What makes PM Modi immune from political responsibility?
Narendra Modis popularity has not declined significantly since the 2019 elections despite poor economic performance, polls show India is one of the countries hardest hit by the Covid-19 pandemic. This can be attributed to the charisma of Modis, known as Modi magic in mainstream media. Charisma has been defined by sociologist Max Weber as a certain quality of an individual personality, by virtue of which it is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. Indeed, Modis record has been exceptional. Gujarats violence in 2002 allowed it to appear as the Hindu Hriday Samrat. The demonetization was justified by his determination to fight corruption. The Balakot strikes have been touted as unprecedented retaliation against Pakistan-based Islamist terrorists. Modi initiated policies that had not been attempted before, such as the abolition of section 370. Last but not least, he presided over the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya. Only one Indian leader can compete with such a list: Indira Gandhi, who broke Pakistan in the 1971 war, decided to carry out the first nuclear test in 1974, annexed Sikkim and imposed the Emergency, which resulted in sterilization of 11 million people. Gandhi lost power in 1977, but was re-elected in 1980, less than two years later, when her son Sanjay was her partys general secretary. Interviews anthropologist Emma Tarlo conducted in some of Delhis slums produced by the governments rehabilitation policy during the emergency showed that none (among those interviewed) associated their suffering with Indira Gandhi, who was always considered a great leader and even a world famous figure. chief. Charisma is above responsibility and Modi apparently benefits from the same phenomenon. In both cases, voters seem to have been drawn to the strongman figure. In 2017, a Pew Center survey showed that 55% of those polled supported a system of government in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts. Unsurprisingly, supporters of the BJP were over-represented among those who support such a system. The demand for a strong leader was linked to a heightened sense of vulnerability. The same Pew survey found that while crime ranked first on the list of most pressing problems, with 84 percent of Indians seeing it as a big problem, terrorism came immediately next for 76 percent of those polled (before corruption and unemployment). This corresponded to the idea that ISIS appeared as the main threat to India for 66% of those questioned, ahead of any other threat. This sense of vulnerability is rooted in the historical stereotypes that Mahatma Gandhi himself echoed when, in 1924, after the Kohat riots, he said, the Muslim is as a rule a tyrant and the Hindu as a rule a coward. Some Hindus continue to view Muslims as potentially violent. This, in part, is a legacy of a complex that developed during the Raj. A very common clich propagated by the Victorians portrayed Hindus as decadent, in part because of vegetarianism. When he was a child, Gandhi tried to eat meat in secret for an entire year precisely to mimic the strength of his Muslim friend, Sheikh Mehtab. Shortly thereafter, UN Mukherji and Swami Shraddhananda lamented that Hindus are a dying race because of the population figures revealed by the census. Mahatma Gandhi, as Lloyd and Susanne Rudolph have shown, restored the self-esteem of his fellow believers by creating a new courage based on non-violence. Today, Modi gives them self-respect in other ways, like a strong man with an international aura. The international dimension is important, precisely because of the colonial roots of the stereotype of the decadent Hindu. Before the pandemic, Modi was constantly traveling the world and his travels were systematically in the media. He made a point of hugging world leaders and sharing the stage at large gatherings with the powerful. Some of Modis achievements have been projected as unmatched in the rest of the world, such as the commission for the Sardar Patel statue, the tallest in the world or the International Day of Yoga, introduced by the UN through its efforts to promote the world status of India. But Modis charisma is also based on how he allegedly embraced the fakiri, a claim meant to reflect his lack of interest in material things. This speech reflects another dimension of Modis charisma, a repertoire that Mahatma Gandhi had introduced and that Morris-Jones called holy politics. This Modi was cultivated via photographs like the one taken in a cave in the Himalayas. Its been gaining momentum lately, as evidenced by the fact that he talks and looks more and more like a guru. He is now above the responsibility, not only because of the strong man syndrome, but also because of his quality as a guru. As a strong man or a wise man, Modi embodies a tension that BR Ambedkar has identified as one of the problems of Indian democracy. In his closing address to the Constituent Assembly in 1949, he criticized the submission to authority that could result in a cult of personality: There is nothing wrong with being grateful to great men who have rendered lifelong service to the country. But there are limits to gratitude. () in politics, Bhakti or the cult of heroes is a sure path towards degradation and towards a possible dictatorship . Todays bhakts, in fact, do not hold Modi responsible for anything. The writer is principal researcher at CERI-Sciences Po / CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian politics and sociology at Kings India Institute, London