How many times has Prime Minister Narendra Modi acknowledged a mistake or shortcoming during his nearly 56 months in office?
Honestly, you could count that number on less than half the fingers of your right hand. And even when he has, it’s been a negative compliment to himself.
Just look at how he answered the last question in his orchestrated 95-minute interview (more monologue, less Q&A?) on New Year’s Day 2019:
Q 41: Whether any regret during this term?
Prime Minister Modi: I could neither make the Lutyens’ world part of me, nor me a part of them. I did not want them to be a part of me as my background is different. I am a representative of the non-elite world. I could not win them over, but (am) still trying how (to) win over such forces.
Who or What is “Lutyens’ Delhi”?
So, who or what is this elite “Lutyens’ Delhi” (LD) cabal that Modi failed to win over? Frankly, there are two completely different and conflicting versions of this mythical club in vogue:
- In one, LD stands for that cozy arrangement among arms dealers, commercial lobbyists, honeytrap fixers, businessmen, journalists, bureaucrats and politicians (don’t be surprised if one person doubles up in three or more of these categories), who were so graphically captured in the Tehelka sting operation at the turn of this century. That’s the world of easy money, scotch, schmooze and sleaze, which Modi claims to have smashed; so, this one cannot be his definition of LD, since he would not be “trying to win over such forces”
- In another description, quite clearly endorsed by Modi, LD (ie, Lutyens’ Delhi, just to refresh the reference) stands for that “insufferable” group of erudite, English-speaking thinkers who believe in social/cultural liberalism, religious/gender equality, small state, freer enterprise, and a dollop of efficient welfarism (aka JNU-types or jhola-wallahs, in the BJP’s narrow world-view). Modi “regrets”, but with visible glee and zero remorse, that he failed to make them “a part of me or me a part of them”
Now here’s my wager: this hostility towards LD is perhaps the most grievous political error that Modi has made in an otherwise canny innings as India’s most persuasive (or proselytising, take your pick) prime minister.
In fact, I would argue that Lutyens’ Delhi (or LD) did more to propel Modi into the PMO than any other comparable caucus or support group. They may have opposed him in the post-Gujarat Riots’ Noughties (2002-9), but had firmly switched sides, rooting for him in 2013/14.
I shall prove this by picking up a few published quotes from a handful of the “Lutyens’ icons” (as per Modi). Here goes!
Go-Go Days Before May 2014
- Arun Shourie at the Palkhivala Lecture (18 Oct 2013): “When strength is there, shackles break, and whatever you do is a step forward. In one word, we need Narendra Modi.”
- Shekhar Gupta (16 Nov 2013): “The voters know this well that the Congress party’s single point campaign, built on the Gabbar-isation of Modi, is not working.”
- Swami Aiyar (13 April 2013): “Unlike most politicians, Modi has clearly not enriched himself… In 2011-12, Gujarat had the lowest Muslim rural poverty rate among all states. Its overall poverty rate for Muslims (11.4% ) was lower than for Hindus (17.6%).”
- Tavleen Singh (9 March 2014): “If Narendra Modi is twice as popular as Rahul Gandhi, as recent polls indicate, it is because of the overwhelming belief across India that the country has been leaderless for a long while.”
Followed by a Heady Endorsement at PM Modi’s Inauguration
- Pratap Bhanu Mehta (17 May 2014): “Narendra Modi has scripted one of the most gloriously spectacular political triumphs in the history of independent India… Modi is a political phenomenon without precedent. In the annals of democratic politics, there are few stories to match his… To walk into Bihar and talk about transcending caste politics, to utter the sentence that no secularist in India has had the courage to utter, that poverty has no religion, to dream of reviving India’s growth prospects, to talk about jobs, to tap into the restlessness for doing things…”
- Shekhar Gupta (17 May 2014): “Narendra Modi has not used any polarising language or articulated any exclusivist agenda through the campaign. This is a victory achieved primarily on an unqualified promise of economic reform, never seen in our political history.”
- Tavleen Singh (18 May 2014): “This election is about renewal, change and hope in the deepest sense of those words. This is because Modi succeeded in persuading voters that their real fight must be against poverty and not each other.”
- TN Ninan (26 September 2014): “Mod Mod Modi. His confidence remains unshaken, and his glass of acronyms is never half full. This is a man who is enjoying the moment and the spotlight, and having some fun, and why not? When boarding his 747 for the United States, he runs all the way up the steps – Obama-style – but impressive for someone who is a fairly bulky 64.”
Arun Shourie (19 May 2014): “Everyone discusses and comes to a view and the decision is taken. The file goes back and everyone reports back within a fortnight. That’s how Modi functions. Those things will get done swiftly. Fast decision making, he is much for follow-ups.”
But Then the Tide Began to Turn…
As Modi’s soaring promise began to falter, and political/administrative improprieties mounted, the Lutyens’ outpouring, inevitably, changed. Because these are wise and fair people. They are not anybody’s groupies. They don’t root mindlessly, or with a partisan agenda. They may be a microscopic English-speaking minority, but they lead India’s thought atmosphere, which crucially creates the political narrative.
I have been taught a lesson for the second time in my life. Supporting Modi was the second biggest mistake of my life. Of getting so fed up with the existing government that you support anybody. This happened in Rajiv Gandhi’s time when we supported VP Singh. And supporting Modi happened now.Arun Shourie
To Conclude….
As Lutyens’ Delhi (ie, LD) sharpened its attack on Modi’s blind spots or complicities, his electoral graph faltered. He was no longer invincible. He began to lose elections. Some of you will say that I have got my causality wrong. That the Lutyens’ narrative changed because of the poll reverses. No sir, I can prove that the electoral defeats followed the change in Lutyens’ discourse, not vice versa.
I shall also prove that Lutyens’ Delhi is perhaps the most infallible predictor of election outcomes in India. The horse that it backs usually wins.
And this positive correlation goes back several decades. So, Prime Minister Modi will ignore, or challenge, this Lutyens’ Index of Electoral Victory at his own peril. But I shall prove all of this in a sequel to this column. Keep watching this space!
Read the story in Hindi here.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)