India, the world’s largest democracy, is in the midst of a marathon five-week election that will result in the selection of its next prime minister. Although Nate Silver has yet to make it official, most pundits and prognosticators predict that Narendra Modi will be India’s next leader.
Modi bears striking similarities to a celebrated American president: one Ronald Wilson Reagan. Both men rose from humble origins. Modi, in particular, worked from childhood hawking tea in railway stations. Both were popular and successful state governors: Modi is the chief minister (equivalent to a governor) of Gujarat, an Indian state whose gift to the world was Mahatma Gandhi. Modi, like Reagan, is an unabashed proponent of free market economics: “Modinomics,” the term coined to describe Modi’s free market and anti-corruption reforms, is of course a nod to “Reaganomics”; it has unleashed an economic boom in Gujarat.
A major common denominator between the two men is the nature of their detractors. Like the U.S., India has cultural elitists who seem to desperately crave the approval of their former colonial masters in Europe. The Indian cultural elite despises Modi every bit as much as the American cultural elite despised Reagan. They look down their noses at Modi, cringing at the thought of being led by a common “tea seller” who can barely speak English. (Can you imagine Chinese or Russian citizens, proud of their own heritage, being ashamed that their leaders don’t speak English?)
The American elites, of course, believed that Reagan was an unsophisticated simpleton who was too extreme to be president. Prior to his election, they issued dire warnings about the calamities that would ensue if Reagan came to power. The rest, as they say, is history, and the collapse of the Soviet empire left Reagan’s critics on the wrong side of it.
The cultural elites labeled Reagan a racist. That’s a term they use for anyone who believes that a robust and growing market economy, rather than massive government bureaucracy, is the best way to promote upward mobility for the poor and minorities.
Modi, a proud Hindu, is also labeled by his critics as a racist. As with Reagan, the charge lacks merit and is stoked by political opponents seeking to sow fear (and hence cement support) in minority communities. In Modi’s case, the charge is linked to tragic events that occurred in Gujarat in 2002: A train carrying hundreds of Hindu pilgrims was set afire, killing about 60. Following reports that Muslim arsonists were responsible, anti-Muslim violence broke out and hundreds were killed. Modi took several steps to protect the besieged Muslim communities, including imposing curfews, issuing shoot-on-sight orders against rioters, and calling in the army.
Still, political opponents accused him of not doing enough to prevent the violence, and even of condoning it. The Supreme Court of India launched a special investigation of the incident, and found the accusations against Modi to be unsubstantiated by the evidence. The Supreme Court’s conclusions have been ignored by Modi’s political opponents; they continue to profit politically by smearing Modi with India’s version of the “race card.”
It is a testament to the tolerance of India’s Hindu-majority society that it hosts several flourishing communities of other faiths. Neighboring Pakistan, by contrast, is a highly inhospitable environment for those who don’t subscribe to the majority Muslim religion. The religious minority communities that have managed to survive there are tiny and constantly under siege. Bangladesh has similar problems. When critics lob the evidence-free accusation that Modi is “intolerant” of religious minorities, they are certainly not applying the standards that prevail in the region.
Modi promises to take a tough stand against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. In this regard, Americans would do well to remember that the Islamists are not fighting against the “West.” — with Sashi Kumar and 15 others.
Modi bears striking similarities to a celebrated American president: one Ronald Wilson Reagan. Both men rose from humble origins. Modi, in particular, worked from childhood hawking tea in railway stations. Both were popular and successful state governors: Modi is the chief minister (equivalent to a governor) of Gujarat, an Indian state whose gift to the world was Mahatma Gandhi. Modi, like Reagan, is an unabashed proponent of free market economics: “Modinomics,” the term coined to describe Modi’s free market and anti-corruption reforms, is of course a nod to “Reaganomics”; it has unleashed an economic boom in Gujarat.
A major common denominator between the two men is the nature of their detractors. Like the U.S., India has cultural elitists who seem to desperately crave the approval of their former colonial masters in Europe. The Indian cultural elite despises Modi every bit as much as the American cultural elite despised Reagan. They look down their noses at Modi, cringing at the thought of being led by a common “tea seller” who can barely speak English. (Can you imagine Chinese or Russian citizens, proud of their own heritage, being ashamed that their leaders don’t speak English?)
The American elites, of course, believed that Reagan was an unsophisticated simpleton who was too extreme to be president. Prior to his election, they issued dire warnings about the calamities that would ensue if Reagan came to power. The rest, as they say, is history, and the collapse of the Soviet empire left Reagan’s critics on the wrong side of it.
The cultural elites labeled Reagan a racist. That’s a term they use for anyone who believes that a robust and growing market economy, rather than massive government bureaucracy, is the best way to promote upward mobility for the poor and minorities.
Modi, a proud Hindu, is also labeled by his critics as a racist. As with Reagan, the charge lacks merit and is stoked by political opponents seeking to sow fear (and hence cement support) in minority communities. In Modi’s case, the charge is linked to tragic events that occurred in Gujarat in 2002: A train carrying hundreds of Hindu pilgrims was set afire, killing about 60. Following reports that Muslim arsonists were responsible, anti-Muslim violence broke out and hundreds were killed. Modi took several steps to protect the besieged Muslim communities, including imposing curfews, issuing shoot-on-sight orders against rioters, and calling in the army.
Still, political opponents accused him of not doing enough to prevent the violence, and even of condoning it. The Supreme Court of India launched a special investigation of the incident, and found the accusations against Modi to be unsubstantiated by the evidence. The Supreme Court’s conclusions have been ignored by Modi’s political opponents; they continue to profit politically by smearing Modi with India’s version of the “race card.”
It is a testament to the tolerance of India’s Hindu-majority society that it hosts several flourishing communities of other faiths. Neighboring Pakistan, by contrast, is a highly inhospitable environment for those who don’t subscribe to the majority Muslim religion. The religious minority communities that have managed to survive there are tiny and constantly under siege. Bangladesh has similar problems. When critics lob the evidence-free accusation that Modi is “intolerant” of religious minorities, they are certainly not applying the standards that prevail in the region.
Modi promises to take a tough stand against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. In this regard, Americans would do well to remember that the Islamists are not fighting against the “West.” — with Sashi Kumar and 15 others.
No comments:
Post a Comment