Why the secular English media hates Modi

By Arindam Chaudhuri

Narendra Modi

When the Gujarat election results were being declared, while I was surfing news channels, I could not but help a Bangla expletive escape my mouth when I heard what some experts were saying. One said Narendra Modi and his victory was against the Constitution. Another said how the verdict goes against the spirit of India and how the Idea of India is in danger. I always thought free and fair elections were a celebration of the Constitution, democracy and the Idea of India. The more I watched, the more I realised that these people hate him in a very irrational manner.

So I asked my colleagues to note down the reasons why the English journalists hate Modi. The results were interesting. The first reason: Modi is anti-Muslim and communal. The second: he is interested only in projecting himself. The third: he is supposedly a dictator and a fascist. And the fourth: his claims of a developed Gujarat are, the journalists claim, hollow.

Look at the irony of it. If Modi campaigns on the basis of identity, he is branded a fascist-cum-communal monster. If he campaigns on the basis of his track record of development, a mountain of data is immediately forwarded that says other states are better performers than Gujarat.

The fact is: it is a fight between India and Bharat. Modi for me represents Bharat while the English media represents India. I am convinced that the English media is now a voice of the old feudal India where just a few claim to know what is best for both India and Indians. On the other hand, Modi represents the other India—Bharat, if you will—which is deeply frustrated by the monopoly that the English media and its secular warriors exercise over information.

What is India? If you go by the definition of English media, it is an artificial country that should not have happened, an ungovernable country where religion, caste and ethnic identity matter more than humanity. Besides, most people who subscribe to the English media world-view have a 67-year-old Nehruvian Network to fall back upon, if required. What do I mean by the Nehruvian Network? This is something that has been working in India since before 1947. It is a set of ideas and people who, deep down, think that the system set up by the British was the best. They are the ultimate Brown Sahebs, convinced that Indians need a bit of civilisation. They snort, snigger when a politician like Uma Bharti, Mayawati or Modi rises up from nowhere, proudly displays his or her lack of English communication skills and yet manages to persuade voters to do the right thing. You see, things were much better when only children of politicians and bureaucrats who spoke impeccable English were there to dictate the agenda for the nation.

That is because the gulf between India and Bharat will never cease. But the problem is, people like Modi are actually threatening this feudal cartel of the privileged. You see, not even Atal Bihari Vajpayee threatened this cozy equation. No wonder, the English media hates Modi.

This battle between India and Bharat started in the 1980s. It has thrown up many heroes and heroines who fight for India. Modi is the first person who is fighting aggressively on behalf of Bharat and he seems to be winning. Imagine an India where Congress chamchas, JNU intellectuals and their fellow travellers won’t have access to power in Delhi. No wonder, the secular English media hates Namo.

I think this will be the most interesting political battle in India since the days of Mahatma Gandhi. He settled that one in favour of Nehru; and Vallabhbhai Patel, a Gujarati, died a second fiddle. There is no Mahatma now; only voters. So Rahul Gandhi or Modi? We were the first to do a survey between the Rahul versus Modi possibility and Modi came out to be the sure-shot winner. If you have doubts, keep watching the big fight. Bharat is destined to win this time.

Arindamchaudhuri.blogspot.com

Chaudhuri is a management guru and honorary director of IIPM think tank.

Courtesy : The New Indian Express