Changing tunes in free India

there is no KGB or Stasi or any like organisation in India which approves or disapproves of what journalists write or which politicians they support or oppose. I imagine that in North Korea it would be quite different. Anyone who wrote that Kim Un King Kong was a lousy dictator would be carried away by the Phnom Penh Special Branch and have his testicles fed to Mongolian Alsations.

No, in India we can say what we like about Manmohan Singh and even draw cartoons of the supposedly brilliant economist without any fear that anyone would as a result begin to worship him.

So back to the idea of a “free press”. It was Joni Mitchell, a chanteuse of the US who sang “freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose” and though that’s as good a definition as any when applied to my short and happy life, it seems not to apply to the Indian newspapers and TV stations. Let me tell you why.

For years now I have observed some of the above-mentioned forums of opinion opining that Narendra Modi was, at worst, a mass murderer and at least a Chief Minister who was unwilling or unable to prevent the slaughter of Muslims in his state. The same media made it clear to their readers or viewers that Mr Modi had not been found guilty of any such offence by official enquiries, but some of those who reported this fact distinctly had reservations about all official enquiries, hinting that they are capable of being leaned upon.

And now several of these venerable forums of opinion seem to have changed their tune. Mr Modi has had very successful pre-election rallies and some very positive pre-election predictions. There have been yards of coverage about Mr Modi as a facilitator of enterprise, as an enemy of endemic red tape and even as an individual leader, who is destined to reach out to the religious minorities and specific castes in the interests of a united India.

Is this coverage a consequence of Mr Modi’s possible election to the office of Prime Minister? Indian democracy affords any Prime Minister who is not the puppet of some dynastic succession the sort of power of patronage that a President of the United States or the Chancellor of Germany enjoys. It means the ability to please big and growing Indian corporations and people of financial power, some of these who own or have controlling connections with the media and to demand reciprocal consideration.

In the Indian media then freedom is, contra Joni Mitchell, another word for a tie-up to earn power, wealth and glory.

Or perhaps I am being harsh or hasty. Let me here declare that all of my friends and acquaintances, with the exception of one very prominent person, have always been inclined to believe that Narendrabhai as Chief Minister of Gujarat is guilty of genocidal politics and is using his dubious “development- wizard” profile as a glove for an

Indian democracy affords any Prime Minister who is not the puppet of some dynastic succes

sion the sort of power of patronage that a President of the United States or the Chancellor of Germany enjoys

iron fist of Hindutva.

It’s obvious that the cadres of Hindutva, the street and community presence of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh who have been instrumental in bringing out the vote for Mr Modi will demand their reward. It is in my humble judgement possible that Mr Modi will throw them a well-deserved symbolic bone or two. But it can’t be more than symbolic and face-saving for the hard-core Hindutva brigade.

Indian democracy, if it devotes itself to “development” and the elimination of inequality and gross poverty, will by definition have to embrace what is known in India as a “secular” agenda.

This definition involves the conviction, proven over centuries in Europe and America that capitalism doesn’t care whom it exploits — white, black, brown, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, touchable, untouchable, heterosexual, gay or whatever — as long as they can participate in the processes to generate profits.

So let it be with Narendrabhai if he turns out to be truly the apostle of Capital.

I have, of course, other thoughts about Indian democracy. I am aware that certain Indian states even in the age of Asoka, like the Lichhavis of the eastern Gangetic plains, elected their sets of rulers; that the rules of franchise which India follows today originated after the defeat of the Rajas and Ranis of the Indian mutiny.

No more was heard of restoring a padpadashahi to the country — the factions of progress would push for some mimicry of the British constitutional model which didn’t then extend to a vote for women.

And Rahul Gandhi? As my friends from Delhi University would say “Ai don’t be silly yaar!”