If not Modi, who? Nehru may have had the right answer

The last five years have seen the consistent breaching of democratic norms and the undermining of myriad institutions, from judiciary to Parliament, matching Indira's Emergency in its sweep. But what the country needs is a leader who can be questione

The Narendra Modi government has done its five years, a period, even his most serious critics would admit, is already etched in history. Five more years and 300-plus seats are what he and his party are seeking now, a rare ambition by a party and a government that reels out numbers to make big claims about small achievements, whether regarding economic performance or those killed by air strike in Balakot. Columnists and experts can keep quibbling about the strategic advantage that India gained from its attack on Pakistan, but it has impressed those who believe leadership is about flaunting muscles. Balakot has arrested the BJP's slide, which was evident with the losses in the assembly elections of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan.

An assessment that begins from the last page of Modi's first term can't but conclude that his government is totally in control. Yet, ironically, his government remains angry, as it has been through much of its five years, surprising for one enjoying a brute majority. It has been angry with 60-plus years of Congress rule, with institutions, individuals, liberals, NGOs, economists, bankers, students, Dalits, Muslims, women, and all those who have tried telling the government that it was functioning in a democracy where dignity and rights of an individual matters. Instead of listening to them, the citizen was told only about her obligations to the nation. She was reminded that she should not ask questions but acquiesce in what was on offer.

And what was on offer was one idea after another, some of which were outlandish. The idea here is not to dissect policy initiatives of the past 60 months but to measure how the prime minister, his cabinet colleagues, party members and a vast troll army reacted to free and intelligent discussion on any one of them. The prime minister's deathly silence went hand-in-hand with death threats and intimidation by the ruling party's troll army.

The government's anger has co-existed with its deep belief that a grand conspiracy was afoot against it. From JNU to Bhima Koregaon, anyone who dissented was a suspect. Indira Gandhi had the CIA as her pet peeve; the Modi government suspects a section of its own population. The new denizens of Lutyens Delhi allege conspiracy by the past occupants, now relegated to the periphery of the power structure. Conspiracies allow individuals or governments to project themselves as victims and, therefore, not responsible for their action.

Conspiracies also help create enemies to reinforce identity. One must concede that the Modi government has had a stupendous success on this front.

The chorus of 'identity-in-danger' was not only limited to the government and BJP but was also joined by a large section of the mainstream media that has spent disproportionately more time accusing the opposition and liberals of questioning Modi's motive, of not letting him work. Dissent and disagreements have been painted as sedition. On sale is a standard package of nationalism, to which everyone should subscribe. Otherwise, they are told to find home in Pakistan.

The next two months will be heady. Modi's anger and tales of conspiracy will blare at us, will be played on loop million times to make us believe our salvation lies in another stint for him. Already, we have been asked: if not Modi, who? He is being marketed as the sole talisman for the nation, the most popular and the only competent leader who can move mountains and make Pakistan sing.

Such claims are not new. After the second general election, there was a view within the Congress that an ailing Nehru should make way for a leader of his choosing. But the coterie that surrounded him would ward off such moves by suggesting there was no one of his stature, competence and popularity. It was wrong then. It is unpardonable now. This is because in the 1950s our democracy was still fragile.

Nehru had to be backed because he had been chosen by Mahatma Gandhi, whose very absence was a cause for nervousness. A misstep could throw Indian democracy in disarray, or so it was thought.

It has been 70 years since then. Despite our failings on multiple fronts, democracy has taken deep roots. Regardless of their performance, none of the bevy of prime ministers breached the red line beyond redemption, except Indira Gandhi in 1975. She paid a political price for it and earned a permanent place in the album of authoritarian leaders. To say a nation can be subsumed in a personality would be the undoing of our democracy and the Indian Constitution. The last five years have seen consistent breaching of democratic norms and undermining of myriad institutions, from judiciary to Parliament, matching Indira Gandhi's Emergency in its sweep and audacity.

What the country needs is a leader who can be questioned. It does not need a cult whose members have a blind faith in the leader. Nations cannot remain buoyant by hitching themselves to a one-man wagon.

Astrong leader should not be confused with a strong State. Indian democracy has still a lot to deliver – there are many who have been left behind in the development process, clamour for two meals a day, a roof over their head, education and healthcare. They need a leader who lends an ear to them, and does not wax eloquent about himself, 24x7x365 days.

And since the devotees of Narendra Modi blame Nehru for all the ills plaguing India, they should know how their deeply flawed Nehru could sometimes turn the gaze inwards. Nehru's chances of getting a third consecutive term as Congress president were high but to this, he was not agreeable. Writing about himself in The Modern Review under the pseudonym Chanakya in 1937, he said, 'By electing him a third time we shall exalt one man at the cost of the Congress and make the people think in terms of Caesarism. We shall encourage in Jawaharlal, the wrong tendencies and increase his conceit and pride. He will become convinced that only he can bear this burden or tackle India's problems… His conceit is already formidable. It must be checked. We want no Caesars.'

Akshaya Mukul is a journalist and author of Gita Press And The Making of Hindu India Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com

Catch up on all the latest Mumbai news, crime news, current affairs, and also a complete guide on Mumbai from food to things to do and events across the city here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!