For Modi the candidate to succeed in 2014, he would have to live down one thing above all: Godhra.
The events in question — the Gujarat riots — occurred very soon after he finally came Out from 'behind the curtains' and was catapulted into political leadership himself.
About 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, are estimated to have been beaten, stabbed or burned to death in the state in 2002 after suspected Muslims set fire to a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, killing 59 people.
The activists said Modi, who is seeking re-election, gave Hindu mobs a free run for three days after the train fire, encouraged them to riot and prevented police from stopping the violence.
They put him at Odds with all his allies from his time as an underground defender Of democracy: the left, the Muslims and the liberals.
They branded him indelibly as an extremist in the eyes of many and led to his exclusion from the United States for allegedly violating religious freedoms.
They were the biggest single impediment to his ambition to become prime minister. And, worst Of all, they resulted in the deaths Of well over a thousand Of the people he was in Office to protect. For Modi the candidate to succeed in 2014, he would have to live down one thing above all: Godhra.
Fortunately for Narendra Modi, the western media don't have a vote in Indian elections and few Of those who do are much influenced by they read in foreign publications. The UK's pro-business, free- market magazine The Economist found much to admire in his platform of development and economic liberalisation and yet it advised its readers in India not to vote for him.Vh,my? Because, it wrote. he was dangerously divisive.By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti- Muslim vote, he nurtures it.' The paper concluded that 'it would be wrong for a man has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India He should be judged on his record — which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.' The editorial board Of the New York Times took a similar line. concluding that 'India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.' The paper claimed that his rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians. especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many Other minorities.
They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.' Both publications examined his achievements as chief minister Of Gujarat, but felt that whatever successes he had chalked up in boosting his state's economic development, they could not wipe the slate clean Of the horrific events Of February and March 2002, just a few months after he took office. Fortunately for Narendra Modi. t don't have a vote in Indian election who do are much influenced by foreign publications. The UK's market magazine The E admire in his platform Of development liberalisation and yet it advised not to vote for him.
Why? Because, it wrote. he was dangerously divisive.
'By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti- Muslim vote, he nurtures it.' The paper concluded that it would be wrong for a man who has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India He should be judged on his record — which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.'
The editorial board Of the New York Times took a similar line. concluding that •India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.' The paper claimed that •his rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many Other minorities. They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.
Both publications examined his achievements as chief minister of Gujarat, but felt that whatever successes he had chalked up in boosting his state's economic development, they could not wipe the slate clean of the horrific events of February and March 2002, just a few months after he took office Modi's first taste of power came not through the ballot box, but by appointment. In 1998 the country's first stable BJP led government took Office in Delhi under the reformist and relatively moderate Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Although it was reliant on a clutch of smaller parties for a majority in parliament, the Vajpayee government survived for over six years. It might have lasted longer, in the view of Vajpayee himself, but for Narendra Modi, Vajpayee was forced to turn to Modi, and later to defend him against his Own better judgement, because the politics Of the time were very different to how they look today. The BJP was more used to electoral defeats than victories and sorely lacked people with the gift Of political alchemy, Towards the end of the twentieth century the BJP was not the disciplined and united party that came to power in 2014. At the risk of over-simplifying some very complex political and personal relationships, it is clear there was a divide between those perceived to be moderates, led by Vajpayee, and the hardliners who looked towards the party president, L. K. Advani;
be moderates, led by Vajpayee, and the hardliners who looked towards the party president. K. Advani; divisions that would surface from time to tirne in public. Advani, more than tvænty years older than Modi and the grandest of the party's grandees, would go on to play a hugely significant role in his future career. and not always a supportive one. At this time. however. Modi was seen to be a disciple Of Advani and in sympathy with his more fundamentalist take on Hindu politics. But in Gujarat at the time the rivalries more to do with personalities than ideologies. Basically, Modi's face didn't fit and — despite having friends in high places — he was effectively excluded from his home state for several years. By 1994. hovæver. the Gujarat party was in such disarray that Advani was able to insist that Modi should be allowed to return to help organise the forthcoming state elections. Modi was quick to repay the trust that had been placed in him. The result, a two-thirds majority for the BJP, was a triumph that only added to his already growing reputation as a back-room genius. In the short term, however, it didn't do him much good as the personality clashes, compounded by a healthy dose of jealousy at hisat mounting popularity, Saw him banished once more, this time to the north-west of the country where he continued to show great organisational prowess, Those skills were too valuable to do without for long, and he was called back to Gujarat again to help the BJP to another victory in 1998, an achievement that this time earned him a major promotion as general secretary in charge Of Organisation for the national party.
The Gujarat government was then battered not so much by the Old rivalries, although they had not gone away, but by natural disasters. First a cyclone, then floods and then a catastrophic earthquake hit the state. There were allegations of corruption and nepotism levelled at the chief minister, Keshubhai Patel, and these, combined with Patel's inept handling of the disaster relief after the earthquake, led Vajpayee to demand his resignation. To fill the vacancy, and to try to avert electoral disaster, the prime minister — on the advice of L. K. Advani — turned once again to Modi. This time it wasn't for a job 'behind the curtains' but very much in front Of them. On 4 October 2001, with the world still reeling from the aftermath of 9/1 1, Modi was made leader of the Gujarat a and interim chief minister even though he wasn't a member Of the state assembly. In global terms, a man nobody had heard of was appointed to a post nobody was interested in, at a time of unprecedented international crisis.
Less than five months later. hovæver. Gujarat and Narendra Modi would be hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
On the morning Of 27 February 2002. a train carrying over two thousand passengers pulled into the station at Godhra in the east Of the state. Most were Hindu pilgrims returning from the bitterly contested holy city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. Ayodhya is the most sensitive of all religious venues in India. It was the site of the Babri Masjid mosque. built in 1527 on the orders of the first Mughal emperor. Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur. Many Hindus believe Ayodhya was the birthplace Of the Hindu god Ram, gave his name to the Ramayana epic. and that a Hindu temple on the same Spot was demolished so the mosque could be constructed. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that there was a Buddhist temple even
same spot was demolished so the mosque could be constructed. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that there was a Buddhist temple even before that. The centuries-old conflict over Ayodhya had been reignited in 1992 when the mosque was destroyed by a rampaging mob after a march to the site led by nationalist leaders including L. K. Advani. So the people on board the train that made its way towards the Godhra station were not just any passengers. As it slowed down they could see out of the windows a large crowd Of angry Muslims. Soon afterwards burning rags were thrown into one Of the compartments. unable to escape, fifty-nine people, including twenty-six women and twelve children, were burned to death. The attack was horrific, but what followed was on a far bigger and bloodier scale. Over days of rioting across Gujarat, more than a thousand people were killed in inter-racial violence, the overwhelming majority Of them Muslims. The reverberations Of the attacks continue to be felt across Indian politics even today. Modi has consistently maintained that he did everything in his power to contain the rioting and was even-handed in his efforts to help the victims and their families. His critics have accused him Of everything from indifference to the embattled Muslim communities to complicity in the violence itself. Sonia Gandhi referred to Modi as 'Maut Ka Saudagar Or a 'merchant Of death' while campaigning in Gujarat five years after the rioting.
The events in question — the Gujarat riots — occurred very soon after he finally came Out from 'behind the curtains' and was catapulted into political leadership himself.
About 2,500 people, mostly Muslims, are estimated to have been beaten, stabbed or burned to death in the state in 2002 after suspected Muslims set fire to a train carrying Hindu pilgrims, killing 59 people.
The activists said Modi, who is seeking re-election, gave Hindu mobs a free run for three days after the train fire, encouraged them to riot and prevented police from stopping the violence.
They put him at Odds with all his allies from his time as an underground defender Of democracy: the left, the Muslims and the liberals.
They branded him indelibly as an extremist in the eyes of many and led to his exclusion from the United States for allegedly violating religious freedoms.
They were the biggest single impediment to his ambition to become prime minister. And, worst Of all, they resulted in the deaths Of well over a thousand Of the people he was in Office to protect. For Modi the candidate to succeed in 2014, he would have to live down one thing above all: Godhra.
Fortunately for Narendra Modi, the western media don't have a vote in Indian elections and few Of those who do are much influenced by they read in foreign publications. The UK's pro-business, free- market magazine The Economist found much to admire in his platform of development and economic liberalisation and yet it advised its readers in India not to vote for him.Vh,my? Because, it wrote. he was dangerously divisive.By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti- Muslim vote, he nurtures it.' The paper concluded that 'it would be wrong for a man has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India He should be judged on his record — which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.' The editorial board Of the New York Times took a similar line. concluding that 'India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.' The paper claimed that his rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians. especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many Other minorities.
They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.' Both publications examined his achievements as chief minister Of Gujarat, but felt that whatever successes he had chalked up in boosting his state's economic development, they could not wipe the slate clean Of the horrific events Of February and March 2002, just a few months after he took office. Fortunately for Narendra Modi. t don't have a vote in Indian election who do are much influenced by foreign publications. The UK's market magazine The E admire in his platform Of development liberalisation and yet it advised not to vote for him.
Why? Because, it wrote. he was dangerously divisive.
'By refusing to put Muslim fears to rest, Mr Modi feeds them. By clinging to the anti- Muslim vote, he nurtures it.' The paper concluded that it would be wrong for a man who has thrived on division to become prime minister of a country as fissile as India He should be judged on his record — which is that of a man who is still associated with sectarian hatred. There is nothing modern, honest or fair about that. India deserves better.'
The editorial board Of the New York Times took a similar line. concluding that •India is a country with multiple religions, more than a dozen major languages and numerous ethnic groups and tribes. Mr Modi cannot hope to lead it effectively if he inspires fear and antipathy among many of its people.' The paper claimed that •his rise to power is deeply troubling to many Indians, especially the country's 138 million Muslims and its many Other minorities. They worry he would exacerbate sectarian tensions that have subsided somewhat in the last decade.
Both publications examined his achievements as chief minister of Gujarat, but felt that whatever successes he had chalked up in boosting his state's economic development, they could not wipe the slate clean of the horrific events of February and March 2002, just a few months after he took office Modi's first taste of power came not through the ballot box, but by appointment. In 1998 the country's first stable BJP led government took Office in Delhi under the reformist and relatively moderate Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Although it was reliant on a clutch of smaller parties for a majority in parliament, the Vajpayee government survived for over six years. It might have lasted longer, in the view of Vajpayee himself, but for Narendra Modi, Vajpayee was forced to turn to Modi, and later to defend him against his Own better judgement, because the politics Of the time were very different to how they look today. The BJP was more used to electoral defeats than victories and sorely lacked people with the gift Of political alchemy, Towards the end of the twentieth century the BJP was not the disciplined and united party that came to power in 2014. At the risk of over-simplifying some very complex political and personal relationships, it is clear there was a divide between those perceived to be moderates, led by Vajpayee, and the hardliners who looked towards the party president, L. K. Advani;
be moderates, led by Vajpayee, and the hardliners who looked towards the party president. K. Advani; divisions that would surface from time to tirne in public. Advani, more than tvænty years older than Modi and the grandest of the party's grandees, would go on to play a hugely significant role in his future career. and not always a supportive one. At this time. however. Modi was seen to be a disciple Of Advani and in sympathy with his more fundamentalist take on Hindu politics. But in Gujarat at the time the rivalries more to do with personalities than ideologies. Basically, Modi's face didn't fit and — despite having friends in high places — he was effectively excluded from his home state for several years. By 1994. hovæver. the Gujarat party was in such disarray that Advani was able to insist that Modi should be allowed to return to help organise the forthcoming state elections. Modi was quick to repay the trust that had been placed in him. The result, a two-thirds majority for the BJP, was a triumph that only added to his already growing reputation as a back-room genius. In the short term, however, it didn't do him much good as the personality clashes, compounded by a healthy dose of jealousy at hisat mounting popularity, Saw him banished once more, this time to the north-west of the country where he continued to show great organisational prowess, Those skills were too valuable to do without for long, and he was called back to Gujarat again to help the BJP to another victory in 1998, an achievement that this time earned him a major promotion as general secretary in charge Of Organisation for the national party.
The Gujarat government was then battered not so much by the Old rivalries, although they had not gone away, but by natural disasters. First a cyclone, then floods and then a catastrophic earthquake hit the state. There were allegations of corruption and nepotism levelled at the chief minister, Keshubhai Patel, and these, combined with Patel's inept handling of the disaster relief after the earthquake, led Vajpayee to demand his resignation. To fill the vacancy, and to try to avert electoral disaster, the prime minister — on the advice of L. K. Advani — turned once again to Modi. This time it wasn't for a job 'behind the curtains' but very much in front Of them. On 4 October 2001, with the world still reeling from the aftermath of 9/1 1, Modi was made leader of the Gujarat a and interim chief minister even though he wasn't a member Of the state assembly. In global terms, a man nobody had heard of was appointed to a post nobody was interested in, at a time of unprecedented international crisis.
Less than five months later. hovæver. Gujarat and Narendra Modi would be hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons.
On the morning Of 27 February 2002. a train carrying over two thousand passengers pulled into the station at Godhra in the east Of the state. Most were Hindu pilgrims returning from the bitterly contested holy city of Ayodhya in Uttar Pradesh. Ayodhya is the most sensitive of all religious venues in India. It was the site of the Babri Masjid mosque. built in 1527 on the orders of the first Mughal emperor. Zahir-ud-din Muhammad Babur. Many Hindus believe Ayodhya was the birthplace Of the Hindu god Ram, gave his name to the Ramayana epic. and that a Hindu temple on the same Spot was demolished so the mosque could be constructed. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that there was a Buddhist temple even
same spot was demolished so the mosque could be constructed. Recent archaeological evidence suggests that there was a Buddhist temple even before that. The centuries-old conflict over Ayodhya had been reignited in 1992 when the mosque was destroyed by a rampaging mob after a march to the site led by nationalist leaders including L. K. Advani. So the people on board the train that made its way towards the Godhra station were not just any passengers. As it slowed down they could see out of the windows a large crowd Of angry Muslims. Soon afterwards burning rags were thrown into one Of the compartments. unable to escape, fifty-nine people, including twenty-six women and twelve children, were burned to death. The attack was horrific, but what followed was on a far bigger and bloodier scale. Over days of rioting across Gujarat, more than a thousand people were killed in inter-racial violence, the overwhelming majority Of them Muslims. The reverberations Of the attacks continue to be felt across Indian politics even today. Modi has consistently maintained that he did everything in his power to contain the rioting and was even-handed in his efforts to help the victims and their families. His critics have accused him Of everything from indifference to the embattled Muslim communities to complicity in the violence itself. Sonia Gandhi referred to Modi as 'Maut Ka Saudagar Or a 'merchant Of death' while campaigning in Gujarat five years after the rioting.
No comments:
Post a Comment