Do I Hate Modi? A citizen's Posit

The usual refrain is, “You ignorant Modi haters, your dislike for the man blinds you, and you refuse to acknowledge the good he has done. You sickular, urban-Naxal, anti-national commies.” This comment has become so hackneyed that it glaringly reveals who is truly ignorant, if not blinded and biased.

Am I biased in my opinion of Narendra Damodardas Modi, the Prime Minister of India? Do I hate the man so much that my assumptions and opinions are prejudiced against him and his nearly six years as the country’s leader? Often, I have paused to reflect: could these critics be right? Are my opinions and comments—though a constitutionally guaranteed right—driven by hatred for the man? Do I hate him?

Heads of state often occupy unenviable positions, and as the Shakespearean lament goes, “…and in the calmest and stillest night, with all appliances and means to boot, deny it to a king? Then happy low, lie down! Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”

I pondered deeply, even setting aside Godhra and the Gujarat pogrom, and juxtaposed Narendra Modi with King Henry bemoaning his crown’s burdens, unable to find peace unlike even the poorest. I drew a blank. In his exalted role as the master of all he surveys, Modi, over the past six years as Prime Minister, has failed himself, the people, and the nation. One must be incorrigibly blind or utterly foolish to think otherwise.

Before explaining my stance, I asked his supporters to highlight a few of his achievements that transformed the country for the better, hoping they might sway my view. But each time, I received only invectives and even lost a long-standing friendship. Thus, I hasten to clarify my perspective as an ordinary voter who exercised his right in the past two general elections, unaffiliated with any political party.

True, I had serious reservations about Narendra Modi coming to power, and even more about him retaining it in the previous election. That aside, when he rode into New Delhi in his first term, I fervently hoped I was wrong. His symbolic gesture of genuflecting at the doors of Parliament sparked hope that I had misjudged him. I recalled how his predecessor, Indira Gandhi, treated Parliament like a juggler’s pins, rendering the cabinet and house servile, mauling the Constitution, superseding judges with pliable ones, deracinating democratic institutions, and suspending fundamental rights for 18 long months. Here was a lesser-known, controversial figure—a commoner—prostrating at the doorstep of democracy, as he put it. It was a moment to inspire hope and trust.

I thought his resounding election victory might have chastened him, prompting a call for unity, urging the nation to set aside parochial, communal, and religious intolerances, fostering camaraderie and universal brotherhood. I hoped he would end the inertia of the second UPA government, tackle corruption strangling the nation, restore confidence in the economy, and provide succour to the needy, underprivileged, and marginalised. I expected him to shun the divisive, hate-filled saffron-Hindutva ideology he wielded in Gujarat and strive to build an inclusive, rainbow nation, to paraphrase Bishop Desmond Tutu. I hoped he would uplift the underprivileged, give meaning to Dalit lives by cracking down on casteism and untouchability—still a scourge in many parts of the country—ensure tribals were treated as humans and citizens, not dispossessed, and heed scientific advice to address climate change, protecting the environment rather than ravaging it in the name of development. I believed he would honour the confidence of the youth swayed by his “sab ka sath, sab ka vikas” and “acche din” slogans, halt the disastrous slide in Kashmir, deal with Pakistan and China as a statesman, bolster underfunded health and education sectors, and uphold the scientific temper exhorted by Jawaharlal Nehru and enshrined in the Constitution’s Directive Principles.

Yet, as days, weeks, months, and years passed, Modi’s intentions became less and less curious, to borrow from Alice. As Arun Shourie famously put it, Modi’s rule is “UPA plus the cow.”

1. It became clear we were saddled with a thespian nonpareil, thriving on theatrics, spectacles, gimmicks, and foolery—a sophist peddling falsehoods at every turn. Even his academic qualifications have become an apparent lie and a joke, much like the fantastical tales of his childhood.
2. His ego is so immense that his sole intent is to burnish his image. His knowledge of economics is woefully inadequate, yet his conceit and hubris prevent him from admitting mistakes or surrounding himself with talent and scholarship.
3. Indebted to crony capitalist friends who placed him in the Prime Minister’s chair, he made quid pro quo blatant.
4. Instead of tackling corruption, he effectively legalised it through the egregious instrument of “electoral bonds.”
5. He unleashed sectarianism, granting the Sangh Parivar carte blanche to unleash Hindutva goons on society, targeting Muslims, minorities, Dalits, and tribals, paving the way for lynchings in the name of the cow, Lord Ram, and religion. The gentle cow became a predatory symbol, with law enforcers facilitating crimes by saffron goons.
6. Bigotry became the official religion, and daily doses of outlandish, bizarre idiocy from BJP ministers and parliamentarians became an embarrassment to common sense and the nation.
7. The extent of fear and emasculation among the intelligentsia was evident as early as 2014, when physicians sat mutely through Modi’s speech claiming cosmetic surgery and reproductive genetics existed in ancient India, citing the mythical Karna and the elephant-headed Ganesha. Stupidity seemed seamless under his rule.
8. The most ridiculous, quixotic, and heartless decision—demonetisation—was inflicted on the nation.
9. The GST, a novel tax regime mooted by former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and opposed by Modi as Gujarat’s Chief Minister, was rolled out hastily without proper planning, botching commerce and tax generation. His yearning for theatrics and a place among the nation’s founders led to a midnight Parliament session to announce it, throwing the economy into a tailspin.
10. For the first time in independent India, global financial institutions began sceptically eyeing the statistical figures dished out by the Modi government. The country’s own Department of Statistics distanced itself from the government’s data.
11. Lies and falsehoods became the norm, with cyber cells set up to spread innuendos and canards.
12. The massive defence deal with France was arrogated by Modi himself, with his government stonewalling legitimate queries.
13. Parliamentary procedures were steamrolled with scant regard for conventions and propriety.
14. The Constitution was defenestrated with the abrogation of Article 370.
15. Important legislation was passed as money bills to circumvent debate in the opposition-controlled Rajya Sabha.
16. An egregious law enabling religious profiling, reminiscent of the Third Reich, was passed to identify and sequester Muslims, throwing the nation into turmoil. Modi’s unstatesmanlike remark that protesters could be identified by their dress was infamous.
17. Institutions were systematically encroached upon and packed with ideologues; textbooks were rewritten with Hindutva narratives and mumbo jumbo.
18. Courts and media were bought or bludgeoned into submission, and institutions of higher learning were targeted with canards. Criminals escorted by police were given free rein to attack faculty and students on campuses.
19. Police aided rioters, allowing the capital to burn for three days while targeting Muslims.
20. International reports and WHO warnings about Covid-19’s pandemic potential were ignored for over a month, as Modi prioritised toppling the Madhya Pradesh government and hosting Donald Trump’s visit. By then, the damage was done, and proactive measures were non-starters.
21. Intolerance towards criticism and dissent outdid Indira Gandhi’s Emergency.
22. Contempt for scholarship, intellect, and science was evident, with central funding for research slashed to 0.8% of GDP and funds for education and health cut.
23. If he claims to be a democrat, why has he not faced the media? Not one candid press conference in his tenure proves his reluctance to face the truth.
24. As a Keralite, I cannot forget how malevolently Modi finessed aid from friendly Arab nations promised to the state after the devastating floods two years ago.

Modi’s penchant for theatrics and symbolic gestures has consistently beguiled Indians over the past six years. His plea to “burn him at the stake” if demonetisation failed moved people, but they forgot his offer when it proved a monumental blunder, fraud, and crime against Indians. The drama over the Pulwama attack, where 40 soldiers perished in a high-security zone, remains a mystery like Godhra but stirred such emotion that people rallied behind him. The supposed surgical strikes across the border, evading Pakistani radars to hunt terrorists, anointed him as India’s fearless Napoleon or Lancelot. These incidents propelled him to a thumping majority, but over the bodies of thousands of farmers who ended their lives amid farm distress, 40-year-high unemployment, an economic tailspin, atrocities on Dalits, marginalisation of Muslims and minorities, dispossession of tribals, and unprecedented mutual suspicion in society.

Before the recent theatrics of clanging vessels and lighting lamps, the nationwide lockdown, announced with just four hours’ notice, led to an exodus of lakhs of migrant labourers, defeating its purpose. Modi’s penchant for drama without planning or empathy was evident. These spectacles proved clownish and disastrous, undermining physical distancing. His call for clanging and banging would have been welcome had he shown an iota of sincerity in tackling the communal hatred fanned by his party and the Sangh. I would have joined these symbolic gestures if he had uttered one effective sentence to his bhakts and Sanghi stormtroopers, stressing that unity means inclusiveness across religion, caste, and creed, and that symbolism must translate into reality. I would have volunteered had he not infamously profiled dissenters by their attire—an outrageous remark from a Prime Minister. Let him first target bigotry, regardless of religious hue, if he sincerely seeks unity. Symbolic drama is an irritating comedy and utter dishonesty when Modi has not shown one act of carrying all Indians with him.

It is not just hatred; it is detestation of what he stands for. I am offended that the Prime Minister has created more division than the British did in their imperial history. Mr Modi, there is still time to make amends and leave a legacy that allows posterity to overlook your fallibilities and see you as a statesman.

The nation has been changed forever. Even if Modi is voted out in 2024 or beyond—if elections occur—it will take years to repair the social fabric, for people to trust their neighbours, and for ethnicity, religion, and caste to become insignificant, with harmony, food, shelter, security, and a clean environment becoming existential priorities.

The Wizard King

Once upon a time, in a faraway land, there lived a man with a broad chest who ruled over a kingdom where the people’s lack of intelligence astonished even him. He rightly observed this to his coterie. But his subjects, blinkered in their lives, had never seen a donkey and thus could not compare themselves to the timid, foolish beast. They believed their King was clever, and they were as clever as he.

The King was as canny as a fox, though he also fancied himself smart with a high IQ. Kings from other kingdoms longed to politely remind him he was an idiot, like his subjects, but he hastened to hug and charm them upon meeting, so they refrained from candour to avoid rudeness.

The truth was stark: the King frequently appeared on national television, issuing mad decrees he claimed were for the greater common good, demanding compliance that his donkey-like subjects, the fools, gleefully obliged, eagerly awaiting more. He was a sorcerer, hypnotising his subjects, who followed him with a fervour that would make the Pied Piper of Hamelin envious. He proclaimed decrees at night, and the next day, he would wail, beating his chest, urging them to burn him at the stake if he was wrong. They forgave him, unable to bear the sight of tears in his eyes, unaware that his marble-like eyes could not produce tears. Often, he sent a decoy—some say his real old mother—to perform the same tasks he asked of his subjects, and they went wild, dancing and singing eulogies to the King and his old mother. The King spared not even his mother! How noble! In his castle, the King laughed heartily, rocking in his chair, while his donkey subjects brayed in unison, “Oh, great leader, you are the shining star, the burning sun, son of gods; you could never be wrong. You are infallible, the light, and our deliverance.”

One day, shortly before midnight, the King appeared on television, dressed in splendid silk attire with an appliquéd tapestry that, upon closer inspection, bore his name embroidered in gold thread. His snow-white mane was immaculately groomed and waxed with ancient Indian herbs, its aroma stifling even through television screens, yet perceived as fragrant incense by his hallucinating subjects in their dreamy indolence. He decreed that from midnight, he would suspend the earth’s gravity so his subjects could spread their wings, hitherto tethered by evil forces, and fly with abandon. As midnight struck, his donkey subjects flocked and jostled to leap from apartment windows, expecting to float like fairies in zero gravity. Those in hutments scampered up coconut palms to jump and fly. Such was his commanding sway over them that they gleefully leapt and flew—only to fall flat on their skulls and faces, crashing to the ground like hailstones. Their craniums, ribs, and bones snapped like twigs, yet they believed they were flying, feeling the cold wind against their faces. They were in awe, convinced they soared. The wizard King effortlessly held them under his spell, and their broken skulls, dying hearts, and aching bodies refused to accept they had not flown. They bled and bled.

The Circus after the Hanging

Early yesterday morning, after switching on the television, I began to wonder if Covid-19 had vanished from the country overnight. Not a word about the contagion was mentioned; instead, all channels were dominated by the news of the execution of four rapists in the early hours at Tihar Jail. It seemed like a carnival at the gates of Tihar. Placards proclaiming “We trust the judiciary” signalled a newfound faith in the system. Bizarre slogans, which I now struggle to recall, filled the air. Men and women alike were jubilant. It resembled a medieval circus where public executions drew crowds baying for blood. After seven years of waiting, the Indian judicial system, moving at a tortoise’s pace, had finally closed a sordid chapter of gang rape, brutality, and murder that would shame even the wildest of barbarians, including the Vikings.

Seven years ago, on a wintry night, a young Delhi girl was stalked by six savage men. After thrashing her companion to near incapacity, the brutes gang-raped her in the most heinous and dreadful manner imaginable. That night, India as a nation and we as a society failed her miserably. We failed because we allowed six depraved individuals to violate her physically—she was mauled and torn apart. The brutality was beyond what even wild beasts would inflict. We failed again when we outrageously christened her “Nirbhaya,” meaning fearless. How dare we? How dare we presume she wasn’t gripped by mortal fear when six hellish, debauched men pounced on her, ignoring her pleas, cries, and entreaties, ripping her apart like ravenous wild dogs? How dare we bestow upon her grandiose names, ostensibly to elevate her to a pedestal of courage and bravery, thereby assuaging our collective guilt? She, a frail teenager, could surely do little to resist when six cannibals pinned her down and set upon her in a manner words fail to describe. Yet we call her “fearless”! It sickens me and makes me retch when I hear her referred to as “Nirbhaya.” We should hang our heads in shame. She ought to be known by her given name; her memory must not endure under a pseudonym granted by a hypocritical society. That is the least justice we can offer her.

One can empathise with her parents, who pleaded for the execution of their daughter’s rapists. Their anguished minds could not see beyond retribution, nor grapple with the moral and ethical nuances of jurisprudence. When the mother expressed relief, saying her late daughter had finally received justice, we could understand her feelings. What else could a mother feel? But it makes me wonder when the public declares, “Justice served for ‘Nirbhaya.’” What justice can a dead person possibly receive? Someone claimed her writhing soul would now be at peace. Semantics and fanciful phrases aside, the soul is a mirage we humans invented to appease our longing for immortality—a satisfaction derived from believing a part of us persists after death.

What justice can we give a girl now dead, when we, as a society, collectively failed to protect her while she lived? What justice awaits the teenage Unnao girl, brutally raped and later murdered? What justice can we offer Asifa, the seven-year-old raped repeatedly for days and murdered in a temple in Kathua, Kashmir? How many more individual acts of justice must we pursue for the daily rapes and murders of women and girls in this country? It is offensive to think we can find satisfaction or clear our consciences by invoking the phrase “justice served.” Nonsense!

Yesterday morning, tribal instincts came alive outside Tihar, and television channels, barring a few like Asianet News and NDTV, revelled in the news of the hanging of the four men while simultaneously questioning the foundation of capital punishment in countries like India, which we call civilised. The “rarest of rare” benchmark is a flawed premise. Protesting capital punishment in today’s India would be deemed as seditious and anti-national as criticising Hindutva. The humane Kiran Bedi, the fiery cop who, as the first female Inspector General of Prisons, introduced reforms aligned with a civilised society, was upbraided for attempting to reform the incorrigible and advocating for prisoners’ human rights. It is a primitive tribal notion that prisoners forfeit their rights as humans. One might even hear the hackneyed cliché: “If what happened to the Delhi girl happened to your kin, you’d think differently.”

There is a sine qua non for calling ourselves civilised. We must first eradicate patriarchal mindsets and misogyny from society and teach children from a young age to respect women. If an accused person is found guilty and punished as per the law, that law must either facilitate their transformation during incarceration or acknowledge that retributive justice is not justice but vendetta, as offensive as the crime itself. Look at those baying for the blood of the accused or guilty—it’s a trait of primitive tribal societies. It doesn’t take much to realise that the men vociferous outside Tihar yesterday might readily stalk, violate, molest, grope, or harass a woman if they believed they could escape apprehension or punishment. That is the duality of people: they hunt the victim and later cry for her.

A few months ago, much of the country applauded when the Hyderabad police staged an encounter and killed three alleged rapist-murderers. Like fools, we eagerly accepted their alibi that the men attacked the police before attempting to flee. We were content to believe extrajudicial killings delivered swift “justice.” We failed to question whether a diligent trial confirmed their guilt or if they were decoys planted by the real culprits. Did we consider the anarchy such extrajudicial, instant retribution could wreak on society’s fabric and its legal system? Not a word was spoken thereafter; we moved on—or rather, backward.

When we passionately claim retributive justice for the Delhi girl, believing she has finally received justice, we are lying to ourselves and, dare I say, mocking her soul, if you will. There is no evidence that retributive justice or capital punishment—an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth—serves as a deterrent. Only uncivilised, barbaric societies, citing antediluvian practices and bizarre texts, justify chopping off hands for theft, stoning for adultery, or decapitation for murder. When societies worldwide have abolished capital punishment, I see no reason why this medieval, retributive punishment should remain on the statute books of a country like India, which claims to be civilised. Lifelong incarceration, with or without the possibility of parole, would torment the criminal, potentially leading to reform or psychological decay.

To quote Henry Ford, “Capital punishment is as fundamentally wrong as a cure for crime as charity is wrong as a cure for poverty.”

The Little Whore House

The little whorehouse stood next to a well-known and respected family home on Ambujavilasom Road in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram, about five minutes’ walk from the main thoroughfare and the State Secretariat. It was an unassuming place with a tiled roof and a single door opening directly onto the street. The occasional drama and minor melee we witnessed as we passed by each morning and evening were all we were privy to—nothing more.

It was roughly 200 metres from where I lived, and my friend and I walked past the little whorehouse each morning to school and on our way back in the evening. I was in the fifth standard when I was told about this strange, and to me then, fascinating place in our neighbourhood. My friend, two years my senior, introduced me to its intrigues. Being eight or nine and fresh from the sheltered environment of a convent education, many things were inexplicable yet curious and amusing. The amusement was particularly strong when, on our way to or from school, we witnessed police raids at the whorehouse. A ramshackle police van would park by the door, and potbellied, fearsome-looking policemen—along with a few scrawny ones sporting only handlebar moustaches to evoke trepidation—would bundle a few women inmates and their plebeian clientele into the van. Looking back, those policemen now seem clownish, attired in odd short trousers with ample ventilation around their hairy thighs, allowing fresh air to waft up to their groins. I recall the day after a raid, when we passed by, the old woman who ran the place—a hag, perhaps in her early seventies, always with sandalwood paste and a few flower petals in her grey hair—sat at the door, forlorn and sad, having lost her clientele, women, and business to the police action.

She lived there with her daughter, a single woman, and her teenage son. I noticed no disenchantment in the daughter or son, who seemed to allow the old woman to run her cottage industry.

There were occasional arguments at the door between petulant patrons and the inmates. One day, I saw a man forcibly ejected by a few women inmates. He was agitated, quite inebriated, and shouting expletives—an unhappy and dissatisfied customer, perhaps! “Caveat Emptor,” I would now suggest to him.

Looking back, there was no evident discomfort, annoyance, or moralistic angst from the people living nearby—an impossibility in today’s phoney, voyeuristic Malayali society. The place seemed to survive on its own, ignored by the elite residents of the neighbourhood. Whether the local men frequented the whorehouse under the cover of night, I can only guess with some amusement.

The story ended abruptly with the death of the old woman. Rumours abounded that someone had poisoned her, but no one could say for certain. Her passing marked the end, perhaps, of the saga of “the little whorehouse.” The daughter and son vanished soon after, and now a multistorey office building stands on the five cents of land where, perhaps, much of Vatsyayana’s exhortations were religiously indulged, albeit at a price.