Nawaz comes to Delhi : My views

[VCheng]

Yes I know what you wrote. And I wrote this:
"but that comes into play only when the mandate is weak"

The nation is fractious, but the differences only assert themselves when the mandate is weak and the PM has to appease regional parties.
Probably the biggest reason why Modi got such an overwhelming mandate was that people of India were tired of regional satraps trying to take their pound of flesh from the Central Govt. It stalled progress, economy, foreign policy, military.

They voted for National parties because of this.

Yes, you have expressed the hope that the complex and fractious nature of India will not come into play since Mr. Modi has a clear mandate. However, it remains to be seen, as The Economist puts it:

QUOTE: "There are three main dangers. One is that Mr Modi turns out to be more of a Hindu nationalist than an economic reformer. He has spoken of “bringing everyone along”. But while he has already worshipped at the Ganges since his victory, promising to clean up the river sacred to Hindus, he has not brought himself to mention Muslims, who make up 15% of the population.

A second danger is that he is defeated by the country’s complexity. His efforts at reform, like all previous reformers’ efforts, may be overwhelmed by a combination of politics, bureaucracy and corruption. If that happens, India will be condemned to another generation or two of underachievement.

A third is that Mr Modi’s strength will go to his head, and he will rule as an autocrat, not a democrat—as Indira Gandhi did for a while. There are grounds for concern. After years of drift under Congress, some of the country’s institutions have rotted. The main police investigator is politically directed, the media can be bought, the central bank, which does not have statutory independence, has been bullied before, and Mr Modi has authoritarian tendencies." /QUOTE

 

[Contrarian]

Yes, you have expressed the hope that the complex and fractious nature of India will not come into play since Mr. Modi has a clear mandate. However, it remains to be seen, as The Economist puts it:

QUOTE: "There are three main dangers. One is that Mr Modi turns out to be more of a Hindu nationalist than an economic reformer. He has spoken of “bringing everyone along”. But while he has already worshipped at the Ganges since his victory, promising to clean up the river sacred to Hindus, he has not brought himself to mention Muslims, who make up 15% of the population.

A second danger is that he is defeated by the country’s complexity. His efforts at reform, like all previous reformers’ efforts, may be overwhelmed by a combination of politics, bureaucracy and corruption. If that happens, India will be condemned to another generation or two of underachievement.

A third is that Mr Modi’s strength will go to his head, and he will rule as an autocrat, not a democrat—as Indira Gandhi did for a while. There are grounds for concern. After years of drift under Congress, some of the country’s institutions have rotted. The main police investigator is politically directed, the media can be bought, the central bank, which does not have statutory independence, has been bullied before, and Mr Modi has authoritarian tendencies." /QUOTE

Ofcourse Modi is a Hindu Nationalist. And he does not need to do anything more than fulfill his election promises to get re-elected. Muslims(or Hindus/Sikhs/xyz) dont need to be mentioned for the country to move forward. Policies have to be executed.

However, there is simple clarity to understand this. Modi has been elected primarily on the basis of his economic promises and reform promises. He knows that. If he wants to get relected(and he does), he will have to give results in these aspects foremost.

Secondly, he can be defeated by the country's complexity(which is simply an euphemism for bureaucratic resistance to change and simple intertia). But he has a record of whipping bureaucrats into shape. He has successfully done that for over 15 years in Gujarat. Therefore the odds are that he would be able to do the same to other bureaucrats. Bureaucrats in India are the same all over, they are chosen by a Central exam and then deputed to different States.

Thirdly, he will always rule as an autocrat and not a democrat. This is not a drawback. He has made this into an asset and used it to deliver results.

All these points are simply mentioned by the economist for the sake of being mentioned. They are not really a problem. Indeed the third point is an asset to him.

Only the second point is a viable cause of concern, but in that, on account of his record, the odds are high that he does not get bogged down by the bureaucracy.

All in all, I wouldnt so much as call it hope, as I would the balance of probability. The heavy odds are that he would succeed.

 

[VCheng]

All in all, I wouldnt so much as call it hope, as I would the balance of probability. The heavy odds are that he would succeed.

Sure, we have five years to see what he does.