Bannon misread the tea leaves

It was believed that Steve Bannon took the election of Narendra Modi in 2014 as Prime Minister of India as a grassroots endorsement of nationalist, anti-globalist politics.

The next vindication of his beliefs was Brexit and most recently, the election of Donald Trump to the American presidency.

Since the entire edifice was built on the election of Narendra Modi, I felt it would be interesting to see if Modi is truly the populist, nationalist, anti-globalist politician Bannon believes him to be.

To be fair, my first instinct when thinking of Modi is that he is a nationalist, a populist, and basically a Hindu nativist.

Nationalist

My view of Modi is informed by his (in)actions as the chief minister of Gujarat in the year 2002-2003. In early December 2002 and early 2003, Gujarat was convulsed by sectarian riots leading to the killing of thousands of Muslim citizens of India. At the time, TV stations had reported Modi stating that the riots were a “reaction” to an “action”; the action in question being the burning of coach S6 of a train full of Hindus leading to the death of 50+ Hindu men, women, and children. I had found his statement extremely repulsive and asymptomatic of whatever India stood for.

Only recently did I read more dispassionate coverage [Manushi.in link] of Modi’s tenure during the 2002-2003 riots and was forced to acknowledge that the quote in question had been selectively edited by TV channels to depict Modi in a less than flattering light. Even the Special Investigation Team looking into the riots said that the full quote from Modi was that while mob violence was a reaction to an action, he called upon the people to Gujarat to neither act nor react and to eschew violence [Blogspot link].

For fifteen years, my impression of Modi has been of a Hindu nationalist thug who looked the other way while his citizens were being slaughtered on the streets.

After reading Madhu Kishwar’s opinion piece on Modi on Manushi, I feel I may have taken in a biased view of Modi as mediated by television channels. Madhu’s op-ed extensively quotes someone who, at first, tried to take Modi to the International Court of Justice for crimes against humanity but then had a change of heart after interacting directly with Modi and challenging him to explain his role in the Gujarat riots. If such a person can revise his opinion of Modi, I felt I too should reconsider whatever I feel about him.

All this to say that Bannon too has probably misread Modi’s political instincts. Modi (IMHO) is not a parochial Hindu nationalist and voting for him is not a vote to eject Muslims from India.

Populism

Next, Modi is hardly the populist icon Bannon imagines him to be. Yes, Modi is popular but his popularity isn’t derived from his support of popular ideas. For example, Jayalalithaa was a populist because she was happy to hand out free meals and Saris to the poor. These were popular because the general population directly benefited from these steps.

On the other hand, Modi demonetized certain denominations and railroaded GST through. No one can argue that either of these steps are even remotely popular. In fact, even the RBI says that Demonetization didn’t achieve its stated goal of detecting and neutralizing black money. The common man can readily see that demonetization’s goalposts have been shifted at least a few times.

Similarly, GST has led to higher prices which pinches the common man right where it hurts the most - their monthly budget. Neither step being even remotely popular, it’s hard to argue that Modi is acting like a populist.

I don’t believe Bannon knew this side of Modi when he took him to be a populist. Agree or disagree with Modi, you would be hard pressed to find any GoI decision which is from the economic populism playbook.

Hindu nativist

Again, back to Madhu Kishwar’s op-ed on the Gujarat riots. She repeatedly quotes leaders of the anti-Modi Group telling of the efficiency and quality of relief work provided to affected Muslims. Yes, some of Modi’s soundbytes are anti-Muslim (though he is careful to never call out a community by name) and sometimes needlessly antagonistic towards Pakistan but the people on the ground say that his work as a Chief Executive is not tainted by animosity towards Muslims.

Take, for example, the triple Talaq debate. The Modi government supports doing away with triple talaq where Muslim men can divorce their wives by saying “Talaq” thrice.

My first impression was that there was no need for the central government to be involved in the personal law of any Indian community. Over time, as I listened to debates on the subject, it became clear that the Muslim community itself is not united in its support for triple Talaq. Muslim women’s groups want triple Talaq gone because they say it weakens the position of Muslim wives in a marriage. Progressive Muslims believe removing triple Talaq will bring India’s Muslim personal law in line with that of other Muslim countries. Yes, it is unseemly for the Central government to interfere in personal laws of a community but in this case, there is community support for this intervention.

Does this make Modi a Hindu nativist? I’m of the opinion that calling him a nativist is not right. Could he have kicked the can of personal law changes down the road? Yes, for sure. It’s to his credit that he didn’t.

I believe Bannon again misread the vocal opposition to Modi by people in the West as a sign that Modi was a nativist. Modi uses a lot of Hindu symbolism in his language and optics. For example, he started a recent election campaign from the Hindu city of Banaras. He is constantly harking back to Kali and Durga and Shakti in his speeches. Another favorite is Sardar Patel. His partymen often make comments and statements in the press about Hindu supremacy.

Here again, his record as Gujarat’s chief minister and a recent action taken by the UP government indicate that his nativism is not nativism at all. The far right parties which used to be in bed with Modi’s party have been distancing themselves from him because they are being held accountable for their actions and statements. Shiv Sena and the BJP are not exactly friends any more.

Recently, when a far right party threatened to disrupt Christmas celebrations in UP, the administration there made it very clear that such statements would not be tolerated and made that party submit a bond of ₹10 lakh (₹1 Million) that they would not prevent any Christmas celebrations in the state.

To me, these are good indications of where Modi’s heart truly lies. I want to give him a chance to lead this country without imputing the worst motives to him.

Conclusion

Given the preceding wall of text, I am pretty sure Bannon doesn’t actually understand the nature of the Modi government. This lack of understanding calls into question the line he has drawn from Modi to the anti-globalist Trump. Where Trump supports legacy industries like oil and coal, India is a leader in renewables. Where Trump believes in laissez-faire regulations, India is supportive of net neutrality and generic drug manufacture.

To me, it looks like Bannon fell in love with the narrative of anti-globalism and in the brash Modi, he perceived a comrade in arms. In reality, Modi is far more mainstream than Bannon imagined.