Has Modi proved to be a better leader than Manmohan? It's time we must ask
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) strategically - and as it turned out, rewardingly - imbued India's 2014 parliamentary elections with a presidential flavour. It is only fair then to examine Narendra Modi's leadership record against the standards he expected from Manmohan Singh, the man he succeeded as prime minister (PM).
In the run up to the 2014 election, Modi painted Singh as a weak leader, specifically targeting Singh for:
a) Keeping silent and lacking the courage to express himself on important issues
b) Turning a blind eye to the scandals unfolding under his nose
c) Bowing to the extra-constitutional authority of the National Advisory Council (NAC)
(d) Being soft on warmongering neighbours and internal security threats.
Whether Modi's charges against Singh were well-founded is debatable, but they certainly resonated with enough voters to fetch Modi the mandate he was seeking. Now, nearly four years after he was sworn in, it is time to examine Modi's own record vis-à-vis the above.
Mann ki Baat, an active social media presence, and frequent speech-making on and beyond the campaign trail, may suggest Modi is communicative, but the fact of the matter is that his chosen occasions and platforms permit Modi to choreograph his messaging and evade direct and tough questions. His communication, then, has the anodyne texture of a monologue (the "colour" comes from acronyms and bombast); the energy of dialogue and interrogation, so vital in a democracy, is missing.
More disturbing have been Modi's silences on issues ranging from farmer's distress to clampdowns on free speech to the communally charged statements of high-profile party men. On the few occasions he has spoken, for example on atrocities against Dalits and gau rakshak excesses, the toughness of tone reserved for, say, the political Opposition, has been absent. There are three conceivable reasons why Modi has not intervened strongly and visibly on these. Either considerations of realpolitik stop him, or he thinks intervention is not merited, or he believes the issues are not weighty enough for prime ministerial intervention. None testifies to exemplary leadership.
On corruption, the Modi Sarkar has much to answer for, given the stories floating around the special treatment businesses considered close to the dispensation enjoy, the Panama and Paradise papers, and the Rafale deal. Further, state governments in almost every BJP-ruled state face corruption charges.
So far, the corruption allegations have mostly been countered with either stoic silence or whataboutery. In the few cases investigation has been formally initiated, there is little of the zeal one expected following Modi's "na khaunaga, na khane doonga" promise. Singh drew Modi's ire for inertia on the corruption, crony capitalism and conflict-of-interest allegations his government faced; there is little to suggest Modi has acted differently on similar allegations.
The mounting problem of non-performing assets (NPAs) in the banking sector and the unfolding saga of diamond merchant Nirav Modi's alleged fraud involving the state-owned Punjab National Bank illustrate much that is problematic with the Modi Sarkar's anti-corruption stance.
The key beneficiaries are perceived close to the government - for example, Nirav Modi, who is said to have made his escape from the country in early January 2018, was part of the Indian contingent photographed with the PM in Davos later that month - and, even if one were to concede that NPA woes and Nirav Modi's shady dealings pre-date PM Modi, there are clear indications that NPAs ballooned and Nirav Modi continued unhindered even after the gravity and import of the issues had been more than hinted at in the public domain and/ or before the government.
As far as extra-constitutional authorities meddling in government affairs go, it can be argued that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliates exercise far greater influence on the working of the Modi Sarkar than the National Advisory Council (NAC) did in Singh's time. The NAC was an advisory adjunct, fragile enough, despite its mythicised clout, to be created and disbanded by pen strokes; the Sangh connection with the BJP is umbilical, its embedment in government organic, seamless, pervasive.
Cross-border surgical strikes in Pakistani territory and hard postures struck in Jammu & Kashmir and vis-à-vis left-wing extremism are said to carry Modi's muscular imprint. But, whether four years of such muscle-flexing has had enough deterrence value to pave the way for durable settlements remains doubtful. China and Pakistan continue to provoke, alienation and unrest continues in Kashmir. Parenthetically, the cross-border strikes may not have been unprecedented - and data suggests that the United Progressive Alliance's handling of domestic conflict theatres, while relatively low-key, had started showing results, at least in terms of containing civilian and security force fatalities.
As if India's festering external and internal security challenges are not enough, a deeply divisive project - Hindutva - has been emboldened in the Modi years. Manifest in efforts to fan the majority's persecution complexes, systematically marginalise religious minorities, and seed an understanding of nationalism that militates against liberal thought, the Hindutva project fundamentally pits citizen against citizen. Those allowing it to unfold under their watch cannot claim to be acting in national interest.
There is clearly a gap between the 2014 promise and 2018 reality of Modi, the leader. Only if being voluble and visible is communicative, if the war against corruption can be selective, if bowing at the Hindutva altar is unexceptionable, and if muscle-flexing is an end in itself, does Modi clear the leadership test he himself set for Singh.