Catch phrases to define Narendra Modi’s ascent to power have ranged from the first anti-Nehruvian to become India’s prime minister to the left-leaning Guardian newspaper’s: Another tryst with destiny and shows how difficult it is to capture this churn in India’s politics. The public spat between Shashi Tharoor and Mani Shankar Iyer, both from the Congress party, is evidence of another kind — the challenge of coming to terms with Modi’s rise and its consequences.
However, in real terms, is there a clean break from the past and are substantive changes afoot? Can claims of an evolving neo-federalism or cooperative federalism be advanced and will the terms of engagement between the Union and the states be rewritten? Is the recent kerfuffle over Article 370 indicative of a paradigm shift in not just how India interprets its constitution or is the very idea of India itself under siege?
Majoritarianism, especially in the Indian context, has always been a loaded issue and naturally so on account of its unique diversity — an embedded diversity not found anywhere else in the world. It is this Indian exceptionalism that gives enormous credibility to its oft-repeated boast of being the largest democracy in the world. No other country has had to steer so dexterously through the labyrinths of history and the time-crusted prejudices and sectarian conflicts in endless cycles. Symbols like the national flag, anthem and other motifs, the identity kit for the nation, were all much deliberated upon and conscious efforts were made to reflect an in-built diversity. But on closer examination, it will be found that Hindu themes and colours dominate: The colour saffron and the chakra (wheel) are just a few examples. India, after all, is a predominately Hindu land, it is argued, and it is perfectly natural for it to be so. However, a liberal stance and Jawaharlal Nehru’s midnight’s children have muted this identity coding for the most part during the last six decades. Modi’s victory more than Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s is set to turn this mindset on its head. This election has been a watershed and the national consensus thus far on matters like secularism, nationhood and federalism will see changes. Optimists may term them transformational while others will hedge their bets on that.
To be fair, despite Modi’s alleged fascist and Hindu right inclinations his pronouncements and actions after becoming Prime Minister have been exemplary. And however much we may fault Tharoor’s overweening fealty to the new dispensation, he is one of the first Nehruvians to accept that Modi is right in some respects. Recently, another former Union minister from the Congress, Jairam Ramesh, compared Modi to former US president Richard Nixon albeit in a positive manner. So does all this indicate a glacial change amongst India’s liberals?
Some have categorised Modi’s electoral success as the victory of a socially conservative, small-town ethos — where the real India resides — and not [Edwin] Lutyens Delhi. This largely rural, semi-urban, non-English speaking populace has no time for political niceties. This group is willing to challenge hobby horses of the past. Concomitantly, they have a weakness for an authoritarian leader. Aggressive nationalism and calibrated use of political violence is par for the course. Whatever his core constituency, Modi is to be lauded for taking on holy cows like the uniform civil code, Article 370, modernisation of madrasas, devolution of power to the states, reworking the GST — which is at the heart of financial decentralisation — and so on and so forth. Indeed, he seems willing to reengineer or even restructure the Centre-state relationship that has existed thus far. Whether one agrees with all his assertions or not he is the first prime minister who has brought to the fore issues that have long been considered untouchable and best left to future generations to tackle — kick the can down the steps as it is fraught with risks at the hustings. Modi is a risk-taker and stands in direct contrast with the Congress and its leaders — both past and present, who had a proverbial affliction for being risk-averse until pushed to a corner.
But what indeed is cooperative federalism?
Old wine in new bottle, as some have said, or is it a new elixir? Whatever it may be, it is distinctly Indian and the soil, climate, topography and the manufacturing process will infuse its finishing notes in it. India, even at its Independence, had made federalism — new or old — the central pillar and the founding fathers paid much attention to this while writing the Constitution.
How different then is Modi’s neo-federalism?
They are radically different and his ideas go beyond the conventional. For one, he genuinely seems keen to set the states free. As a former chief minister, he knows financial autonomy is what will allow that to happen. Revamping GST is therefore an absolute necessity. But one suspects his vision is far-reaching and ambitious. He is looking at letting the states get involved in formulating economic and foreign policy — ergo West Bengal and Bangladesh, Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka and the two Punjabs, Indian and Pakistani, to allow a greater Punjabi identity to evolve. His idea of India is fundamentally different to Nehru’s. In trying to usher in a uniform civil code, he is actually moving towards a mindset of one-size-fits-all — a philosophy that sits oddly with India’s intrinsic diversity. His views on Article 370 also reflects this mindset. Giving a predominant status to Hindi and its promotion as a link language — a national-minded prime minister whose oratory can soar only in Hindi — and increasing the use of Hindu symbols are reflective of this thinking.
Some may term these notions as reckless and dangerous. Undeniably he has a strong mandate to give free rein to majoritarianism as never before, but only time will tell if this neo-Czar will set the Ganges on fire or set India free at last.
Ravi Menon is a Dubai-based writer, working on a series of essays on India and on a public service initiative called India Talks.
