Skip to main content

FM
Former Member

Advisers to Narendra Modi dream of a Thatcherite revolution

Photo    
Sun, Apr 6 2014

By Frank Jack Daniel and Rajesh Kumar Singh

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - When opposition leader Narendra Modi gave a speech on the virtues of smaller government and privatisation on April 8 last year, supporters called him an ideological heir to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died that day.

Modi, favourite to form India's next government after elections starting on Monday, has yet to unveil any detailed economic plans but it is clear that some of his closest advisers and many campaign workers have a Thatcherite ambition for him.

These supporters dismiss criticism of Modi for religious riots that killed some 1,000 people in his home state of Gujarat 12 years ago. For them, Modi stands for economic freedom.

"If you define Thatcherism as less government, free enterprise, then there is no difference between Modi-nomics and Thatcherism," said Deepak Kanth, a London-based banker now collecting funds as a volunteer for Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

Kanth, who says he is on the economic right, is one of several hundred volunteers with a similar philosophy working for Modi in campaign war-rooms across the country. Among them are alumni of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan trading floors.

"What Thatcher did with financial market reforms, you can expect a similar thing with infrastructure in India under Modi," he said, referring to Thatcher's trademark "Big Bang" of sudden financial deregulation in 1986.

Modi's inner circle also includes prominent economists and industrialists who share a desire to see his BJP draw a line under India's socialist past, cut welfare and reduce the role of government in business.

The BJP is due to unveil detailed economic plans on Monday and is expected to make populist pledges to create a massive number of manufacturing jobs and to restart India's stalled $1 trillion infrastructure development programme.

But conversations with top policy advisers to Modi suggest an agenda that goes further than the upcoming campaign manifesto, including plans to overhaul national welfare programmes. There is also a fierce debate inside his team about privatising some flagship state-run firms, including loss-making Air India.

Bibek Debroy, a prominent Indian economist speaking for the first time about his role advising Modi during the campaign, told Reuters the Hindu nationalist leader shared his market-driven policy platform and opposed handouts.

"It is essentially a belief that people don't need doles, and don't need subsidies," Debroy said. Instead, the government should focus on building infrastructure to ease poverty, he said.

ASSET CREATION

Modi's office did not respond to requests for comment on this article. Senior BJP leader Arun Jaitley, the man often tipped to be the finance minister in a Modi cabinet, said the party would not do away with welfare programmes entirely.

"I don't want to immediately comment on what we will do with each one of them," Jaitley said. "India will need some poverty alleviation schemes, at least in the immediate future, but you could link those schemes with some asset creation."

How far Modi can go down this road if elected will depend on allies in what is likely to be a coalition government. In the last big poll ahead of the election, the BJP was forecast to end up as the single largest party but fall short of an outright majority.

But merely the possibility that India may move to the right has brought free-market champions flocking home from high-flying careers abroad to join Modi's campaign.

Two advisers involved in policy discussions within the BJP's top leadership said partial or total privatisations of Air India and other failing public sector enterprises were being debated.

"We don't foresee any problems in selling a stake in Air India. It is one of those low-hanging fruit," said one of the economic policy advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Mammoth Coal India (COAL.NS: Quote, Profile, Research), the source of much of the country's electricity generation, is not seen as an easy privatization target, they said.

Possible opposition by allies in government and India's strong labour laws mean that some of these policies will take time.

"If you say is it going to happen in 2014-15, is the finance minister going to stand up and announce privatisation, I'm inclined to think no, but will it figure eventually? The answer is yes," said Debroy, author of a book on the economy of Gujarat, the western Indian state Modi has governed for more than a decade.

When asked about the possible privatisation of Air India, Jaitley said only that it was a difficult issue.

WELFARE ROLLBACK

An attack on welfare would mark an ideological shift.

Although India adopted free-market reforms 20 years ago, the man responsible for them, current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, has refocused on redistribution of wealth in recent years under the influence of Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi.

The battle of ideas between Modi and the ruling Congress party was mirrored in a public spat between two well-known economists of Indian origin, Nobel laureate Amartya Sen and Columbia University's Jagdish Bhagwati.

Sen's belief that public spending on food subsidies and health was needed to end poverty was adopted by Gandhi. The result was a proliferation of welfare schemes, most notably a rural work programme and a giant subsidised food plan.

Modi's economic thinking is closer to Bhagwati, who strongly advocates poverty reduction through deregulation-led growth. Bhagwati's colleague and writing partner, Arvind Panagariya, a former chief economist at the Asian Development Bank, is tipped by some in the BJP for a role in any Modi government.

The Congress party's rural job scheme is credited with lifting rural wages and reducing migration to cities. But critics, including Panagariya, believe the jobs it created - such as maintaining irrigation ponds and village roads - were unproductive.

These ideas have found traction in Modi's circle of advisers, who propose tying such programmes to skills training and putting employees to work on building highways or sanitation projects.

Others in the group propose doing away altogether with dozens of centrally funded programmes.

The parallels with Thatcher don't end with economics.

Like her, Modi is a small-town outsider to the capital's political circles and has a reputation for riding roughshod over opponents, who often pillory him as authoritarian. In Gujarat, critics say he runs a one-man government.

For better or for worse, many Indians fed up with years of weak leadership, find that no-nonsense image part of his appeal.

"We need action, a do-er," said Kanth. "We have seen enough of *****footing in the last 10 years."

(Additional reporting by Shyamantha Asokan, Nidhi Verma and Doug Busvine; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan and Mark Bendeich)

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Brian Teekah:

Modi's economic thinking is closer to Jagdish Bhagwati, who strongly advocates poverty reduction through deregulation-led growth. Bhagwati's colleague and writing partner, Arvind Panagariya, a former chief economist at the Asian Development Bank, is tipped by some in the BJP for a role in any Modi government.

 

LOL! 

FM
Originally Posted by Brian Teekah:
Originally Posted by JB:

What a joke. This man is a murderer. Tatcherite revolution mean high caste gain. Muslim, low caste Hindu and minpority lose. 


You can talk trash on GNI, but you have ZERO power to influence history, especially in India.

 

As usual you find yourself again on the wrong side of History.

Wait is da lil gyal JB ruffin yu up so? Which right side a histry yu deh pun?

FM

Narendra Modi, a man with a massacre on his hands, is not the reasonable choice for India

Narendra Modi
Narendra Modi at a business convention in New Delhi, February 2014. Photograph: Reuters

The world's biggest election began yesterday: one in which more than half a billion Indians are set to turn out to vote over the next six weeks. Polls suggest that the Congress party will take an unprecedented pummelling – which makes Narendra Modi, leader of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party, frontrunner to be India's next prime minister.

Modi bears a responsibility for some of the worst religious violence ever seen in independent India – but there's nothing like looking like a winner to attract apologists. And the standard apology for Modi comes in two parts. First, there is normally an acknowledgement that the chief minister of Gujarat bears some vague responsibility for the orgy of killing and rape that engulfed his state in 2002 – but, um, wasn't that all a long time ago? And hasn't he behaved himself since – or, as the FT put it yesterday, done his best to "downplay tensions" between Hindus and Muslims? This is followed by pointing to Gujarat's rapid economic development and an appeal: shouldn't the rest of India enjoy some Modinomics? Or, as Gurcharan Das, the former head of Procter & Gamble India, put it in a piece for the Times of India last weekend: "There will always be a trade-off in values at the ballot box and those who place secularism above demographic dividend are wrong and elitist."

Given the enormity of the allegations against Modi, this is frankly pathetic. First, the Gujarat massacres have not safely been consigned to the past; whatever the claims of his supporters either in India or over here (such as the Labour MP Barry Gardiner who invited him to Britain last year), there has been no "clean chit" for Modi. Courts in India are still hearing allegations against him. And second, the much-talked about Gujarati model may have brought lots of money to the state, but it has ended up in relatively few hands, without yielding improvements in health, infant mortality, or even workers' wages.

Let's look at the carnage of 2002 first. On 27 February that year, a train coach carrying Hindu pilgrims caught fire in Godhra station in Gujarat. Fifty-eight people died. Within hours and without a shred of evidence, Modi declared that the Pakistani secret services had been to blame; he then had the charred bodies paraded in the main city of Ahmedabad; and let his own party support a state-wide strike for three days. What followed was mass bloodshed: 1,000 dead on official estimates, more than 2,000 by independent tallies. The vast majority of those who died were Muslim. Mobs of men dragged women and young girls out of their homes and raped them. In 2007, the investigative magazine Tehelka recorded boasts from some of the ringleaders. One, Babu Bajrangi, boasted of how he slit open the womb of a pregnant woman.

When BJP supporters try to dismiss the pogrom of 2002 as ancient and contested history, what they are trying to erase is that epic, shameful violence. Other allegations have been made about Modi's direct involvement in the carnage, but the ones I have listed above aren't contested by any serious observer.

Now try this thought experiment. Imagine if, in the wake of 7/7, which killed 52 civilians, Ken Livingstone had not behaved with his commendable dignity, but had immediately blamed the tube attacks on jihadis; paraded the bodies up and down Pall Mall; and then declared a capital-wide strike. As Suresh Grover, the human-rights campaigner working for the families of three British citizens who were killed in Gujarat in 2002, puts it, he would have probably been arrested for wilful neglect of duty, hate speech and for inciting violence. Modi, by contrast, said a couple of years ago that he felt the same pain over the bloodshed as a passenger in a car that has just run over a puppy. He referred to the refugee camps set up to shelter some of the 200,000 Muslims who lost their homes as "baby-making factories". And his minister for women is now serving 28 years in prison for murder and conspiracy to murder.

All of this is routinely summed up in journalistic shorthand that refers to the chief minister as being a "polarising" or "controversial" figure.

As for the so-called Gujarati development model, there isn't one. The state has enjoyed growth but very little development. Under Modi, it has lagged behind the other major states in India in tackling infant mortality, in reducing poverty, and in increasing literacy. In 2006, there were even more undernourished children in Gujarat than in 1993, which Modi has claimed is because middle-class girls are "beauty-conscious".

Big businesses back Modi, but that is because he gives them so much. As a string of reports from the independent Comptroller and Auditor General, among other bodies, points out, his administration has sold off public land dirt cheap to industrialists, provided companies with energy at below-market prices and given them loans at an interest rate of 0.1%. They in return have provided him with sponsorship and rides in their private jets. As Atul Sood, a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, has written: "The governance model of Gujarat is all about aggressive implementation of development on behalf of the big private investor. It is a model that works for the rich and against the poor."

And this somehow represents an improvement for India.

Pointblank
Originally Posted by seignet:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

This man will win and will cut the funds to Guyana since the PPP are communist, not hindus.  LOL

One of the most intelligent statement I have read on this Planet.

U read?

Nah me like you, go over to yuh neighba yard and ask hin to read the Chronicle for you.

Nehru
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

This man will win and will cut the funds to Guyana since the PPP are communist, not hindus.  LOL

One of the most intelligent statement I have read on this Planet.

Yu stupidee foh daze banna. Modi goh be bad foh Muslim and low caste people. Well de bess ting de low caste people cyan do is convert to Christian and move to de sout.

FM
Originally Posted by Kapadilla:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

This man will win and will cut the funds to Guyana since the PPP are communist, not hindus.  LOL

One of the most intelligent statement I have read on this Planet.

Yu stupidee foh daze banna. Modi goh be bad foh Muslim and low caste people. Well de bess ting de low caste people cyan do is convert to Christian and move to de sout.

I really dont care Rats Ass who they vote for.

Nehru
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Kapadilla:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

This man will win and will cut the funds to Guyana since the PPP are communist, not hindus.  LOL

One of the most intelligent statement I have read on this Planet.

Yu stupidee foh daze banna. Modi goh be bad foh Muslim and low caste people. Well de bess ting de low caste people cyan do is convert to Christian and move to de sout.

I really dont care Rats Ass who they vote for.

Yes  yu do. Yuh is a stupid ignorant racial jackass.

FM
Originally Posted by Kapadilla:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by Kapadilla:
Originally Posted by Nehru:
Originally Posted by KishanB:

This man will win and will cut the funds to Guyana since the PPP are communist, not hindus.  LOL

One of the most intelligent statement I have read on this Planet.

Yu stupidee foh daze banna. Modi goh be bad foh Muslim and low caste people. Well de bess ting de low caste people cyan do is convert to Christian and move to de sout.

I really dont care Rats Ass who they vote for.

Yes  yu do. Yuh is a stupid ignorant racial jackass.

So that will mame you THE BIGGEST ******* ON THE PLANET. No wonder you eat wid YUh Batty!!!

Nehru

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×