Gujarat Polls - Rhetoric over Realpolitik
The war of words as it were seems to go on unabated in the run up to the crucial Gujarat polls which are due in a little over week’s time. The ruling BJP and the opposition Congress seem at logger heads with each over the ‘slugfest’ that has become this election. After the fiery rhetoric from Chief Minister Narendra Modi and salvos from Sonia Gandhi and Digvijay Singh, the prime minister too has now entered the fray to make himself heard. The intense wordplay underscores the importance of these elections, with the BJP realizing that the development plank alone cannot win them the elections and the Congress, wanting to reduce the margin the loss, wants to make gains in areas like Saurashtra where the BJP is on a sticky wicket. The Congress, in its exuberance have not only made obvious mistakes like not projecting an alternate to Modi in this election which has largely become a personality driven affair, they have also handed out a propaganda victory of sorts to Modi on the issue of minority appeasement, terrorism and nationalism.
The Congress party finds itself in an unusual quandary while facing Modi. When Modi went about town talking about development, the Congress instead on harping on the lack of it unleashed Sonia Gandhi, who instead of rebutting the development agenda switched tracks by calling Modi and the state government the “merchants of death’. Sensing an opportunity to break away from the development plank, whose usefulness is limited in terms of appeal and re-election, Modi lashed on to Gandhi’s comment and hit back by justifying the Sohrabuddin encounter. The BJP argued that they did not speak about Sohrabuddin the Muslim, but Sohrabuddin the criminal. They further point out that while the Congress would not want to convict a criminal if he were from a minority community, the BJP goes after criminals and terrorists regardless of creed and religion. While that is a comfortable nationalist though on terror position to take, it knows fully well that terrorism is now linked to the minority section of the population. The Congress should have ideally attacked the government from the get go on the riots and issues like fake encounters from the start rather than at the near end of the political canvassing process. By bringing out these issues at this stage was only playing into Modi’s hands. Then again, once the Congress chief had made the “maut ka saudagar” comment, the Congress should have backed its leader to the hit rather than flip flopping on the issue. For if the Congress is truly secular, and minority rights figure high on its agenda, it should not worry about what the reaction would be from the extreme right of the majority community. By reigniting the subject of riots and Sohrabuddin only to backtrack at the slightest insinuation does grave injustice to the cause of the riot victims and smacks of pseudo-secularism of the worst kind.
The Congress is trying to play the game of realpolitik but finds itself only venting hot air and rhetoric rather than winning over the moderate sections of voters from across the religious divide. The Congress should have brought into the open the lack of development in Gujarat, with prosperity bringing cheer to only a select few. The Congress in an attempt to do so did bring out the prime minister, who argued that the development in Gujarat is not due to the policies of the Chief Minister and is not limited to the state, but is a pan-India phenomenon. Little did Dr. Singh realize that the elections being held are for the state and not for the centre. The referendum in question is of the Modi government not the UPA in New Delhi. He went on to say that, if anyone dares to oppose the current incumbent then only God can help him. The rhetoric aside, the statements are in poor taste. The prime minister is the supreme political authority in the country. And if under his watch such ‘unconstitutional’ conditions exist then why did he not do anything about it? Why is it that the prime minister is so concerned over the conditions in Gujarat and not West Bengal, where the CPM operates like an extra-constitutional authority, or in Congress ruled Andhra Pradesh where the writ of the Naxals runs larger than the state governments? By pandering on Narendra Modi, the demon, the Congress is making him the agenda, which they should have avoided in the absence of an alternative that could be projected as the moral face of opposition to Modi. In this David versus Goliath, David is missing in action.
The Congress has instead invested in backing the BJP rebels, who were sidelined by the Modi faction. Many of these rebels, like Goradhan Zadaphia, who played a crucial role in the riots of 2002, find themselves being accommodated by the Congress who has issued tickets to their proxies. The Congress may aim to gain a dozen odd seats from the BJP by backing the rebels, it will lose the moral argument it keeps harping on against the vicious ‘communal’ forces. For the moment it seems that Modi will win these elections, albeit with a much reduced majority. If the Congress does make the arithmetic neck and neck, it will be an admirable comeback after losing two straight elections in the state. But even in doing so, it has only helped eulogize Modi rather than demonize him, falling into the Modi trap of 2007 much like its previous version in 2002.
The Congress party finds itself in an unusual quandary while facing Modi. When Modi went about town talking about development, the Congress instead on harping on the lack of it unleashed Sonia Gandhi, who instead of rebutting the development agenda switched tracks by calling Modi and the state government the “merchants of death’. Sensing an opportunity to break away from the development plank, whose usefulness is limited in terms of appeal and re-election, Modi lashed on to Gandhi’s comment and hit back by justifying the Sohrabuddin encounter. The BJP argued that they did not speak about Sohrabuddin the Muslim, but Sohrabuddin the criminal. They further point out that while the Congress would not want to convict a criminal if he were from a minority community, the BJP goes after criminals and terrorists regardless of creed and religion. While that is a comfortable nationalist though on terror position to take, it knows fully well that terrorism is now linked to the minority section of the population. The Congress should have ideally attacked the government from the get go on the riots and issues like fake encounters from the start rather than at the near end of the political canvassing process. By bringing out these issues at this stage was only playing into Modi’s hands. Then again, once the Congress chief had made the “maut ka saudagar” comment, the Congress should have backed its leader to the hit rather than flip flopping on the issue. For if the Congress is truly secular, and minority rights figure high on its agenda, it should not worry about what the reaction would be from the extreme right of the majority community. By reigniting the subject of riots and Sohrabuddin only to backtrack at the slightest insinuation does grave injustice to the cause of the riot victims and smacks of pseudo-secularism of the worst kind.
The Congress is trying to play the game of realpolitik but finds itself only venting hot air and rhetoric rather than winning over the moderate sections of voters from across the religious divide. The Congress should have brought into the open the lack of development in Gujarat, with prosperity bringing cheer to only a select few. The Congress in an attempt to do so did bring out the prime minister, who argued that the development in Gujarat is not due to the policies of the Chief Minister and is not limited to the state, but is a pan-India phenomenon. Little did Dr. Singh realize that the elections being held are for the state and not for the centre. The referendum in question is of the Modi government not the UPA in New Delhi. He went on to say that, if anyone dares to oppose the current incumbent then only God can help him. The rhetoric aside, the statements are in poor taste. The prime minister is the supreme political authority in the country. And if under his watch such ‘unconstitutional’ conditions exist then why did he not do anything about it? Why is it that the prime minister is so concerned over the conditions in Gujarat and not West Bengal, where the CPM operates like an extra-constitutional authority, or in Congress ruled Andhra Pradesh where the writ of the Naxals runs larger than the state governments? By pandering on Narendra Modi, the demon, the Congress is making him the agenda, which they should have avoided in the absence of an alternative that could be projected as the moral face of opposition to Modi. In this David versus Goliath, David is missing in action.
The Congress has instead invested in backing the BJP rebels, who were sidelined by the Modi faction. Many of these rebels, like Goradhan Zadaphia, who played a crucial role in the riots of 2002, find themselves being accommodated by the Congress who has issued tickets to their proxies. The Congress may aim to gain a dozen odd seats from the BJP by backing the rebels, it will lose the moral argument it keeps harping on against the vicious ‘communal’ forces. For the moment it seems that Modi will win these elections, albeit with a much reduced majority. If the Congress does make the arithmetic neck and neck, it will be an admirable comeback after losing two straight elections in the state. But even in doing so, it has only helped eulogize Modi rather than demonize him, falling into the Modi trap of 2007 much like its previous version in 2002.
posted by Karan Thakur @ 10:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home