[And do Indians prefer a religiously driven nation or a secular one? Mr. Modi’s political rise began deep in the ranks of a Hindu nationalist organization, and under him, mob violence has surged against India’s minority Muslims. Many Indians are concerned about the legacy Mr. Modi will leave on India’s social fabric should he remain in power for five more years, the parliamentary term.]
By
Jeffrey Gettleman
 |
|
Prime
Minister Narendra Modi of India during a roadshow in Varanasi, India,
last
month. Credit Adnan Abidi/Reuters
|
NEW
DELHI — In Hungary, Viktor
Orban demonized immigrants and secured an expansion of his power. In Turkey,
Recep Tayyip Erdogan purged his enemies and won a new term. In Australia, Scott
Morrison shrugged off calls for tougher carbon-emissions rules and was
unexpectedly kept on as leader.
And in India, where the world’s biggest
Parliamentary election appears to be boiling down to a binary choice — Yes or
No on Prime Minister Narendra Modi — the electorate seems poised to bring back
Mr. Modi, extending the wave of victories by right-wing populists around the
world.
India’ s election finished on Sunday and the
results are scheduled to be announced Thursday. The results may reveal not just
a decision on Mr. Modi but a deeper one on what kind of government India really
wants.
Does it want a dominating leader who keeps a
tight grip on power? Or would it be happier with a messier but more democratic
coalition government?
And do Indians prefer a religiously driven
nation or a secular one? Mr. Modi’s political rise began deep in the ranks of a
Hindu nationalist organization, and under him, mob violence has surged against
India’s minority Muslims. Many Indians are concerned about the legacy Mr. Modi
will leave on India’s social fabric should he remain in power for five more
years, the parliamentary term.
Around the world, it has become the age of
the political big man, and no one disputes that Mr. Modi is the biggest force
India has produced in decades.
He stirs huge crowds. He sets wildly
ambitious goals, such as building 100 million toilets in five years, which he
essentially reached (though he failed to deliver on his promise to create
millions of new jobs.) He projects a strong image of India abroad, putting
India in position to play a larger role on the world stage as the United States
and China vie for influence around the region.
But at the same time, Mr. Modi, 68, is widely
accused of dividing his own people, pitting religious and social communities
against each other, and cutting out other layers of government in a quest to
consolidate power.
Many of Mr. Modi’s supporters see his
personalization of power as a good thing. If the exit polls predicting his
victory are reliable — and previous exit polls in India have broadly been — it
seems that he has followed the same winning recipe of other successful populist
and right-leaning politicians like Mr. Orban and Mr. Erdogan.
“Modi is doing what these other leaders are
doing — he’s projecting resolve, masculinity, determination, daring and
courage,” said Ashutosh Varshney, the director of the Center for Contemporary
South Asia at Brown University. “People who are voting for him are voting for a
strong national leader.’’
“It’s all coming from the same phenomenon,’’
Mr. Varshney added, “a rise in populism.”
For years, India was run by fractious, weak
governments that got tied up in parliamentary dogfights. Big initiatives failed
to take off. India struggled to assert itself internationally. In the eyes of
his supporters, Mr. Modi is the surest bet for this country to grasp glory and
actually get something done.
These days, it’s not unusual to hear Indians
describe Modi as “our Trump,” which is said in antipodal ways, either with
pride or scorn.
“Trump and Modi are twins separated by
continents,” said Chandra Bhan Prasad, a well-known political commentator.
“Both are against knowledge, they consider the past as the golden period, they
consider themselves the center of gravity.”
Political analysts say there is no shortage
of similarities between the two, including their combative style, their
prolific use of Twitter and their talent for stoking nationalism — and
spreading fear — to firm up their bases.
In Indian politics, there’s no one who can
touch Mr. Modi in terms of his forcefulness or his aura. His white bearded face
is everywhere and he is a master of the grand gesture. He spent the last
moments of the election campaign praying at a Hindu shrine and meditating in a
remote Himalayan cave — in front of a film crew. The video of him sitting
against a rock wall, eyes closed in apparent bliss, was beamed around India.
His party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or
B.J.P., has built the most organized and richest campaign machine. Some Indian
media sites estimate that it has raised more than $700 million, a whopping
amount that dwarfs the total of all other parties by several times.
And he enjoys another advantage. His party
has a serious ground game. The B.J.P. is closely connected to a network of
Hindu religious groups that have sprung into action this election season and
sent vast legions of volunteers across India to knock on doors and target
voters, down to individual apartment blocs.
Even among Indians who said they voted for
the Congress Party, led by Rahul Gandhi, in recent state elections, several
said in interviews that when it came down to choosing a national leader, they
wanted Mr. Modi.
”The Modi factor seems to be the No. 1 factor
in the election,’’ said Josukutty Cheriantharayil Abraham, a political
scientist at the University of Kerala.
One reason is how Mr. Modi makes voters feel.
He has insisted on a bigger role for India in the world, and it speaks to the
desire of many here for a stronger national image.
”Modi is not shy in taking decisions in the
national interest,” said Ajit Kumar, a former Indian ambassador.
In February, Mr. Modi nearly went to war with
Pakistan, which proved to be a huge boost as the election drew near. The next
month, he announced with great fanfare that India now had the capability to
shoot down satellites hurtling through space, which only a few countries can
do.
Voters across different demographic groups
are responding, too.
One of them, Rohita Dwivedi, a marketing
professor in Mumbai, talked about how she felt that one of India’s biggest
problems was an inferiority complex. Citing Mr. Modi’s vision, and his success
in delivering on promises to help the poor and fight corruption, she said, “As
an Indian, I am finally proud.”
Politicians are products of their time. In
many different societies, globalization is unsettling people, creating a
craving for a return to a simpler and more glorious past. Add to that social
media, which enables people to filter out only what they want to hear. The
result, analysts say, is a new generation of strongmen.
Part of the their success lies in an ability
to speak to voters directly, bypassing the press or other moderating filters
that might spotlight problems.
Mr. Erdogan, for example, makes several big
speeches on a daily basis that are carried by friendly broadcasters straight
into homes, sidewalk cafes and offices, making them virtually inescapable.
President Trump is known for his late night tweets. At 60 million followers, he
is the world’s most followed elected official in office right now.
Right behind him? Mr. Modi, at 47 million
followers.
Democracies are technically built to keep out
autocrats. And like the United States, India is equipped with historically
independent institutions, such as its Supreme Court and its press.
But Mr. Modi is not India’s first leader to
push the boundaries. Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister and Rahul
Gandhi’s great-grandfather, developed a cult of personality and ruled virtually
unchallenged for 17 years.
Then, in the 1970s, his daughter, Indira
Gandhi, a prime minister from the Congress Party, declared a state of emergency
and jailed political opponents and censored the press.
As history would have it, an opposition party
that included precursors to today’s B.J.P. won the next elections, in part
because of anger over Mrs. Gandhi’s autocratic impulses.
Kai Schultz and Hari Kumar contributed
reporting.
