The Big Story: Achhe din

On May 16, 2014, when it became clear that the Bharatiya Janata Party was going to win the Lok Sabha elections, prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi tweeted, “India has won! Bharat ki vijay! Achhe din aane waale hain.” Victory to India. Good days are coming. Three years later, the cheery promise is rarely heard. What has remained, though, is the impulse to make party synonymous with country.

How does a government project itself, what is the story it tells its voters to renew the mandate that brought it to power? These can be revealing indicators for the health of a democracy. The BJP came to power promising “sabka saath, sabka vikas” – together with everyone, development for everyone. It promised rapid development, twinned with social mobility and the cloud-capped towers of smart cities. If it did not address the particular needs and vulnerabilities of various communities, it projected an airy inclusiveness, at least.

Advertisement

Three years on, the divisive, communal campaign that had helped the BJP sweep Uttar Pradesh was rather different from the substance of the official party message heard in 2014. When it won the general election, the party attempted to distance itself from the politics of the fringe. But in the days and months that followed, the clamour from the fringe seemed to drown out the centre. In 2014, visions of development were clouded by “ghar wapsi”, and “love jihad”, by alarmism about a so-called Muslim threat to Hindu society. The Centre did nothing to counter this. In 2015, new agitations about cow protection and the consumption of beef gained ground, this time with the Centre’s support. In 2015, Home Minister Rajnath Singh spoke of a national ban on cow slaughter. In 2016, even as innocent people continued to be assaulted on suspicion that they were eating beef, he said such a ban was not just about “faith and culture”, it had “economic, historical and scientific aspects”. The fringe had become indistinguishable from the mainstream.

As the BJP drew criticism for “intolerance”, the party drew up its own list of counter charges. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley called the rising tide of criticism “manufactured dissent” and the government went to war with “anti-national elements”, who seemed to be anyone who expressed ideas and opinions that differed from the BJP’s. As 2016 progressed, the government discovered patriotism, a loud, muscular variety of it, fed by “surgical strikes” on Pakistan. Fealty to government policies has now become a test of this patriotism, from heroically bearing the pains of demonetisation to signing up for the Aadhaar biometric identity number project. Meanwhile, the optimism of “development” has been overtaken by dark pronouncements on the threats posed by black money.

As the National Democratic Alliance enters its fourth year in government, Modi needs to ask himself this: are these the “achhe din” that he promised?

The Big Scroll

After one year of the Modi government, Aakar Patel wrote the prime minister had not brought about the dramatic changes expected of him, but neither had he committed the dark deeds many had predicted.

Advertisement

Also one year into the new government, Supriya Sharma reported that its policies could reverse a decade of rural gains.

Punditry

  1. In the Indian Express, Kunal Ambasta argues that civilised and progressive jurisprudence calls for banning the death penalty.
  2. In the Hindu, A Faiziur Rahman argues that triple talaq is not fundamental to Islam.
  3. In the Telegraph, Ruchir Joshi recalls a bygone era of internationalism in Kolkata.

Giggles

Don’t miss...

Rana Safvi recalls a distant rebellion on May 16, 1857, which brought down the last Mughal emperor.

“This horrific incident was one of the biggest charges against Abu Zafar Sirajuddin Mohammed Bahadur Shah during his trial for rebellion, treason and murder. The trial started on January 27, 1858 and ended on March 9, 1858 with the verdict that the former king of Delhi had been found guilty of every charge against him.

Every witness was questioned about the incident and the king’s involvement in it. Jath Mall, a British scribe in the Red Fort and their spy, was asked: ‘In your opinion, could the King, had he been anxious to do so, have saved the Europeans, specially the women and children?’

Jath Mall replied, ‘I heard in the city that the King did wish to save the Europeans, particularly the women and children, but he was overruled by the violence of the soldiery, and had not the firmness to oppose them.’”