About Arun Shourie’s critique of ‘President’ Modi’s two years of governance – Anil Sharma

Arun Shourie

Anil Sharma“In a democracy the people are always looking for a better alternative and they saw the promise of it in Modi. In their eyes, he still has quite a distance to go to redeem his promise. The major factor that is working to the prime minister’s advantage is that if he has not performed to people’s expectations his probable challenger Rahul Gandhi is yet to establish himself as a viable alternative.” – Anil Sharma

It is quite an experience to hear the right wing scholar Arun Shourie critique the Modi years. Mind you, it has been just two years that Narendra Modi has been in office as prime minister, and Shourie’s judgement is simply lethal. When you look back at all the negative descriptions, it strikes you that from ‘lunatic to narcissist’ there is nothing that has been left unsaid. Indeed, more alarming than Shourie’s criticism of the past is his prediction of what the future holds in store for all of us in the remaining three years of the Modi regime.

In terms of sheer news value, there is hardly anything new in Shourie’s recent assessment. The only thing different is his better and elaborate articulation. Also, if he expects anything to change or the BJP to respond to him then too it is not going to happen. The BJP has been routinely dismissing Shourie’s words of wisdom as the lament of a disgruntled soul.

But that is to betray a poor understanding of the person. The fact of the matter is that even if Shourie had been a cabinet minister (the denial of that prize being projected as the reason for his negativity), there are very high chances that he would have come up with the same critique, and perhaps within the closed doors of a cabinet meeting. The story would have still found its way in the public domain, without Shourie being the source. And that would have been the surest way to get him out of the cabinet.

It is only in an ideal situation that the message can be separated from the messenger. The identities of the two are bound to get mixed up in the process, especially when the issues involved are too sensitive and crucial. Indeed, in mixing the two—his message with his persona—Shourie has scored a self-goal. An assessment that would have otherwise been appreciated by even those sympathetic towards Modi has been marred by his personal angularities. For his instance, his use of the expression ‘use and throw’ to describe Modi’s approach unwittingly reveals that he too has been a part of this syndrome.

Shourie is an experienced right winger, and through his dealings with the Parivar over the decades must have by now imbibed the essence of the rewards and punishment system that operates within the brotherhood. It is a system that rewards a Subramaniam Swamy, a Giriraj Singh and keeps the likes of Shourie on the margins testing their patience.

The point about Modi and the Parivar not rewarding Shourie is very obvious. Unlike the Vajpayee regime that was very liberal the present ruling dispensation demands total conformism and this constricts its choice of personnel. Atalji had his own way of handling contradictions and sadly this feature is missing from the Modi regime. Not only does this add to the discomfort of diverse elements within the Parivar but it is also responsible for a lot of ills that have been diagnosed by Shourie.

Narendra ModiHowever, beyond Shourie’s personal issues there would be little disagreement over the substantive parts of his assessment of the Modi government’s performance. Whereas one may differ with his assessment that “we have made a fool of ourselves” when it comes to dealing with Pakistan the fact remains that we have certainly not covered ourselves with glory anyway. Similarly, on the economic front, Shourie is in the excellent company of the governor of Reserve Bank of India in his assessment of the Modi Government ‘s performance.

Narendra Modi & Nawaz SharifIn the realm of foreign policy and diplomacy there was a time early in the tenure of the Modi Sarkar when the prime minister was striking all the right notes. It appeared that he would craft the country’s image in superior terms as he struck a personal rapport with the global leaders. But now in the second year of his term in office, he seems to have come to a dead end in terms of such initiatives. This is where Shourie’s critique is on the dot. It is a given in the arena of diplomacy that personal rapport serves only a limited purpose and the rest has to be achieved through old style hardwork.

This disappointment with Modi’s performance as prime minister is not limited to the likes of Shourie. There are many other segments of the population that had high hopes from him, and though they may not be as articulate as the former minister and the veteran campaign journalist, still their discontent matters more in real terms.

In a democracy the people are always looking for a better alternative and they saw the promise of it in Modi. In their eyes, he still has quite a distance to go to redeem his promise. The major factor that is working to the prime minister’s advantage is that if he has not performed to people’s expectations his probable challenger Rahul Gandhi is yet to establish himself as a viable alternative.

Besides to judge everything from the standpoint of wins and losses in elections can hardly be seen as the best way to assess a leader’s contribution to the task of nation building. Whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi delivers the 2019 election for his party or not is actually a secondary question. The primary issue would be the difference his leadership over his five year tenure makes to the Indian economic situation, the welfare of the people and the country’s standing in the comity of nations. This assessment would be independent of the electoral verdict.

The larger issue of the apparently divisive agenda of the Parivar and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s deliberative silence at crucial junctures is something that would actually test the credentials of the larger populace. We should remember that Pandit Nehru was able to drive the country to a secular ethos because it was a part of our civilisational heritage. Now how much will the Sangh Parivar penetrate into it with its idea of India would also depend to a larger extent on the people. This is something that should not worry Shourie. – Free Press Journal, 9 May 2016

» Anil Sharma is writes for the Free Press Journal from South Delhi.

5 Responses

  1. If Mr. Shourie is that wise and up right person, how come he was so wrong in judging Narendra Modi? How does he think Modi is vastly different in governance as a PM than how he was as a CM? Modi’s governing ability was the reason why Mr. Shourie was one of the first to nominate Mr. Modi as BJP’s PM candidate. That just goes to prove he is purely a sour grape person.

  2. Always admired Arun Shourie’s honest remarks with gumption, even when some of them seem outlandish on the surface. I don’t believe that his charges are the result of disgruntled soul. If someone at 75 can utter something out of prejudice and without maturity, then it is not worth the while for decent people to live and work in such a place.

  3. To dismiss Arun Shourie’s critique of Modi’s performance of the last two years as sour grapes would be a grave mistake.

    Shourie is 75 years old and a cabinet position is hardly at the top of his to-do list.

    Shourie has expressed himself in too personal a way and this undermines the important points he attempts to make. Nevertheless, he is telling truth to power and that takes courage and intelligence.

    The Sangh Parivar hates and fears Hindu intellectuals. Shourie is a leading Hindu intellectual. We cannot expect the Modi bhakts or the RSS-VHP old goats to listen to him.

    • Shourie is not a Hindu, but a Buddhist.

      • Not true. This writer has met Arun Shourie a number of times and we share the same publisher. He is a Saraswat Brahmin from Punjab (originally) and very much a Hindu. Read his books and see for yourself. They are enlightening. The one on Ambedkar almost cost him his life.

        Buddha, Mahavir and Guru Nanak were also Hindus. The demand by their followers for minority status today is just identity politics. They see some material and political advantage in being declared non-Hindu. And they are right too. From the Constitution right down to the dirty state politics being played out right now, the minority community has the advantage because they constitute a block of votes every politician wishes to possess.

        When a Muslim wishes to visit Mecca or a Christian to visit Jerusalem, the government will siphon off Hindu temple offerings and pay their way. But if a Hindu wishes to visit Kailas, he or she must pay their own pilgrimage expenses. This constitutionally established inequality between communities will continue so long as the Hindu majority allows it to. And there is no reason to believe they will protest against the injustice anytime soon.

Comments are moderated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: