Modi, still a dirty word

Narendra Modi is still a dirty word.
A word of praise for him, and the media and the political fraternity put on their hate glares to see the riot-tainted images of the 2002 riots and the Gujarat Chief Minister’s alleged role in it.
Yesterday, Maulana Ghulam Mohammad Vastanvi was removed from the post of vice-chancellor of Darul Uloom, Deoband, by the Majlis-e-Shoora, the powerful governing body of the institution seven months after he praised Modi. The Maulana had said at a function in his home state of Gujarat that like all other communities, “Muslims too had progressed under the Narendra Modi government, and that the Muslims should look beyond the post-Godhra communal riots and press ahead”.
All hell broke loose. The Maulana’s statement was seen as an attempt at giving a clean chit to Modi, triggering violence on the Darul Uloom campus, with deafening demands for his ouster.
So why is Modi still a dirty word? In April, Gandhian and activist Anna Hazare came in for sharp criticism for praising Modi and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for their efforts on rural development. “The Chief Ministers of other states should also work like this,” the 73-year-old activist had said.
Again, his statement drew flak, with a number of Left and civil rights organisations wanting to distance themselves from Hazare in his campaign against corruption. The Congress MP Rashid Alvi had even said: “No secular person in the country can support Modi.”
Early this year, former President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam was all praise for the high economic growth Gujarat had achieved under Modi during the past six years. He cited the state’s agricultural growth that had been steady at 7 to 9 per cent for the past six years. He said Modi had created a dedicated power grid for uninterrupted supply to rural areas and improved irrigation systems, turning 20,000 hectares of unirrigated land into a rich agricultural area.
So here is the debate between the ghost and growth.
On the other hand, we have errant and corrupt chief ministers ruling over our states. While one has been holidaying in Mauritius even as his state’s Lokayukta report has indicted him of having amassed wealth in exchange for granting illegal mining licenses, we have another one building statues and amassing diamonds. While a political patriarch lost his chief ministership in a state after having bred ministers who had embroiled themselves in one of the biggest telecom scams ever, we had another political leader who had lost his chief ministerial chair after having been involved in a housing scam meant for Kargil widows.
What I am trying to think is that on the one hand we have our unscrupulous leaders continuously draining the state exchequer, while filling up their personal coffers, and we have a Chief Minister who has been drawing praises for his agricultural and other development work, but has the ghost of 2002 handing like an albatross round his neck.
What is the greater evil? A Chief Minister with a riot-tainted past? By the way, there are stray evidences and multiple allegations of the government machinery involved in the gory, “cleansing” act of 2002.
Or is it the unscrupulosity of our leaders who see political power as a short-term personal fixed deposit scheme, in which they would have to park as much wealth as possible.
So what is the dirtier word: Modi or Corruption?
I haven’t got an answer to it.

Don’t let us down!

The Supreme Court finally acted on the draconian Salwa Judum, stripping it off power and arms. The special police force had been organised by the Chattisgarh government to tackle the so-called Naxal “menace” as the ruling power loves to call it. By the way, in all drawing room discussions, the areas where Naxals are active are called Naxal-infested, as if they were insects or even rabid.
The Salwa Judum, with its heady concoction of upper caste “warriors” ably backed by the state machinery had run roughshod across the rural belt, intimidating villagers and tribals, and spewing orders in the name of justice. It had become an extra-constitutional authority.
The Supreme Court also passed another order last week, directing the Mayawati government to return “usurped” land to farmers.
And, Jairam Ramesh, when he was environment minister, intervened two days back to stop Vedanta from raping Nayamgiri hills, by refusing environmental clearance for bauxite mining.
These decisions are important, almost landmark because they might bring back people’s faith in our country’s democratic system. Just might, what with most of our political leaders vying for space in Tihar with multiple charges of corruption and some even enjoying their tea with jail officials.
The country’s growth is lopsided at the best. The government is projecting a growth rate of over 10 per cent, lacing it with the argument of a trickle-down effect. Only the so-called bounty that is seemingly trickling down gets blocked periodically.
Today’s reshuffle in the Manmohan Singh Cabinet may seem to be a shake-up to ascertain itself as having taken some action in its corridors of corruption. But as Anna Hazare pointed out: a reshuffle will not tackle corruption, only a change will.
An important man who has been juggled around is Jairam Ramesh. His exit is a major loss to the environment ministry. Ramesh had combined activism with his ministerial position, often embarrassing the government, which sometimes chose development at the cost of displacement. This portfolio will now be handled by Jayanti Natarajan, a rather tame choice for such a high-profile (read important) ministry. She will have to do lot of tight-rope walking to take forward the work of her predecessor without succumbing to pressure.
Ramesh’s elevation to the status of a Cabinet minister with the rural development portfolio is in my opinion a “ploy” by the government to play down the environmental issues thrown into the public radar by our activist-minister. But Ramesh can get into the skin of his new portfolio of rural development and dig out hidden concerns into the public arena. His decisions to look into the Naxal strongholds and the tribal heartland that comprises the backward areas could help further elevate his stature in the public eye. His steps in the direction of the rural employment guarantee scheme for the uplift of the people could be useful. What’s more; he could use this portfolio to integrate rural development with preserving our ecology by guaranteeing tribals their native livelihood, and not the one “promised” by corporate land sharks who promise employment that would at best be petty and menial. An effective penetration into rural development can at the most preserve our countryside from being made into concrete jungles with brick and mortar.
Ramesh, please don’t let us down!