“Walk up the stairs to the balcony, making as little noise possible,” a volunteer cautioned, repeating the warning for latecomers to the controlled harmony of a literary discussion. We are at the Experimental Theatre of the NCPA, where writers Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay, Pavan Verma and Tavleen Singh are engaged in a discussion moderated by Ankita Mukerji.
As we tip-toe past sound engineers, volunteers staring wearily at the ceiling and a line of people looking impassively at their phones and animatedly at the panel in turns, there’s a sudden roar of voices. “Has the panel been thrown open to the audience, is it already over,” I wonder. That’s when author Nilanjan Mukhopadhyay’s voice swims over others, saying emphatically, “But he has indeed demonised history.”
Who is ‘he’ here? No prizes for guessing, it’s Narendra Modi. No wonder then that this session of the Tata Literature Festival sounds less like a literary discussion and more a TV news debate.
At a session titled, ‘The Making of Modi: Myth or Magic’, the panelists brought alive a spirited discussion on the appropriateness of the Gujarat chief minister as a national leader. Somewhat mirroring the polarisation that debates on Modi always throw up, the audience – not more than 100 people – was sharply divided.
The panel too was somewhat slanted, with Verma and Mukhopadhyay being strong critics of Modi, and Singh a spirited supporter. The audience couldn’t help but occasionally break into the discussion to voice either approval or disapproval of what was being discussed on stage.
Singh tried to emphasise how the Gujarat CM has been ‘demonised’ by the mainstream media, and Mukhopadhyay retorted by pointing out that Modi, especially in his recent slew of speeches has said and done things that amount to ‘demonising history’. Possibly referring to the several gaffes in historical facts that Modi has made of late and his blatant attempt to declare Vallabhbhai Patel as a leader wronged by the Congress, Mukhopadhyay added that the contention that Modi has moved on from the 2002 riots doesn’t hold water, for several reasons.
Mukhopadhyay referred to Modi’s recent speeches, and deftly pointed out that Modi’s rhetoric still reeks of a blatant disapproval for Muslims. A point raised by others in the past, he said, while launching acerbic attacks on the Congress and its mismanagement of the country, Modi refers to the Gandhi family as ‘sultanate’, and Rahul Gandhi as the ‘shehzada’, thereby immediately aligning what he thinks is wrong and hate-worthy with aspects of Muslim cultural history. Verma asked, “He could have said Yuvraj, or Rajkumar, there are several words that don’t directly refer to the Muslim cultural history to describe dynasty, but he didn’t.”
He added that what Modi has been gunning for, a more balanced Centre-State relationship, where the state governments – both Congress and non-Congress – have an equal say in polic- making, is a demand that has existed for a very long time. Modi’s demands are nothing new in that regard. “Let me be very honest, a 5 year-old-child can stand up and give a speech on the Congress’ failures. That’s no great achievement,” pointed out Verma to a round of applause. And voicing an apprehension that echoes in the minds of fence-sitters and Modi-haters alike, the question about Modi’s national economic model came up.
Singh, at the very beginning of the conversation, had contended that like Nehru, Modi was a leader who has come up with a ‘new economic agenda’. To this, Verma asked what was the nature of that agenda, and while Modi’s vision is a Congress-free government, would he also care to outline what a Congress-free country would imply in terms of new economic policies.
Failing to bolster his claim with facts, Singh fell back upon Modi’s rhetoric to point out that the Gujarat CM has been talking of prosperity as opposed to the UPA’s poverty-alleviation pitch. “That is a compelling argument,” she said. And added, “There are times I think this man doesn’t have a single democratic bone in his body, how is he going to lead a country. At the same time, I am confronted with the dismal state of the nation…”
Expectedly, the discussion around Modi meandered to his culpability in the 2002 Gujarat riots, with Mukhopadhyay and Verma suggesting that though he might not have orchestrated the riots, he never apologised for his government’s failure to rein in the violence. To this, Singh, quipped, “Did the Congress apologise for 1984? In 1984, what happened in Delhi was a pogrom. An organised movement to kill Sikhs and 3000 died, did Rajiv Gandhi apologise?”
Singh didn’t mention that Manmohan Singh, as a representative of the Congress-led government, has apologised to the Sikhs, saying, “I have no hesitation in apologising to the Sikh community. I apologise not only to the Sikh community, but to the whole Indian nation because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood enshrined in our Constitution.”
However, in the entire exchange for and against Modi, it became mostly clear that most Modi supporters are of the opinion that if the devil has been given a chance to run the country, the deep blue sea can hardly be denied an opportunity. As a result, instead of looking at what could be political alternatives, as a country we are better off choosing from the two equally ugly sides of the same coin.
After the discussion was thrown open to the audience, there were voices that indignantly rose in criticism of Mukhopadhyay and Verma. A lady who identified herself as a Jew said rather angrily that the panelists had no right to liken Modi to Hitler, who is considered a mass murderer in history.
However, it needs to be pointed out that in a section where the rally numbers of Modi were being discussed, Singh was asked if the numbers would translate into votes. “Five lakh people attend every rally,” she said hinting that the nation has struck a chord with Modi.
Verma pointed out that the biggest rallies that history has seen belonged to Hitler and questioned whether this meant he was good for his country.
A slew of other voices expressed their willingness to see Modi as the PM and criticised the media for being ‘unfair’ on him and his supporters. Following which Anil Dharker, founder of the festival asked, “Is 1984 the only reason for voting Modi?” He had just given voice to a criticism that most BJP supporters tend to brush aside.
As the panel ended, two young girls walked up to Tavleen Singh complimenting her for holding fort in anti-Modi tirade, apparently. “Ma’am you should write a book on the real meaning of democracy in India. Everything you said was right. We shouted, we banged the chair and wanted to speak but it seems the microphones were reserved in this event,” they complained.
It’s another story that the only people who got to speak from the audience, except Dharker, were ones who hurled stinging criticism at Mukhopadhyay, Verma and the ‘media’ and vowed to salvage Modi from the wrongs of his detractors. False sense of victimhood, anyone?
Read more at:
http://www.firstpost.com/politics/a...-for-modi-1234615.html?utm_source=ref_article
some one said just listen to what mr gandhi has to say ... Is it true ?
![[Bregs]](/data/avatars/m/148/148509.jpg?1491816884){kind=avatar}
watch how Sheila Dikshit is pleading with the public... really funny 
