What's new

An open letter to Narendra Modi

Levina

BANNED
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
15,278
Reaction score
59
Country
India
Location
United Arab Emirates
An open letter to Narendra Modi



May 19, 2014 12:57 AM , By Gopalkrishna Gandhi
img

A file photo of Gopalkrishna Gandhi. Photo: R. Ragu

Let this historic win be followed by a historic innings, which stuns the world by surprises your supporters may not want of you but many more would want to see you unfurl, writes Gopalkrishna Gandhi
Dear Prime Minister-designate,

This comes with my hearty felicitations. I mean and say that in utter sincerity, which is not very easy for me to summon, because I am not one of those who wanted to see you reach the high office that you have reached. You know better than anyone else, that while many millions are ecstatic that you will become Prime Minister, many more millions may, in fact, be disturbed, greatly disturbed by it.

Until recently I did not believe those who said you were headed there. But, there you are, seated at the desk at which Jawaharlal Nehru sat, Lal Bahadur Shastri did, and, after a historic struggle against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, another Gujarati, Morarji Desai did, as did later, your own political mentor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Those who did not want you there have to accept the fact that you are there.

Despite all my huge misgivings about your deserving that rare privilege, I respect someone coming from so sharply disadvantaged a community and family as yours, becoming Prime Minister of India. That fulfils, very quintessentially, the vision of our egalitarian Constitution.

Revisting the idea of desh

When some spoke rashly and derisively of your having been a “chaiwala,” I felt sick to my stomach. What a wonderful thing it is, I said to myself, that one who has made and served chai for a living should be able to head the government of India. Far better bearing a pyala to many than being a chamcha to one.

But, Mr. Modi, with that said, I must move to why your being at India’s helm disturbs millions of Indians. You know this more clearly than anyone else that in the 2014 election, voters voted, in the main, for Modi or against Modi. It was a case of “Is Narendra Modi the country’s best guardian — desh ka rakhvala — or is he not?” The BJP has won the seats it has because you captured the imagination of 31 per cent of our people (your vote share) as the nation’s best guardian, in fact, as its saviour. It has also to be noted that 69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala. They also disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh. And this — the concept of desh— is where, Mr. Modi, the Constitution of India, upon the authority of which you are entering the office of Prime Minister, matters. I urge you to revisit the idea ofdesh.

Reassuring the minorities

In invoking unity and stability, you have regularly turned to the name and stature of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The Sardar, as you would know, chaired the Constituent Assembly’s Committee on Minorities. If the Constitution of India gives crucial guarantees — educational, cultural and religious — to India’s minorities, Sardar Patel has to be thanked, as do other members of that committee, in particular Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the Christian daughter of Sikh Kapurthala. Adopt, in toto, Mr. Modi, not adapt or modify, dilute or tinker with, the vision of the Constitution on the minorities. You may like to read what the indomitable Sardar said in that committee.

Why is there, in so many, so much fear, that they dare not voice their fears?

It is because when you address rallies, they want to hear a democrat who carries the Peoplehood of India with him, not an Emperor who issues decrees. Reassure the minorities, Mr. Modi, do not patronise them. “Development” is no substitute to security. You spoke of “the Koran in one hand, a laptop in the other,” or words to that effect. That visual did not quite reassure them because of a counter visual that scares them — of a thug masquerading as a Hindu holding a Hindu epic’s DVD in one hand and a minatorytrishul in the other.

In the olden days, headmasters used to keep a salted cane in one corner of the classroom, visible and scary, as a reminder of his ability to lash the chosen skin. Memories, no more than a few months old, of the riots in Muzaffarnagar which left at least 42 Muslims and 20 Hindus dead and displaced over 50,000 persons, are that salted cane. “Beware, this is what will be done to you!” is not a threat that anyone in a democracy should fear. But that is the message that has entered the day’s fears and night’s terrors of millions.

It is in your hands, Mr. Modi, to dispel that. You have the authority and the power to do that, the right and the obligation as well. I would like to believe that, overcoming small-minded advice to the contrary, you will dispel that fear.

All religious minorities in India, not just the Muslim, bear scars in their psyche even as Hindus and Sikhs displaced from West Punjab, and Kashmiri Pandits do. There is the fear of a sudden riot caused with real or staged provocation, and then returned with multiplied retribution, targeted very specially on women. Dalits and Adivasis, especially the women, live and relive humiliation and exploitation every minute of their lives. The constant tug of unease because of slights, discrimination, victimisation is de-citizenising, demoralising, dehumanising. Address that tug, Mr. Modi, vocally and visibly and win their trust. You can, by assuring them that you will be the first spokesman for their interests.

No one should have the impudence to speak the monarchist language of uniformism to a republic of pluralism, the vocabulary of “oneness” to an imagination of many-nesses, the grammar of consolidation to a sensibility that thrives in and on its variations. India is a diverse forest. It wants you to nurture the humus that sustains its great variety, not place before it the monochromatic monoculturalism of a political monotheism.

What has been taken as your stand on Article 370 of the Constitution, the old and hackneyed demand for a Uniform Civil Code, the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, and what the media have reported as your statements about “Hindu refugees” in our North and North-West and “Muslim refugees” in our East and North-East, strikes fear, not trust. Mass fear, Mr. Modi, cannot be an attribute of the Republic of India. And, as Prime Minister of India, you are the Republic’s alter ego.

India’s minorities are not a segment of India, they are an infusion in the main. Anyone can burn rope to cinder, no one can take the twist out of it. Bharat mata ki jai, sure, Mr. Modi, but not superseding the compelling urgency of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s clarion — Jai Hind!

A historic win it has been for you, Mr. Modi, for which, once again, congratulations. Let it be followed by a historic innings, which stuns the world by surprises your supporters may not want of you but many more would want to see you unfurl. You are hugely intelligent and will not mind unsolicited but disinterested advice of one from an earlier generation. Requite the applause of your support-base but, equally, redeem the trust of those who have not supported you. When you reconstitute the Minorities Commission, ask the Opposition to give you all the names and accept them without change. And do the same for the panels on Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and Linguistic Minorities. And when it comes to choosing the next Chief Information Commissioner, the next CAG, CVC, go sportingly by the recommendation of the non-government members on the selection committee, as long as it is not partisan. You are strong and can afford such risks.

Addressing the southern deficit

Mr. Modi, there is a southern deficit in your India calculus. The Hindi-belt image of your victory should not tighten itself into a North-South divide. Please appoint a deputy prime minister from the South, who is not a politician at all, but an expert social scientist, ecologist, economist or a demographer. Nehru had Shanmukham Chetty, John Mathai, C.D. Deshmukh and K.L. Rao in his cabinet. They were not Congressmen, not even politicians. Indira Gandhi had S. Chandrashekhar, V.K.R.V. Rao. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the UPA did not make Professor M.S. Swaminathan and Shyam Benegal, both nominated members in the Rajya Sabha, ministers. There is a convention, one may even say, a healthy convention, that nominated members should not be made ministers. But exigencies are exigencies. Professor Nurul Hasan, a nominated member, was one of the best Ministers of Education we have had.

Imperial and ideological exemplars appeal to you. So, be Maharana Pratap in your struggle as you conceive it, but be an Akbar in your repose. Be a Savarkar in your heart, if you must, but be an Ambedkar in your mind. Be an RSS-trained believer in Hindutva in your DNA, if you need to be, but be the Wazir-e-Azam of Hindostan that the 69 per cent who did not vote for you, would want you to be.

With every good wish as you take your place at the helm of our desh,

I am, your fellow-citizen,

Gopalkrishna Gandhi

(The writer is a former administrator and diplomat. He was Governor of West Bengal, 2004-2009, and officiating Governor of Bihar, 2005-2006.)
 
Everybody has an opinion and something to say.

I think we should let the man be and let him work out what he feels best for the nation & for himself. Having got a resounding mandate he will be a monkey's uncle to let go by under performance.

He & his party would I am sure work towards not just this tenure but ensuring he does not let the grass grow under his feet and leave space for the decimated opposition to make inroads in 2019.

Knowing him and the performance of BJP stalwarts like CMs of MP, Chattisgarh etc who have been reelected time & again, they will not let it go.

They will have to perform or perish and they know it.
 
What has been taken as your stand on Article 370 of the Constitution, the old and hackneyed demand for a Uniform Civil Code, the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, and what the media have reported as your statements about “Hindu refugees” in our North and North-West and “Muslim refugees” in our East and North-East, strikes fear, not trust. Mass fear, Mr. Modi, cannot be an attribute of the Republic of India. And, as Prime Minister of India, you are the Republic’s alter ego.

Being a strong supporter of secularism, I do not understand this bit as described by these guys. How is wanting same rules for everybody irrespective of religion an old and hackneyed demand? The Republic of India has always been secular so people wishing to stay in it must have known that the country will have to have a secular uniform civil code.

The BJP has won the seats it has because you captured the imagination of 31 per cent of our people (your vote share) as the nation’s best guardian, in fact, as its saviour. It has also to be noted that 69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala. They also disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh. And this — the concept of desh— is where, Mr. Modi, the Constitution of India, upon the authority of which you are entering the office of Prime Minister, matters. I urge you to revisit the idea ofdesh.

The chances of a party getting more than 50% falls as the number of parties contesting the elections increases. On the same note, the number of people who rejected other parties are much higher than the number which rejected this current government.
 
Last edited:
An open letter to Narendra Modi



May 19, 2014 12:57 AM , By Gopalkrishna Gandhi
img

A file photo of Gopalkrishna Gandhi. Photo: R. Ragu

Let this historic win be followed by a historic innings, which stuns the world by surprises your supporters may not want of you but many more would want to see you unfurl, writes Gopalkrishna Gandhi
Dear Prime Minister-designate,

This comes with my hearty felicitations. I mean and say that in utter sincerity, which is not very easy for me to summon, because I am not one of those who wanted to see you reach the high office that you have reached. You know better than anyone else, that while many millions are ecstatic that you will become Prime Minister, many more millions may, in fact, be disturbed, greatly disturbed by it.

Until recently I did not believe those who said you were headed there. But, there you are, seated at the desk at which Jawaharlal Nehru sat, Lal Bahadur Shastri did, and, after a historic struggle against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, another Gujarati, Morarji Desai did, as did later, your own political mentor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Those who did not want you there have to accept the fact that you are there.

Despite all my huge misgivings about your deserving that rare privilege, I respect someone coming from so sharply disadvantaged a community and family as yours, becoming Prime Minister of India. That fulfils, very quintessentially, the vision of our egalitarian Constitution.

Revisting the idea of desh

When some spoke rashly and derisively of your having been a “chaiwala,” I felt sick to my stomach. What a wonderful thing it is, I said to myself, that one who has made and served chai for a living should be able to head the government of India. Far better bearing a pyala to many than being a chamcha to one.

But, Mr. Modi, with that said, I must move to why your being at India’s helm disturbs millions of Indians. You know this more clearly than anyone else that in the 2014 election, voters voted, in the main, for Modi or against Modi. It was a case of “Is Narendra Modi the country’s best guardian — desh ka rakhvala — or is he not?” The BJP has won the seats it has because you captured the imagination of 31 per cent of our people (your vote share) as the nation’s best guardian, in fact, as its saviour. It has also to be noted that 69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala. They also disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh. And this — the concept of desh— is where, Mr. Modi, the Constitution of India, upon the authority of which you are entering the office of Prime Minister, matters. I urge you to revisit the idea ofdesh.

Reassuring the minorities

In invoking unity and stability, you have regularly turned to the name and stature of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. The Sardar, as you would know, chaired the Constituent Assembly’s Committee on Minorities. If the Constitution of India gives crucial guarantees — educational, cultural and religious — to India’s minorities, Sardar Patel has to be thanked, as do other members of that committee, in particular Rajkumari Amrit Kaur, the Christian daughter of Sikh Kapurthala. Adopt, in toto, Mr. Modi, not adapt or modify, dilute or tinker with, the vision of the Constitution on the minorities. You may like to read what the indomitable Sardar said in that committee.

Why is there, in so many, so much fear, that they dare not voice their fears?

It is because when you address rallies, they want to hear a democrat who carries the Peoplehood of India with him, not an Emperor who issues decrees. Reassure the minorities, Mr. Modi, do not patronise them. “Development” is no substitute to security. You spoke of “the Koran in one hand, a laptop in the other,” or words to that effect. That visual did not quite reassure them because of a counter visual that scares them — of a thug masquerading as a Hindu holding a Hindu epic’s DVD in one hand and a minatorytrishul in the other.

In the olden days, headmasters used to keep a salted cane in one corner of the classroom, visible and scary, as a reminder of his ability to lash the chosen skin. Memories, no more than a few months old, of the riots in Muzaffarnagar which left at least 42 Muslims and 20 Hindus dead and displaced over 50,000 persons, are that salted cane. “Beware, this is what will be done to you!” is not a threat that anyone in a democracy should fear. But that is the message that has entered the day’s fears and night’s terrors of millions.

It is in your hands, Mr. Modi, to dispel that. You have the authority and the power to do that, the right and the obligation as well. I would like to believe that, overcoming small-minded advice to the contrary, you will dispel that fear.

All religious minorities in India, not just the Muslim, bear scars in their psyche even as Hindus and Sikhs displaced from West Punjab, and Kashmiri Pandits do. There is the fear of a sudden riot caused with real or staged provocation, and then returned with multiplied retribution, targeted very specially on women. Dalits and Adivasis, especially the women, live and relive humiliation and exploitation every minute of their lives. The constant tug of unease because of slights, discrimination, victimisation is de-citizenising, demoralising, dehumanising. Address that tug, Mr. Modi, vocally and visibly and win their trust. You can, by assuring them that you will be the first spokesman for their interests.

No one should have the impudence to speak the monarchist language of uniformism to a republic of pluralism, the vocabulary of “oneness” to an imagination of many-nesses, the grammar of consolidation to a sensibility that thrives in and on its variations. India is a diverse forest. It wants you to nurture the humus that sustains its great variety, not place before it the monochromatic monoculturalism of a political monotheism.

What has been taken as your stand on Article 370 of the Constitution, the old and hackneyed demand for a Uniform Civil Code, the Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, and what the media have reported as your statements about “Hindu refugees” in our North and North-West and “Muslim refugees” in our East and North-East, strikes fear, not trust. Mass fear, Mr. Modi, cannot be an attribute of the Republic of India. And, as Prime Minister of India, you are the Republic’s alter ego.

India’s minorities are not a segment of India, they are an infusion in the main. Anyone can burn rope to cinder, no one can take the twist out of it. Bharat mata ki jai, sure, Mr. Modi, but not superseding the compelling urgency of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose’s clarion — Jai Hind!

A historic win it has been for you, Mr. Modi, for which, once again, congratulations. Let it be followed by a historic innings, which stuns the world by surprises your supporters may not want of you but many more would want to see you unfurl. You are hugely intelligent and will not mind unsolicited but disinterested advice of one from an earlier generation. Requite the applause of your support-base but, equally, redeem the trust of those who have not supported you. When you reconstitute the Minorities Commission, ask the Opposition to give you all the names and accept them without change. And do the same for the panels on Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and Linguistic Minorities. And when it comes to choosing the next Chief Information Commissioner, the next CAG, CVC, go sportingly by the recommendation of the non-government members on the selection committee, as long as it is not partisan. You are strong and can afford such risks.

Addressing the southern deficit

Mr. Modi, there is a southern deficit in your India calculus. The Hindi-belt image of your victory should not tighten itself into a North-South divide. Please appoint a deputy prime minister from the South, who is not a politician at all, but an expert social scientist, ecologist, economist or a demographer. Nehru had Shanmukham Chetty, John Mathai, C.D. Deshmukh and K.L. Rao in his cabinet. They were not Congressmen, not even politicians. Indira Gandhi had S. Chandrashekhar, V.K.R.V. Rao. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why the UPA did not make Professor M.S. Swaminathan and Shyam Benegal, both nominated members in the Rajya Sabha, ministers. There is a convention, one may even say, a healthy convention, that nominated members should not be made ministers. But exigencies are exigencies. Professor Nurul Hasan, a nominated member, was one of the best Ministers of Education we have had.

Imperial and ideological exemplars appeal to you. So, be Maharana Pratap in your struggle as you conceive it, but be an Akbar in your repose. Be a Savarkar in your heart, if you must, but be an Ambedkar in your mind. Be an RSS-trained believer in Hindutva in your DNA, if you need to be, but be the Wazir-e-Azam of Hindostan that the 69 per cent who did not vote for you, would want you to be.

With every good wish as you take your place at the helm of our desh,

I am, your fellow-citizen,

Gopalkrishna Gandhi

(The writer is a former administrator and diplomat. He was Governor of West Bengal, 2004-2009, and officiating Governor of Bihar, 2005-2006.)
Load of crap the author wants no uniform civil code,no abolishing 370, special status to kashmir,reservations to minority,free hand to prosetlyse
Let the left liberals of Jnu and Lutyens enjoy same perks as before and finally recommends left liberals,commies,evangelists in decision making panels and deputy pm post.Enough said.The article was written by a left liberal in a commie paper the hindu.Wonder why all these so called open letters come from only the hindu.
 
Being a strong supporter of secularism, I do not understand this bit as described by these guys. How is wanting same rules for everybody irrespective of religion an old and hackneyed demand? The Republic of India has always been secular so people wishing to stay in it must have known that the country will have to have a secular uniform civil code.

See that's the thing. Secularism in India means pandering to one group and oppressing the other. My question is always the same: when all other communities including the 81% of Hindu population of India is happy to accept a Uniform Civil Code, why does one community have so much problem with becoming equal? To this question, no one from that community has any answer.

I am curious to know why Mr.Gandhi is opposing the uniform civil code if he believes that "minorities are not segment of India, they are infusion in the main."

Look at his surname and look at the spineless legacy the so-called 'father' of nation left behind. See his quotes and you will know why.
 
the old and hackneyed demand for a Uniform Civil Code

Time to stop reading about secularism after this line.....many things in the constition of India are probably "old & hackneyed".... I would have been more understanding (understanding, not agreeing) if it was argued that now is not the time but "old & hackneyed"? It is why that such people are not taken seriously, picking & chosing parts of the constition cannot solely be one side's prerogative alone.

Mr. Gopalakrishna Gandhi is, by all accounts, a decent man. There are many such in India. Their voices aren't heard with the same attention only because they are not the descendants of Mahatma Gandhi. This is another "ordinary" chap hoping to use the family name for some media space.Disappointed.
 
Nobody cares about the mandir thingy but Article 370 has to go and Uniform Civil Code is the need of the hour. Guess that makes me communal :woot:, so be it
 
How many letters have been written since election????? I guess it is time that i write one.....
 
See that's the thing. Secularism in India means pandering to one group and oppressing the other. My question is always the same: when all other communities including the 81% of Hindu population of India is happy to accept a Uniform Civil Code, why does one community have so much problem with becoming equal? To this question, no one from that community has any answer.
You know what, a lot of maulanas in rural areas of UP scare their community by saying Uniform Civil Code means they will not be allowed to bury bodies but would be forced to cremate them :rolleyes:
 
Why Gopal Gandhi’s open letter to Modi is wrong-headed and odious
I am appalled at the odious open letter written by Gopalkrishna Gandhi in The Hindu today (19 May) to Narendra Modi, giving him not only unsolicited advice, but effectively telling him he does not have a mandate to govern. The best thing Modi can do is lie low and be a genial and over-compromising non-achiever who keeps detractors happy.

After beginning his letter saying he did not want to see Modi as PM, Gopal Gandhi asserts startlingly that “while many millions are ecstatic that you will become prime minister, many more millions may, in fact, be disturbed, greatly disturbed by it.”

Now, how did Gandhi come to this conclusion that “many more millions” may be disturbed by a Modi prime ministership? From the fact that the BJP’s vote share is 31 percent. So Gandhi glibly concludes that “69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala. They also disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh.”

Let’s be clear. In a first-past-the-post electoral system and in a fractured society like ours, mandates will be won on the basis of a minority of votes. This is the case not only with Modi’s mandate, but everybody’s in recent decades – and it is true in the states as well.

But can a 31 percent vote be interpreted as a 69 percent rejection rate? This is bunkum. All it means is that for the balance 69 percent, Modi – for local and other reasons – may not have been a first choice. It does not imply any kind of rejection – unless we are talking only about the minorities, where, admittedly, Modi has some work to do.

The only way to get a minimum 50 percent mandate is to have a French style system of having one or more eliminating rounds before the final vote. This would knock out the parties with the lowest shares in progressive stages – leaving only the two finalists seeking 50-percent plus and victory. The other way is to have a two-party system, or a German-style proportional representation system where parties getting less than 5 percent are knocked out. In this election, a German-style system of proportional representation would have left only the BJP and Congress as worthy of parliamentary representation. No other party touched 5 percent at the national level.

But taking the Gopal Gandhi logic of 69 percent rejecting Modi to its logical conclusion, it would still mean that Modi was the politician India objected to the least. The Congress, with 19.3 percent of the vote, was rejected by over 80 percent of the electorate, the BSP by 96 percent of the electorate. If you consider the point that everyone, from Mulayam Singh to Nitish Kumar to Mamata Banerjee to J Jayalalithaa was also a contender for the PM’s job, one can well say over 95 percent of India rejected them. Only 69 percent “rejected” Modi. (Actually, the figure is 61.8 percent, since the NDA got 38.2 percent of the vote, and all NDA parties accepted Modi as their PM nominee).

You may object that it is not fair to pit parties which are primarily present in some states against national parties in terms of vote share, but look at how they fared in their own states: Mamata Banerjee won 39.3 percent of the vote in West Bengal. Should we say 61 percent of West Bengal rejected her?

In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections of 2012, the Samajwadi Party got all of 29.13 percent of the vote. Should we now ask them to resign, since, by Gopal Gandhi’s logic, 71 percent of the state rejected Akhilesh Yadav?

Clearly, Gopal Gandhi was wearing his prejudice on his sleeve rather than anything else when he told Modi that “69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala.” There is no basis to assert this.

Worse was his gratuitous advice to Modi on what he needed to do to redeem himself in the eyes of his detractors. The sum total of his advice is: let the opposition parties decide key posts that will come up for deliberation early in a Modi administration.

To “redeem the trust of those who have not supported you”, Gopal Gandhi advises Modi to do the following: “When you reconstitute the Minorities Commission, ask the Opposition to give you all the names and accept them without change. And do the same for the panels on Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and Linguistic Minorities. And when it comes to choosing the next Chief Information Commissioner, the next CAG, CVC, go sportingly by the recommendation of the non-government members on the selection committee, as long as it is not partisan. You are strong and can afford such risks.”

So if the opposition plants mischief in these posts, Modi is supposed to just take it lying down? Gopal Gandhi is essentially saying that till he voluntarily rejects the powers he has been conferred with, Modi will have no legitimacy. Gandhi did not give this advice to any previous government in Delhi – only to Modi.

And why would Modi want to be such a doormat? Because, says Gandhi, many of the things he has stood for “strikes fear, not trust.” I don’t think anybody will disagree with Gandhi’s idea that the fears of minorities need to be addressed, and addressed fairly soon, but surely he is going overboard when he thinks that the idea of a uniform civil code is “old and hackneyed”. It is one thing to address this issue sensitively, quite another to think this essentially egalitarian idea is “hackneyed.” The only thing old and hackneyed is the idea that Modi is about to unleash a wave of Hindutva where Trishul-wielding militants will be Talibanising and terrorising India. Unfortunately, this is an idea that can be dispelled only over the tenure of Modi’s prime ministership. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Meanwhile, anyone, including Gopal Gandhi, is free to continue with his scare-mongering tactics.

Read more at: Why Gopal Gandhi's open letter to Modi is wrong-headed and odious | Firstpost
 
Why Gopal Gandhi’s open letter to Modi is wrong-headed and odious
I am appalled at the odious open letter written by Gopalkrishna Gandhi in The Hindu today (19 May) to Narendra Modi, giving him not only unsolicited advice, but effectively telling him he does not have a mandate to govern. The best thing Modi can do is lie low and be a genial and over-compromising non-achiever who keeps detractors happy.

After beginning his letter saying he did not want to see Modi as PM, Gopal Gandhi asserts startlingly that “while many millions are ecstatic that you will become prime minister, many more millions may, in fact, be disturbed, greatly disturbed by it.”

Now, how did Gandhi come to this conclusion that “many more millions” may be disturbed by a Modi prime ministership? From the fact that the BJP’s vote share is 31 percent. So Gandhi glibly concludes that “69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala. They also disagreed on what, actually, constitutes our desh.”

Let’s be clear. In a first-past-the-post electoral system and in a fractured society like ours, mandates will be won on the basis of a minority of votes. This is the case not only with Modi’s mandate, but everybody’s in recent decades – and it is true in the states as well.

But can a 31 percent vote be interpreted as a 69 percent rejection rate? This is bunkum. All it means is that for the balance 69 percent, Modi – for local and other reasons – may not have been a first choice. It does not imply any kind of rejection – unless we are talking only about the minorities, where, admittedly, Modi has some work to do.

The only way to get a minimum 50 percent mandate is to have a French style system of having one or more eliminating rounds before the final vote. This would knock out the parties with the lowest shares in progressive stages – leaving only the two finalists seeking 50-percent plus and victory. The other way is to have a two-party system, or a German-style proportional representation system where parties getting less than 5 percent are knocked out. In this election, a German-style system of proportional representation would have left only the BJP and Congress as worthy of parliamentary representation. No other party touched 5 percent at the national level.

But taking the Gopal Gandhi logic of 69 percent rejecting Modi to its logical conclusion, it would still mean that Modi was the politician India objected to the least. The Congress, with 19.3 percent of the vote, was rejected by over 80 percent of the electorate, the BSP by 96 percent of the electorate. If you consider the point that everyone, from Mulayam Singh to Nitish Kumar to Mamata Banerjee to J Jayalalithaa was also a contender for the PM’s job, one can well say over 95 percent of India rejected them. Only 69 percent “rejected” Modi. (Actually, the figure is 61.8 percent, since the NDA got 38.2 percent of the vote, and all NDA parties accepted Modi as their PM nominee).

You may object that it is not fair to pit parties which are primarily present in some states against national parties in terms of vote share, but look at how they fared in their own states: Mamata Banerjee won 39.3 percent of the vote in West Bengal. Should we say 61 percent of West Bengal rejected her?

In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections of 2012, the Samajwadi Party got all of 29.13 percent of the vote. Should we now ask them to resign, since, by Gopal Gandhi’s logic, 71 percent of the state rejected Akhilesh Yadav?

Clearly, Gopal Gandhi was wearing his prejudice on his sleeve rather than anything else when he told Modi that “69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala.” There is no basis to assert this.

Worse was his gratuitous advice to Modi on what he needed to do to redeem himself in the eyes of his detractors. The sum total of his advice is: let the opposition parties decide key posts that will come up for deliberation early in a Modi administration.

To “redeem the trust of those who have not supported you”, Gopal Gandhi advises Modi to do the following: “When you reconstitute the Minorities Commission, ask the Opposition to give you all the names and accept them without change. And do the same for the panels on Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and Linguistic Minorities. And when it comes to choosing the next Chief Information Commissioner, the next CAG, CVC, go sportingly by the recommendation of the non-government members on the selection committee, as long as it is not partisan. You are strong and can afford such risks.”

So if the opposition plants mischief in these posts, Modi is supposed to just take it lying down? Gopal Gandhi is essentially saying that till he voluntarily rejects the powers he has been conferred with, Modi will have no legitimacy. Gandhi did not give this advice to any previous government in Delhi – only to Modi.

And why would Modi want to be such a doormat? Because, says Gandhi, many of the things he has stood for “strikes fear, not trust.” I don’t think anybody will disagree with Gandhi’s idea that the fears of minorities need to be addressed, and addressed fairly soon, but surely he is going overboard when he thinks that the idea of a uniform civil code is “old and hackneyed”. It is one thing to address this issue sensitively, quite another to think this essentially egalitarian idea is “hackneyed.” The only thing old and hackneyed is the idea that Modi is about to unleash a wave of Hindutva where Trishul-wielding militants will be Talibanising and terrorising India. Unfortunately, this is an idea that can be dispelled only over the tenure of Modi’s prime ministership. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Meanwhile, anyone, including Gopal Gandhi, is free to continue with his scare-mongering tactics.

Read more at: Why Gopal Gandhi's open letter to Modi is wrong-headed and odious | Firstpost

An apt retort for a moronic article.
 
The BJP has won the seats it has because you captured the imagination of 31 per cent of our people (your vote share) as the nation’s best guardian, in fact, as its saviour. It has also to be noted that 69 per cent of the voters did not see you as their rakhvala.



I got 30/100 and Pass the Exam.. or wait I failed because I didn't know the answer of 70% question..

What a dumb logic...
 
Back
Top Bottom