the army on Day One. It is now the received wisdom amongst the liberals of Delhi.
The differences between Rajiv and Modi are many, including crucially of class. But as far as reputation is concerned, there has been only one deciding factor: While Rajiv engaged with the liberals, Modi, like Nixon, detests them.
It helped that Rajiv was from Delhi and Modi isn’t. He even got away with persecuting an old Muslim lady, Shah Bano. Nixon was also not from the Eastern establishment.
Liberal labels
So who is a liberal, then? A liberal, by my reckoning, is a person designated as a liberal by other liberals, usually on a single communal sub-criterion. As a result, the most liberal person can be labelled illiberal by liberals and the most illiberal as liberal.
For instance, as long as Arun Shourie was raging against Indira Gandhi’s governments, he was a liberal. But when he attacked Rajiv’s government, he was labelled illiberal. The irony was that Shourie had himself played this game in his time.
He sealed his fate when he wrote those three books about — and not against, as the liberals will have it — Ambedkar, fatwas and Christians respectively.
I know him well and it was not he who changed. It was the liberals who changed their minds about him.
It is in this sense of shifting definitions that one has to sympathise with Nixon’s and Modi’s approach to liberals. Their shifting goalposts for defining a liberal make the effort seem pointless.
But is it really?
Most Indian liberals are wannabes. They are anxious to ‘belong’ and see selective liberal-certified illiberalism as the entry ticket to a certain type of social acceptability.
Their numbers may be small but can potential leaders of countries afford to treat them with contempt? I don’t think so.
Modi has probably already left it a bit too late. But there may just be enough time for him to build some bridges to the liberals. If nothing else, it will help him overcome his complex and he can fight another day.
But that’s his problem. What worries me is that after Nixon, the US got two highly ineffective Presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Who will we get?
What? Who did you say? No! You can’t be serious!
Keywords: LINE AND LENGTH, Narendra Modi, Rajiv Gandhi, India's Nixon, politics, illiberality of the liberals, urban Indian liberals, Modi is unfit to govern India
Comments:
The author should realized that the greatest strength of Modi is that
all the liberals hate him and people like me love him for this very
reason. Modi is not budging in order to look good to the liberals and
that tells us about this "uncompromising" character. Further, the
influence of liberals has reduced after the advent of social
networking. I don't need a liberal to tell me in a newspaper what Modi
was in Mind; I can simply read Modi's blog. I see liberals as one of
the reasons why India is this way. Most liberals are left/socialistic
and have no clue about economics and as a matter of fact, we educated
Indians can understand the difference between liberals' opinions and
facts because we have more sources/channels for news compared to what
used to be the case 20 yrs ago. What worked for Rajiv doesn't work for
Modi anymore and so Modi's approach on this is commendable.
Drawing parallel of Nixon with Modi, is like comparing apple with oranges. Circumstances prevailing in US is cannot be compared with Indian scenario. Liberals and conservatives in US have acquired the enormous clout using the Constitution’s jealously guarded and enforced first amendment prohibiting the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, freedom of speech etc. Liberals and conservatives alike make use of this provision to the hilt. But unlike US, India has similar constitutional provision but only on paper, pathetically ineffective due to forbidding prevalence of ignorant, uneducated and educated with abysmal lack of scientific temper, which is effectively being used as political tool. Situation here is more like Pakistan, psychologically tend to think and behave with striking similarity of herd mentality. If it is otherwise, great many of our lawmakers with dubious distinction, would have been cooling their heels in jails! I would think it would be more prudent to draw a parallel lesson from the happenings in South Asian neighbours.
no comparison with rajiv tho, if rajiv ruled india for another 10 years
india would have been like Singapore.
Please mind that in 1984, Hindus were protecting their Sikh neighbours.
Those who were killing were not killing because they were Hindus, but
because they were Congressis and their leader was killed by a Sikh. The
same way how Congressis had killed Marathi Brahmins after Gandhi's
assassination.
the author is right in mentioning that Modi is already too late to
bridge the gap with the liberals.. In hindsight it looks to be ok by
not going after them.
The so called liberals themselves are getting badly beaten. The
present time there is an important yet another wing of media -social
net work. and it is seen that the bluff of the so called liberals is
too often getting exposed. Modi is getting more and more support
inspite of the vicious campaigns of the liberals.Modi may perhaps not
be stopped from reaching his goal by the liberal giants inspite of
their best efforts
A beautiful and thought provoking piece that needs wider circulation.
And who shall we compare the teflon Congress to? They've certainly managed to evade blame for the 1984 riots, thanks to the rentable media.
It looks like all of the Multi Screen Media is not ready to accept a
right wing candidate who shows performance as a parameter than
conservative beliefs.
Indian right wing is way better than its western counterparts in its
variety and inclusiveness. It looks funny and immature on the part of
Indian liberals and media to desperately paint leaders like Narendra
Modi into western context.
Modi has emphasized on initiatives which made his state self
sufficient and even surplus in certain areas. His commitment to
holistic development of youth, green energy, irrigation and
entrepreneurship are indeed commendable.
One might point out at the 2002 carnage which has slurred his name and
media did not leave any grain of sand unturned in selectively
propagating the negative side. Modi did resign accepting moral
responsibility and the matter has gone into the hands of legal system.
So please stop painting him guilty till he is proved innocent.
There is a group of journalists I classify them as turncoat journalists.When the tide starts shifting one side, they change their colour, come out of wood work and start parroting what they think on that subject.TCA falls in this category.Modi was pilloried by a bunch of crooked English language "journalists" who might have carried this crusade either due to pressure from IT department or through money.Many of their campaigns have fallen flat when the SC fully investigated all the claims against Modi.The credibility of all the prominent english language "journalists" both in print and visual media has hit rock bottom.Modi failed to contain riots because of its severity, the public outrage and last but not the least his relative inexperience in administration at that time.But all of this tops the sheer crudity of the people who set the train ablaze at Godhra.Their act cannot be pardoned and each one of them who set the blaze should have been caught and given capital punishment
Sad but true. Unfortunately it is very difficult for NM to engage with somebody and make them understand his plans for the country. Most political parties,are reluctant to share space with him, least they should be branded as illiberal. But, in my opinion, their worries are misplaced. Today,the urban / semi urban class have seen the success story scripted by NM's Govt over the last 10 years and want them to be replicated in their states. So any State Govt which is seen to be aligning with NM and tries seriously to implement the Gujarat model will be supported by the common man. Even for the BJP, despite opposition from allies, it would make good political sense to project NM as the PM candidate and, if necessary, go at it alone in the next LS 2014 elections and try and win around 200 seats and then talk to parties from a position of strength to join them in forming a Govt at the centre with NM as PM. Given the past experience, BJP with NM may not be viewed illiberal in such scenario.
why editing news on a single candidate in race of PM , is this not your country , why cant you compare all the candidates in RACE of PM ?
so that readers will understand "who is capable of what" !
how can you mention hindus killed sikhs ? have any one organized the attacks in a single and observed clearly what happened ?
don't try to make media like mafia gangs fighting for their bosses !
bcoz one day it fails like anything and ......./
The author is reveals his ingnoracne when he says Hindus murdred Sikh
in 1984. It was congressi goons who murdred shikksh. In one master
stroke the muslim congress created an unbreacheble divded between
these two communites, which in fact were one and Shiks emerged as a
sword of Hindus to protect from Islamic onslaught of conversion and
loot. If the author dosent know then let me tell him that till 1909
statues of hindu gods use to adorn Golden temple and mahant use to
worship them. Its the divded and rule policy of muslim congress which
has divded hindus and Shiksh into two differnt community. Unless we
join hands as one we cant survive the Islamizaion of India. Both
comnmunites will be decimated and will become extinct with time.
This whole narrative of being a 'liberal' is just that - a narrative. There are some
basic tenets that almost all of us believe in. These vary very widely in india. The
current definition of 'liberal' in the media discourse is somebody who largely
believes in the western idea of a liberal. I for one am not looking at 'liberals' and
how they are thinking to make decisions when I am casting the ballot. Coming to
the question of Narendra Modi, I am scared of the power of authoritarianism and
almost nothing else. If Democracy is allowed to function, then we have nothing to
fear. But this is where (we and not the US) we have much to be scared of.
Modi will convince 99 % of Indians that he can lead india Am sure, He wont bother the rest 1 % Pseudo secular left liberal journalists. Who is going to worry about them. Their Life is over after the social media came into prominence, Now the pseudos will be part of history.
A handful of elite people who claim themselves as liberals are
behaving like a lynching mob when it comes to Narendra Modi. They fail
to distinguish between right and wrong for the simple reason that they
have become secular (?) bigots. If you ask them whether they think
Manmohan Singh responsible for the loot of public money that happened
under his nose; they will disagree and when you bring 2002 riots they
will paint Modi as the only villian notwithstanding the SC monitored
SIT report to the contrary. As a lay man I would rather trust the
supreme Court than the Delhi-based illiberal liberals.
Comparison with Nixon may not be right.This is India of 2013.Inida today has more than 30 crores of educated,middle class Indians.They call the shots.
So called liberals have almost degenerated in to Fascists parasites being maintained by Delhi establishment as barking dogs.[You need to see them fuming and frothing at Modi in TV studios]
In fact if Modi tries to cultivate them, he will loose millions of votes.Ordianry,educated [ and hard working] Indians KNOW the face of our liberals.More you kick them,more guys will support you.
I refuse to believe that modi has any type of complex which pulls him
away the liberals. If columnist wants to emphasize on his average
command on English, it can not be regarded as too much reason of that
disconnect with elite/liberals. There can be another side of the whole
matter which is only because he is firmly standing against the hate
campaign he is beholding his popularity on pan India basis.The moment
he is engaged with liberals he does not have any distinct face and
thus diminish himself from the level of cult. I request the writer to
focus on the last lines of the column and publish some new thinking on
the possible Indian faces which according to him may resemble Ford and
Jimmy Carter.
Absolutely solid article. It is sad that this "liberal mafia" dominates
mainstream narrative and anybody who supports Modi is branded
"communal". Liberal in my view is an openness to new ideas, an evolved
understanding of the world and ability to put facts before prejudices.
These sickular liberals fail on all counts and have created the world's
most powerful propaganda machinery which functions 24x7 without any
fuel.
You said US got two ineffective presidents. We already have got 2 time ManMohan Singh. This liberal propaganda along with herd voting of Muslims post 2002 in north India has bought us 2 congress governments. Problem is no matter how much Mr. Modi tries, Muslims in Bihar, UP, Jharkhand and Bengal will continue to vote en mass to defeat BJP. Although in Bihar Nitish factor along with large loyal vote base of BJP does enough to negate en mass voting, but UP which sends 80 seats continues to send either Congress or parties who will support congress. Untill BJP can regain foot in UP and get at least 40 seats, we will have another Copngress or worst, third fromt with outside congress support government.
Probably another 5 years of misrule will bring voters to sense.
It is a fact that certain percentage of population believes 2002
Gujarat riots had the blessings of Modi and considers him as an
arrogant autocrat but at the same time one must also recognise about
another percentage of population who believes 2002 riots happened
because of Godhra crime and it was Modi’s able administration which
could cap the casualties at present levels compared to anti Sikh riots
or recent Assam riots. Similarly they considers him as nationalist,
decisive and democrat who successfully preaches and practices
“Development to all and appeasement to none” politics. Now in Gujarat
percentage of pro Modi population is higher than anti Modi , which is
evident from recent election results and now what needs to be tested
is the percentage difference between pro and anti Modi population
nationwide and results will be out post general elections and till
such time we should recognise pro Modi views along with anti views
than merely projecting anti-Modi views as nations view.
Every body would like to go with Pradip. Modi is quite capable to face
any damn situation, because he is not zero like nehruvians. Modi has
come up from a tea-serving boy to a level of an in-charge of election
campaign of a regions. He has ability to convert crisis into a good
opportunity for development. He has handled the post earth quake
crisis management and also post Godhra episode. Liberals have habits
to make noise with monetary help from overseas. But since Modi has
public support like MK Gandhi, we do not want Modi to surrender the
idiot liberals. Mr. Modi, you have clear concept and go ahead the way
you like. You are a CM of our dream.
It is in benefit of India to get one effective PM followed by two
ineffective PMs vs. getting three ineffective PMs in a row.
You are trying to make these so called liberals way more important
than they really are. Despite spreading propaganda against Modi, these
liberals stand on losing side as Modi's popularity has only grown
among masses in past 10 years.
Some of these so called liberals were busy churning out articles one
after the other to argue that Gujarat's growth is all hype. Now you
have US, UK, Japan and EU buying Modi's growth story. So one more
front where liberals have failed.
This clearly indicates that liberals are able to impress neither
masses nor intellectuals.
Just want to make one point. The 1984 riots was not a Hindu - Sikh riot. It was a Congress party - Sikh riot.
Mr. TCA Srinivasa Raghavn ji, please look at this article of mediacrooks named "The Fiberal Lie-sense". you'll agree with that and correct your misunderstandings about why Indian Liberals are actaully Fiberals!
The title of this article "Narendra Modi - India's Nixon?" says it
all.
That is another way of saying "those grapes are sour" to your fellow
men, may be assuming that everyone will accept your logic and go
accordingly. But then, life in general and politics in particular has
become far more complex over the years after the Nixon era. Although
the journalists wish and act as though they are the opinion makers, it
usually does not work out the way they wish it to be. One has to just
wait and watch the next few moves of each of the significant players,
and then you may have to rebuild your theories again to fit the newly
gathered data - to apply further corrections to this theory based on
some wishful dream/fantasy and to exercise one's creative prowess in
thinking of a possibly more refined/powerful/foolproof wishful
dream/fantasy.
Please Email the Editor