Narendra Modi’s new political narrative
By assuming political ownership of agri laws and the larger reform agenda, tinged with an element of nationalism and air of flexibility, the PM has outlined the nature of the political battle ahead
Over the past week, Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi spoke in Parliament thrice — while responding to the discussion on the motion of thanks to the President’s address in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and bidding farewell to retiring Rajya Sabha members, particularly Leader of the Opposition in the Upper House, Ghulam Nabi Azad. The speeches throw up a broad outline of PM Modi’s new political narrative, the areas of focus for the government, and the possible political faultlines ahead.
There is no doubt that PM Modi is an effective communicator — not just in mass meetings and election rallies, but in the House too, which requires a more calibrated approach and a mix of asserting one’s position, engaging with the Opposition in a more conversational tone, and lacing one’s speech with wit and one-liners. Given his natural oratory skills, the PM should speak in Parliament more often, for it will provide the nation a sense of his line of thinking, rationale for controversial policies, and encourage more reasoned deliberation.
The key was not the manner in which he articulated his points, but the content of his speeches. A new political narrative is taking shape — which may well last till the 2024 elections — and this revolves around three pillars.
The first is political ownership of economic reforms, and embracing the task of communicating the efficacy of these reforms. Over the past four decades, India has seen a range of economic reforms — the process started with Indira Gandhi’s return to power in 1980, continued under Rajiv Gandhi, witnessed preparatory work under the VP Singh and Chandrashekhar governments, and then got a boost under the PV Narasimha Raomanmohan Singh duo in 1991.
But no political leader till then was willing to own the reforms — even Rao had to frame it as a continuation of Jawaharlal Nehru’s legacy to neutralise the opposition within his party. And that is why while India has proceeded, in terms of policy, with enabling the rise of the private sector and cutting back, partly, on the role of the State in enterprises where it doesn’t have a role, at the ideological level, there remains a distrust of capital and big business. Indeed, it was this political fear of being seen as close to capital that led to PM Modi retracting from his reform trajectory after Rahul Gandhi’s “suit-boot ki sarkar” jibe in his first term and adopting a strong welfarist avatar.
But at a time when the country is seeing the biggest mass movement in recent history, and the Opposition has centred its attacks on crony capitalism, the PM has doubled down. He lauded the role of the private sector as wealth creators, linked the process of wealth creation with employment generation and wealth distribution, openly took on the bureaucratic stranglehold over public sector enterprises and the power of the Indian Administrative Service officers, and provided a robust defence of farm laws — on the grounds that agriculture needed investment and modernisation, that land fragmentation was making livelihoods increasingly untenable for farmers, and laws expanded economic freedom even while the old State-supported structure of mandis and minimum support prices would remain.
This political message is also significant for the budget has laid out an ambitious privatisation agenda — including of public sector banks — which is bound to provoke resistance from unions and the Opposition. But PM Modi has clearly decided that the next generation reforms cannot be held back anymore — and that he will politically own it and attempt to convert it into an asset rather than fear the political costs associated with it. There remain legitimate concerns that Aatmanirbhar Bharat could lead to a return to insular policies and, even if partly, delink India from global trading networks. But the PM’S speeches indicate that even if this happens, on the domestic front, there will be no return to the past — and instead, a liberal economic agenda, focused on boosting competitiveness and private sector, will stay.
How this plays out is to be seen, for there will remain strong opposition to these initiatives, including from within the Sangh Parivar. The message will also have much greater traction if support for business is not seen as support for a certain set of “national champions”, the private sector at large is seen to grow, and growth does not lead to inequality, but is accompanied with equity. The need to sustain a multi-class compact is clearly recognised, for in all government speeches through the week, the focus on welfare schemes and pro-poor initiatives also remained a part of the narrative.
The second, related, pillar of the PM’S speech is nationalism. But this nationalism now has both an economic subtext in the form of a self-reliant India — playing on Indian pride about becoming more autonomous across sectors or encouraging domestic alternatives to foreign platforms — and an emotive appeal in the form of rhetoric against critical foreign interventions.
The fact that the ministry of external affairs chose to issue a statement in response to global celebrities tweeting in solidarity with the farm protests, and the PM warned against the perils of a “foreign destructive
ideology”, indicates that the nationalist discourse will continue to be a part of the political toolkit. In the Bharatiya Janata Party’s ideological lexicon, nationalism has often been, externally, directed against Pakistan and, internally, assumed a majoritarian colour. This will stay. But, in addition, be prepared for stronger rhetoric against the West, especially if there is a pushback by human rights, Left and liberal groups against what is perceived as India’s democratic backsliding. The PM knows well the need to remain engaged with the developed democracies in the West, but the idea of a “foreign hand” destabilising or weakening India will be constantly articulated too to rally the domestic base.
And finally, the PM appears to have decided that he will adopt both a conciliatory and confrontational approach with those opposing him. His emphasis on the purity of the farm movement was an attempt to directly reach out to farmers; his focus on small farmers was an attempt to showcase the diversity within farming communities and woo the weaker segments.
The recognition of Punjab’s sensitivity and Sikh contribution to nation-building stems from the awareness that India cannot afford to alienate a large minority in a border state. The effort to reach out to Opposition leaders — be it Sharad Pawar or Azad — and the emphasis on how the government is flexibile and there is room to improve laws was an effort to challenge the image of being undemocratic and show that the PM is willing to listen to diverse views. At the same time, the clear attack on the Congress for its alleged inconsistency, and the coinage of the term “andolanjeevis”, indicates that the PM will fight and fight hard against both the principal Opposition and segments of civil society.
How the Opposition responds to this new Modi narrative — based on reforms, welfare, nationalism, with a mix of flexibility and aggression — will determine India’s future political trajectory.