The logical time to have written about Narendra Modi would have been
after his victory in the Assembly elections. I chose not to for various
reasons. There was the Pakistan crisis to cover. There was already a
surfeit of Gujarat poll analyses in the media. And I thought we needed
the advantage of perspective before assessing exactly why he won.
But I think that to understand why Modi is
so popular in Gujarat, it helps to be a Gujarati. Certainly, we need to
move beyond the simplistic secular-communal name-calling. And we need
also to recognise that no matter how much good work Modi has done in
developmental terms, this alone was not enough to ensure victory.Before
we go any further, I need to make my own prejudices clear. As some of
you may already know, I am not a fan of Narendra Modi. I have
frequently called him a mass murderer in print and I see no reason to
resile from that stand. Nor was I surprised by the result. I wrote
during the campaign that no matter what approach the Congress chose —
soft Hindutva or hard secularism — Modi would win anyway.
And here’s the most important prejudice of them all: I am a Gujarati and extremely proud to be one.
But I think that to understand why Modi is so popular in Gujarat, it
helps to be a Gujarati. Certainly, we need to move beyond the
simplistic secular-communal name-calling. And we need also to recognise
that no matter how much good work Modi has done in developmental terms
(most people will concede that his record in this area is actually
quite impressive), this alone was not enough to ensure victory.
Many people forget — or do not realise — that until 1960 the state
of Gujarat did not exist. Till then, Gujarat was part of the old Bombay
state. And few Gujaratis regarded this as offensive or unfair. In many
ways, Bombay was the capital of Gujarat in that era and the city was
built on the efforts of Gujaratis and Parsis. It was the Maharashtrians
who objected to being lumped with Gujaratis and when the states of
Maharashtra and Gujarat (including the old state of Saurashtra) were
created on May 1, 1960, it was in response to Maharashtrian demands for
their own state. (When the Shiv Sena was launched in 1967, its first
targets included Gujaratis — the anti-Muslim platform took a decade to
emerge.)
One reason why Gujaratis did not mind giving up Bombay (and don’t
forget that the chief minister of the Bombay state was also a Gujarati
— Morarji Desai) was because, for the first 30 years or so after
Independence, Gujaratis were an extremely secure people, the leading
community in business and politics.
If you think about it, it’s curious how both India and Pakistan won
their freedom because of Gujaratis. Mahatma Gandhi, without whom there
would have been no independence in 1947, was, of course, a Gujarati.
But so was Mohammad Ali Jinnah. (Many non-Gujaratis forget that some of
the subcontinent’s richest and brightest 20th century figures were
Gujarati Muslims. For instance, how many of us realise that Azim Premji
is a Gujarati?)
In the immediate aftermath of independence, the only reason why a
united India came about was because a Gujarati, Vallabhbhai Patel,
persuaded hundreds of maharajahs and princelings to sign the Treaty of
Accession.
And in the 1960s and 1970s, the only national figure who presented a
consistent alternative to the Left-leaning politics of the Nehru
family-dominated Congress was Morarji Desai. In 1977, with Mrs Gandhi
defeated in the aftermath of the Emergency, Morarji finally became
Prime Minister.
Consider now the world of business. The foundation of Indian
industry was the textile mill and most of these were owned by
Gujaratis. If you look at the great families of Indian commerce during
the first three decades of independence, you will find many Gujarati
names: the Sarabhais, the Mafatlals, the Kilachands, the Lalbhais, the
Walchands (though they moved to Maharashtra), etc.
Think now of Gujarat as it was in the 1980s. The textile industry
fell sick. Mills either closed down or were taken over by the National
Textile Corporation. Unemployment led to the growth of vast pools of
sullen young men in the streets of Ahmedabad. (These were the foot
soldiers in every communal riot.) The great Gujarati fortunes crumbled
and, in some cases, vanished entirely. The vast bungalows of Shahibag,
where the Ahmedabad aristocracy had traditionally held sway, began to
look decrepit and empty.