POKE ME: Narendra Modi lurches leftward even as he stays firmly within a majoritarian framework

This week's "Poke Me" invites your comments on " Narendra Modi lurches leftward even as he stays firmly within a majoritarian framework". The feature will be reproduced on the edit page of the Saturday edition of the newspaper with a pick of readers' best comments. So be poked and fire in your comments to us right away. Comments reproduced in the paper will be the ones that support or oppose the views expressed here intelligently. Feel free to add reference links etc, in support of your comments.


Towards the end of his speech at the recent ET Global Business Summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a series of assertions that are potentially transformative for his regime. After devoting a significant part of the address to his efforts in plugging leakages in subsidies, he chose to bat for them.

He questioned why benefits for farmers and other poor are termed subsidy, but when these are provided to industry and other rich, these are labelled ‘incentives or circumvention’. Not stopping here, Modi claimed that “double taxation avoidance treaties have in some cases resulted in double non-taxation”. Probably for the first time, the prime minister made it known that “some subsidies may be necessary to protect the poor and the needy and give them a fair chance to succeed. Hence my aim is not to eliminate subsidies but to rationalise and target them.”

For a political leader who scaled Raisina Hill with his pro-corporate image, his decision to take up the brief for ‘Sri Daridra Narayan’ before a global crème de la crème of industry may appear atypical. This sense gets more acute when one goes over the goals Modi prioritised in the India of his vision: children being born safely, lower infant and maternal mortality rates, end to homelessness, clean and universal sanitation, universal healthcare, education for all, and a few other targets commonly listed in manifestos of parties wishing to strike a left-of-centre posture.

If the import of these words escaped people, no one failed to notice that within days, the Modi government ‘celebrated’ the tenth anniversary of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA). Less than a year ago, Modi had berated the Congress, labelling the scheme as “a living monument of your failures” while claiming that under it, the UPA government did nothing but “dig pits”.

His statement then was both a taunt at the Congress as well as political posturing to reject a projected populist, socialistic policy framework which had no space in the scheme of a market-friendly premier. The same leader has now appropriated the scheme, and with some rationale.

The government is now reportedly poised to significantly increase the annual outlay for the National Food Security Act (NFSA). While a formal announcement is yet to be made, it is certain now that this flagship UPA scheme, too, will not become history. This decision of the government is against the grain of the letter written by Modi as Gujarat chief minister in August 2013 when Parliament was on the verge of granting parliamentary approval to the UPA proposal.

Chief Minister Modi had then argued that the legislation would cause “food insecurity”, and that there were existing laws which states were implementing that provided the same cover. It is just a matter of time before this government claims that it has done a better job than the UPA when it comes to managing the NFSA and ensuring that it benefits the needy.

Is this the PM that the average reader of this newspaper voted for? Clearly, no. Because the leader who wowed the markets was the one who promised quick fixes, a reforms package, and seeming rejection of economic populism. Modi still undertakes to increase “efficiency in allocation of resources” and “create new opportunities for citizens to progress”.

But what was believed to be mere sloganeering -- Sabka saath, sabka vikas -- is probably appearing to be a deeper conviction. Modi the campaigner showcased himself as the one who disrupted status quo and had no qualms at being seen as an obstinate minority in the political club. India needed to be shaken out of its paralytic stupor not by polite prodding, but by his thunder against the ‘Ma-bete ki sarkar’ to secure support from the masses as well as getting the markets on his side through his pledge for ‘minimum government, maximum governance’. The energy he exuded helped. But only that far.

It is often said that entry points to the Indian political stage are from the right or the left but one has to govern from the centre. This is truer about economic programmes than social and political agenda. Modi’s leftward swing will assuage the Sangh parivar, as it remains wedded to the philosophy of Antyodaya (‘serving the last man’) and Deendayal Upadhyaya’s impenetrable vision of Integral Humanism.

In the social sphere, Modi’s actions do not match his assurances on pluralism. But he also needs to factor in that more elections are won on economic promises and deliveries than on emotional issues.

Never shy of proclaiming that he is a ‘Hindu nationalist’, Modi could possibly be moving towards framing a new framework of ‘Hindu socialism’. This would ensure meeting the twin challenges of reversing the charge that he heads a ‘suit-boot ki sarkar’, even as he stays firmly within a majoritarian framework for electoral benefits.