I know the headline of my article would
raise many eyebrows accusing me of being overly cynical. However, I have my own
set of reasons for not falling in line.
One thing is for sure. No one can currently
question the prominence of the rising popularity of Narendra Modi and that how
in the past few months he has made many fans who never voted for him but are
now in awe of his administrative skills. There is an air of an improved
governance or ‘good governance’ (as Modi calls it) in both domestic and
international media. Yet, calling Modi as my country’s Prime Minister with
pride, remains an uncomfortable task for me.
As far as I know, most of his
haters still accuse Modi of being responsible for the 2002 Gujarat riots. For
me though, the problem is really not the fact that Modi was accused of being directly
or indirectly involved in the riots or that he was accused of potentially influencing
the probe marked against him by the police or for that matter the controversial
clean chit given to him by the judiciary. My problem is also not the other kind
of accusations which deny instigation but say that Modi could have at least done
more or made an extra effort to control the riots, as the then Chief Minister
of Gujarat.
One of my close relatives once said
to me that a major problem in India is that people here are quite judgmental
and quick to believe that a person has committed a crime even when he is mere
accused of it. In fact so much so, that even when the ‘accused’ is held
acquitted by the judiciary, people continue to be skeptical with the notion – “Oh!
So he was once charged with XYZ crime, must have done something wrong.” That
conversation later led to the discussion that identity of an accused should
also be withheld by media, just like for rape victims, in order to protect them
from being defamed (about which I would talk some other day though). So by not
jumping to conclusions, let us for a moment agree that all the accusations made
against Modi were false and that he had been framed. Even with that thought in
mind, I am still unable to convince myself not to dwell in the past and to look
in the present on the variety of schemes being launched by Modi for the public.
My main contention is the observation
that despite all the controversy, Modi has never been apologetic about the Gujarat
riots. Even if his hands were clean in the incident, he has never expressed any
sorrow about the fact that a massacre of such a gigantic tragedy took place
during his tenure as the CM and that while holding the post he could have done
more for the safety of his people, even if he tried his best. I strongly doubt
that he has ever said “I am sorry” to family members of any of the deceased,
even if it did not matter whether he was involved in the riots or not. It is a
known fact that Modi always disliked talking about the riots when asked in
several interviews, maybe because he did not want to keep defending himself
over and again. But then again, he never spoke about what he felt about the dark
violence and its grim aftermath. This indifferent behavior of Modi keeps me
away from believing that he actually cares about the people, that he actually
was in grief when the tragedy occurred and that he actually is a good human
being.
PS: There is an another set of Modi
fan club who say that even if Modi did any wrong in the past, he is a changed
person and that is all what matters now. I do not know whether Modi is really a
changed person or whether he is still the same, but I certainly do know that
Modi has changed his identity pretty well. From being called a mass murderer
even till a few years ago, he is now being called as a change-maker. In fact
Modi has molded his public image to such an extent that now even Arnab Goswami
would think twice about referring to the Gujarat riots in front of Modi in his
next interview.
