OPED | Monday, November 3, 2008 | Email | Print | 
Good governance impresses all
Prafull Goradia
From Kolkata to Pondicherry, Narendra Modi is praised for his amazing success as Chief Minister. Driven by achieving objectives, he has delivered stunning results
Recently in Kolkata I came across three bhadraloks who reminded me as a Gujarati born how much they remembered Mr Narendra Modi’s speech at the Calcutta Club several years ago. It was delivered in Hindi and the subject was, for secularists, not so welcome, “The need for a uniform civil code”. Oh, what a strong leader! For one of these three, he appeared the next best to Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose. Over the last year, I have come across similar compliments paid to the Gujarat Chief Minister at Guwahati, Dibrugarh, Siliguri, Pondicherry and Chennai. What is so special about him?
Mr Modi is a phenomenon of a kind India has not seen for a long time. Loose comparisons are made recalling Sardar Patel whenever someone is desired to be called a strong man. The enormity of Patel’s contributions to the country is unquestionable but he was a Gandhian first and a leader later. Had it been otherwise, he would not have bent before Gandhi’s unreasonable whims. For example when Pakistan was at war, he fasted and forced the Indian Government to pay Rs 55 crore, a big sum of money then. Patel knew he would make a more appropriate Prime Minister than Jawaharlal Nehru. Fifteen out of the 16 provincial Congress committees also felt so. Yet he bowed to Gandhi’s wish.
In contrast, Mr Modi while choosing candidates for the Assembly elections in 2002, would not agree to give a ticket to Home Minister Haren Pandya because the latter had leaked inside information to a Delhi weekly which then tried to make it into a BJP scandal. Led by Mr Keshubhai Patel, Mr Pandya’s mentor, enormous pressure was put on Mr Modi. The party’s central leadership was also persuaded to exert influence on him, but to no avail. Eventually, the Chief Minister had to go to a hospital until the nomination time was over. Come what may, he did not yield.
Mrs Indira Gandhi was viewed as the only man in her Cabinet, which meant the other Ministers were weak and effete. She was certainly a strong leader. Her political decisions were driven by a gifted instinct and a ruthless temper. They were often remarkably correct but sometimes extremely erroneous — the prolonged Emergency, the failure to settle the Jammu & Kashmir issue after Pakistan’s crushing defeat in 1971 and Operation Bluestar.
In comparison, Mr Modi operates on the strength of his intellect. The result is the anti-thesis of populism. He did not surrender to the politics of free electricity in rural Gujarat. There the farms are sizable and electricity bills are affordable for farmers. The agitations, instigated by leaders of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, were at times intense, but he did not give up. He succeeded where many a State has failed, mainly because he thought logically instead of reacting by a fearful instinct.
It is well-known that corruption is the enemy of good governance. Though there are leaders who are above board, Mr Narendra Modi’s way of handling colleagues and officials has made all the difference. There were some 50 public corporations and it was customary for the Chief Minister to appoint MLAs, who could not be accommodated in the Ministry, as their chairpersons. This led to undue expense and allegations of corruption.
Under Mr Modi’s regime, very few corporations have chairpersons and they are all being run professionally by managing directors. The basic principle is that if politicians wish to govern well, they must be not only honest but also seen to be incorruptible.
What is unique about Mr Modi is his governance by management and administration by objectives. Singapore under legendary Lee Kuan Yew was the pioneer in adopting this concept and conclusively proving its success. Deng Xioping was quick to appreciate the achievement. After Mao Zedong consolidated power, he visited Singapore in 1978 presumably to understand the new concept at first hand. Thereafter, the two leaders met at least twice when Lee happened to go to China.
The Communist states believed in planning which had little to do with implementation. On the other hand, most capitalist countries functioned by spontaneous enterprise. Mr Modi’s style of governance is clearly objective-oriented and evidently following a similar strategy. His success is therefore little wonder.
A successful politician is an intermediary between the people and power. He exchanges their votes for a promise of help and protection. Is Mr Modi only this much? Or is he also a statesman? In Gujarat he has demonstrated a flair for statesmanship. The question is: Will he make himself available to the rest of the country?
Email | Print | Rate:
|