Sooner or later Hitler had to come in

Rahul Gandhi

In the heat and dust of ‘Election 2014’, allegations and counter-allegations have been dominating primetime in news studios, headlines in newspapers and posts on social networking sites. Leaders, cutting across party lines, have been trying to satiate the enormous political appetite of the electorate, often with half-truths and white lies. Allegations, even personal attacks, on political rivals have become a part of discourse in Indian politics. While it is often the old guard that has been involved in name-calling, the younger leaders have shown more restraint. Of course, there are exceptions.
And this is why Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi’s veiled attack on BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi while comparing leadership styles comes as a surprise. Gandhi, while speaking at a rally at Balasinor, in central Gujarat on Tuesday, said there were two types of leaders: One, who meets the people, understands them and their problems and is humble and not arrogant. The other type is like Hitler who believed that they do not have anything to learn from the people. While the Congress scion might not have used Modi’s name, the inference, given the context and that he was speaking in Gujarat, is hard to miss.
Gandhi has made the political equivalent of an Internet truism — Godwin’s Law, which states that ‘if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism’. The campaign for the 16th Lok Sabha has been on for a long time but that’s not an excuse. However, political niceties and courtesy are not something one expects from our netas.

Vladimir Putin (left) with Hillary Clinton in 2012

With his ‘Hitler’ comment, Gandhi is in the esteemed company of former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the state media in North Korea. Clinton, last week, pointed out the similarities between Nazi Germany’s actions in the 1930s in Czechoslovakia and Poland to Russia’s actions in Crimea. Never mind that she later tried to clarify her comment saying that she wanted everyone to have a ‘little historic perspective’ and that she was not making a ‘comparison’. The North Korean news agency KCNA in an editorial in February compared Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to Hitler for his plans to revise Tokyo’s pacifist constitution opening the frontiers of the military.

Salman Khurshid (left) and Mani Shankar Aiyar

In attacking Modi, Gandhi joins party colleagues Mani Shankar Aiyar and Salman Khurshid, among the many others who have done it in the past. If Aiyar called the Gujarat chief minister a ‘chaiwalla’, Khurshid, while addressing people in his constituency Farrukhabad in Uttar Pradesh, referred to Modi as a “napunsak” for not protecting the people of Godhra. Gandhi had disapproved of both Aiyar’s and Khurshid’s comments.
Gandhi’s ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’ or ‘playing the Nazi card’ can be interpreted in many ways. There were a lot of issues that could expose the much-talked-about ‘Gujarat Model’ — as was done by AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal a few days ago. Gandhi, in his speech, focused on the plight of the farmers; that Gujarat was shining only for a few people; accused the state government of taking credit for the Amul story and for appropriating the legacy of Sardar Patel.
Then why would Rahul Gandhi, who is otherwise careful in choosing his words, use the ‘H’ word? The answer to this, perhaps, lies in a 2007 article that appeared in The Economist. While discussing citizenship policies in Estonia and looking at the tone of discussion on the Internet in Russia, The Economist had said that ‘A good rule in most discussions is that the first person to call the other a Nazi automatically loses the argument’. Now that’s some food for thought.
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on March 13, 2013)

Modi-Powell meeting: Does Modi need the United States?

For anyone who has been following the campaign by political parties in India leading to the general elections this summer, the Hindustan Times report that United States ambassador to India Nancy Powell has got permission from the Centre to meet Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi does not come as a surprise.
If opinion polls are anything to go by, Washington will soon have to do business with a government in New Delhi headed by Modi. For the US, which holds the adage 'there are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests' as the bedrock of its diplomatic relations with foreign nations, it was natural to warm up to Modi. Clearly, both the US and Modi have come a long way since 2005 when the Gujarat CM was denied a US visa.
However, there are two points to take away from this US climb-down. The first: Is Washington trying to 'influence', albeit covertly, the political scenario in India? Citing this, many political parties have taken objection to Ms Powell's move. This is also because the US has a checkered past when it comes to 'influencing' elections (a recent example being the admission by former US defence secretary Robert Gates in his memoir that the US tried to delay and manipulate the 2009 Afghan presidential election outcome). Given this, the US embassy statement that the meeting was "part of our concentrated outreach to senior political and economic leaders which began in November to highlight the US-India relationship" can be taken with a pinch of salt.
The second: Is it really a victory for Modi? The party has rightly refrained from speaking about this proposed meeting in a shrill pitch and will do well to overcome the temptation to go to town tom-toming this as Modi's 'achievement'. If the BJP was to highlight this as an achievement, it can be accused of doublespeak and of being opportunistic.
Modi has grown in stature over the years despite the US and to a certain extent the US boycott has helped further his image as a 'desi' leader who 'is-not-a-American-stooge'.
In the crystal ball of Indian politics, Washington's retraction is a clear shot in the arm for the BJP's prime ministerial candidate. It does not require clairvoyance to see that countries, like the UK, the EU and now the US, are reacting after witnessing the 'Modi wave'.
When the political and diplomatic dust settles one thing is evident: This is a victory for Narendra Modi. But the question to be asked, in true 'NaMonomic' style is: Does Modi require the US or its endorsement at this point of time?
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on February 11)

NaMo, RaGa.....politicians give facts a miss

Political leaders shooting off their mouth is nothing new. Often in the heat of addressing an audience politicians add, twist or delete historical events to suite the occasion. The problem arises when the public and an attentive media highlight these ‘white lies’. When caught politicians either stand by the comment or use the bogey of being ‘misquoted’. While some of these gaffes are controversial and insensitive, like Congress leader Beni Prasad Verma saying that “I am happy with this inflation”, many are comical and some are replete with fudged facts. Comments that twist historical facts expose the grasp our leaders have over history.

Many of the statements made by Gujarat chief minister and BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi seems to give facts a miss. Some of the examples are: statements saying that Alexander came up to the Ganges, that Chandragupta Maurya belonged to the Gupta dynasty, that China spends 20% of its GDP on education (Beijing devotes hardly 4%), that Gujarat under him empowered women while sex ratio has fell in the past decade and is below the national average. Congress vice-president Rahul Gandhi also got it wrong when he referred to the ‘large 70-foot ashes with dead bodies inside’ in Uttar Pradesh in the heat of the state election campaign.

It not just national leaders who are prone to the gaffe bug. Topping the international list would be former Alaska governor Sarah Palin remarks that "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies" or "You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska." Former US president George W Bush was so prone to mistakes that his ‘Bushisms’ like "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully" have etched their place in public memory.
Some gaffes make us laugh while some appal us. Either way it is in the best interests of leaders that they pay more attention to their speeches — because the callous attitude shown towards what one says does not inspire confidence and reflect their commitment towards what they are capable, or willing, of doing.