Narendra Modi is in the news again. And once more, there’s a debate on whether he’s a good leader or not. The two sides are:
- Modi supported and abetted the massacre after the Godhra incident
- Modi has brought development to Gujarat
Here is a typical comment from a Modi supporter:
Whatever people say…i have never heard a Hindu say Modiji is not a good leader…He has always focussed on development and has dedicated his entire life for betterment of people on India..People who want to see a developed India will always be with Modiji…Those politians who have made Politics there family business see Modiji a threat to their throne..After Godhra train carnage whatever happened was not Modiji wish but wish of more than 1 billon Hindus in India and worldwide
The most glaring fallacy here is the argumentum ad populum or “Appeal to the people.” It refers to an argument which says that something must be true because large numbers of people believe in it. The sentence “whatever happened was not Modiji wish but wish of more than 1 billon Hindus in India and worldwide” commits this fallacy. It’s not even true – the number of hindus who want their muslim neighbors to be slaughtered must be dismally low.
But even if it was true (which again I say it isn’t), this doesn’t mean it’s the right thing. We’re a democracy and not a mobocracy. We have the rule of law. Not the rule of the mob. We tend to hear the “Appeal to the people” fallacy quite a lot these days.
The other problem I have with this argument is that it implies development is all that matters. Even genocide is acceptable if the economy improves. Taken to the logical conclusion, we must agree that Hitler was a great leader! When he was in power, he halted Germany’s hyperinflation, got rid of unemployment, and improved the German economy tremendously.
Moreover, we must then accept that we should never have achieved independence. After all, everyone agrees the Britishers were excellent administrators. Even now they’re praised for their buildings, rail network and infrastructure. If all this was so bloody important, why did we fight to throw them out? Did all our freedom fighters die in vain?
We’re so enamored of the west and its lifestyle, that we wish to fast forward to it at any cost. We’re not willing to spend the time necessary for our nation to mature like they did. This also explains our fascination with China who’s going at a breakneck speed of development and doesn’t care about human rights.
We must never forget that the government is for the people. The government is the servant of the people and not its master. How can a state serve its people by killing them? Those who excuse Modi’s involvement in the Godhra riots by pointing to the “development” of Gujarat are committing the terrible blunder of forgetting history and ignoring the purpose of government.
…If someone points out that then what good is development by Modi if he can't balance all this, I would just point out that he is (perhaps) better than other leaders at balancing economics, but that doesn't mean he can miraculously transform Gujarat into a utopia. I have come to believe that had the same kind of religious polarization occurred elsewhere, more deaths would have occurred because of shoddier riot management. Of course, I have no way to back up my belief, except for the testimonies of my relatives who had all lived in Gujarat at that time and who were incredibly surprised to note the national media portray that police had taken no action. Obviously, I cannot urge you to believe my relatives, which would anyway amount to third-hand testimony!
I remember having related debates on IHM's blog. And I had also cited the '84 Sikh massacre, but that was in response to her (rhetorical question), which party (Congress v/s BJP) did I associate communal disharmony with.
As you shall see, I have tried to address far too many points, which in itself makes my comment long. I do not know if you yourself do believe in the assertion that "Modi supported and abetted the massacre after the Godhra incident". Of course, if you do not believe/feel that, then my entire argument would be waste (which I can anyway publish on my blog after modifying!).
In reply to Ketan
You're right Ketan. We mustn't judge him solely based on the media reports and I'd rather wait for the outcome of the legal process, but my dislike of Modi didn't just start with the Godhra riots. I dislike him because I've heard some of the speeches he's made – about how Muslims are breeding like rats and constant references to Muslims as "them" and because when asked about the riots he said that every action has an equal and opposite reaction!
That isn't the kind of speech I expect from a responsible politician. Who is he pandering to? I mean one gets the impression he doesn't really mind if the masses rise up and murder a minority…
While in a reply to a post at http://www.sandeepweb.com about the Ayodhya issue, you said let bygones be bygones. Then why not let bygones be bygones in case of Gujrat riots of 2002 and appreciate the fact that since then Gujrat has been the fastest developing state in our country, on almost all parameters, and has had no major communally untoward incidents.
Secondly, in case of Anti Sikh riots of 1984, you said that “lets assume Congress party did it.” Then how come you claim in case of Mr Modi, that he was actively involved in rioting. Why not just “Assume that Narendra Modi did it”. Hypocrisy at its best.
Thirdly, if you dislike Modi for his comments, then you must dislike Rajiv Gandhi and Congress, because he said after Anti Sikh riots of 1984 and I quote, “When a big tree falls, the earth around it shakes”. I don’t see you taking potshots at Congress and Bharat Ratna Rajiv Gandhi.
Fourthly, you said you were too young to remember anything which happened before 2002. Have you not grown in age now ?? Is it not a good time for you to read history and look at bigger and much delayed injustices.
Fifth, if you think that British were great administrators, then it will help you to read a book named “The Case for India – Will Durant – Strand Publishers”, which was first published in 1930 and now republished. Will Durant is considered one of the greatest historians of all time, and is famously known for his multi-volume book called “History of Civilizations”. Your illusion of British being our benefactors for rails, roads, and infrastructure will be shattered once you go through this book.
I hope you will see through the fallacies in your arguments and thinking, and will work on improving it.
Good Luck..
In reply to Rajeev
Thanks for replying Rajiv. As far as the Godhra riots are concerned, the victims and perpetrators are still alive so obviously we can’t let bygones be bygones just yet. Decades later, we can indeed let the matter rest. What happened hundreds of years ago certainly meets the criteria – no one is alive now and has a stake. We should just forget it.
Second, one can’t protest about everything. There are so many causes that to look at everything would spread it too thin. Given a choice I would spend time looking at something that has happened more recently since the danger is greater no?
Third about Rajiv Gandhi, the man is dead. What do I gain by protesting against him now? And I don’t hold the entire party responsible for what one man said. Let dead people rest in peace.
About delayed injustices, like I said one can’t protest about everything. I won’t oppose anyone or belittle someone who seeks justice for the Sikh riots. I’ll give them whatever support I can. How does one crime affect the other?
And instead of recommending a book, can’t you just summarize in one or two sentences what was said? I’m not going to pick up a book and read it on a whim…
Hi Bhagwad
It is very convenient to form opinions based on the popular media reports (News channels + newpapers). Going by the kind of journalism which is flourishing these days, I think one should take those news feeds and reports with caution.
One disturbing trend which is prevalent in Indian media for quite a long time now is, anything pro hindu (Majority) is communal and hindu bashing for so called atrocities against minorities (so called) is Secular.
Why is that ?? Now we have such a journalist lobby or community, where pro minority journalists are easily and readily acceptable where as pro Hindu (even if its truth) are a relative outcasts.
As this has been the trend for a long time now, literate english speaking youth of India have been largely impacted by that, in the way they think. That may explain why you have decided to take up Gujrat Riots rather than ……may be 26/11 attacks which is as much a shame on India media as it is on goverment.
I am not contradicting , what you wrote but, I do feel it was convenient !!!!! And if it is then it is a concern
In reply to ANKIT
Thanks for the feedback Ankit. There are many things I wish to say, but it can be perhaps summed up like this. In my opinion, crazy Muslim people are not an important threat to the harmony of the country at large. They have no political backing, and don’t openly say anything to the media.
For example, I have never yet found a Indian Muslim blogging about how much he/she hates Hindus, whereas there are many many similar blogs operated by Indian Hindus proudly declaring their Muslim hate.
Similarly, I had written a post some time back about why Muthalik’s pub attack got more coverage than the Kerela professor’s hand being cut off by Muslim fanatics.
I hope you’re able to understand my reasons for being afraid of Hindu communalism and not Muslim communalism.
My take on this issue of Modi being promoted as a new Hero and Development stalwart is voiced in the article “Modi, Gujarat and the Development Propaganda” which can be found here:
http://indian007-newswithviews.blogspot.com/2011/02/modi-gujarat-and-development-propaganda.html
It’s simply a propaganda to wash away his rotten past and bring him back to lime-light and probably groom him as a potential Prime Ministerial candiate for 2014 elections..
Narendra Modi = Nirmal Baba
http://s22.postimg.org/6p55udz4h/namo.jpg