GOA: The Corporate and the neo-liberal fundamentalists believe that something has gone “terribly wrong” with our Republic.. Apparently they are upset with the functioning of the Parliament. They have outlined some suggestions for improving the democratic process. Their idea of effective democracy is: speakers should exercise their power more forcefully; Parliament should follow the British example and meet many more times than it does now: it should have a fixed term; and “no-confidence vote” should be replaced with a “constructive no-confidence vote” as in Germany.

Their real concerns, however, lie elsewhere. They have used these suggestions only as a peg to voice their disappointment about slow pace of neo-liberal economic reforms about Land, Labour and GST.

They are well aware that we are and always have been not only a feudal but a hierarchically castiest and patriarchal society where privileged have exploited the deprived for centuries. These contradictions are not as pronounced in democracies of the developed world. While the privileged have had a stranglehold on all levers of power, the deprived have been reluctantly given an entry into the political sphere only: the right to vote. Of course, we have given ourselves a Constitution which enshrines equal rights for all but the established power structure has succeeded in subverting, blocking or delaying any meaningful efforts in this direction.

The situation began to change, only marginally, during UPA regime when the politics of patronage was supplemented with the legal rights for food, education, jobs and the tribal rights. This along with the earlier affirmative steps has had some impact on the political discourse. These developments and demands for the mandatory provisions for Corporate Social Responsibility have alarmed and disturbed the Corporate.

The economic right, whenever it finds itself under scrutiny, joins hand with the political right which in Indian context has a strong communal dimension. The Corporate therefore decided to forge a nexus with Mr. Narendra Modi, a dogmatic and doctrinaire Prachark of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh and its political wing, Bhartiya Janta Party.

The Corporate funded the high-tech, high-voltage and the most expensive election campaign ever of Mr. Modi and also helped prepare the grounds for his victory. It allowed the media under its control, virtually all of the mainstream media, to create a negative perception of the UPA Govt. for its alleged corruption and lax administration. The UPA, not surprisingly, seemed to lack conviction in its avowed pursuit of “inclusive growth” for; after all, it also is a part of the entrenched power structure. It also lacked cohesion because of the coalitional politics.

In any case, the Corporate added to UPA's “paralytic” state by turning its back on India and investing abroad the “incentives” (not subsidies in its case) it had received from the Govt. to overcome the difficult global economic situation.

The BJP in general and Mr. Modi in particular also played their part by disrupting the Parliament and blocking the much needed reforms, including GST, planned by UPA. Mr. Modi won the mandate and the euphoric quotient of the Corporate rose phenomenally. The Corporate hoped that all resources going down “the drain” through subsidies and consequent corruption will now stop since these were making labour and land costlier and difficult to come by.

It was now sure that Gujarat Model of Development will be replicated all over India. Mr. Modi also made good use of his oratorical theatricality (NAUTANKI) and his chameleon like ability to alter his persona according to time, purpose and occasion. The media and the neo-liberals too helped promote a persona of Mr. Modi which had “moved on” and now believed in “sab-ka-sath, sab-ka-vikas”, and “decisive governance”.

Mr. Modi lured not only the consumerist middle class with promises of “bullet trains” “smart cities” and “digital India”, he also made herculean efforts to keep his ideological propensities under check. He also made sure to address the poor through vacuous rhetoric and peddling of platitudes since the deprived also have acquired some say in the electoral arena.

The Corporate and neo-liberal fundamentalists and their ilk also wanted Mr. Modi to steer the new government away, forever perhaps, from the notions of “redistribution and inclusion”. The neo-liberals like Jagdish Bhagwati, Aravind Panagariya, Gurcharan Das, Sunil Alagh, Kiran Shaw, Mohandas Pai and senior honchos of CII, ASSOCHAM, FICCI and other business organisation have been ubiquitous in print and electronic media assuring people that “growth and growth only” is the way to raise the stature of India internationally and bring about “acchhe din” for all of us.

But, more than a year has gone by, the economic “boom”, the land/ labour reforms and other tangible deliverables are hardly visible on the horizon. The euphoric quotient of the Corporate has also progressively gone down: sloganeering, posturing, pamphleteering and publicity notwithstanding. Perhaps, the Corporate overlooked the inherent contradictions in their choice: Mr. Modi. He has been a Hindutva Prachark all his adult life and to expect that he would, even tangentially, move away from his moorings, remains a gamble at best.

Also, while funds and media support provided by the Corporate did contribute to his victory, the sweat and toil of thousands of hard-core RSS swayamsewaks who canvassed for days and months in the Hindi heartland, using their standard abrasive, bigoted, polarising discourse too played a significant role. Mr. Modi is no position nor is he willing to alienate them and promise of bullet trains, smart cities etc. has no traction with them.

They, RSS and Mr. Modi want to establish “Hindu Rashtra” as early as possible. Mr. Modi, the decisive, action-oriented leader, may have resorted to politically correct liberal rhetoric so far, but he has not checked his colleagues in the RSS from undermining the Constitution by spreading their divisive message or distorting the political discourse through sectarian vitriol and slurs.

The lament of the neo-liberals that something has gone” terribly wrong” with our Republic is indeed true. The Gujarat Model of Development has not been replicated but the Gujarat Model of Governance has been. Like in Gujarat, the Executive means only Mr. Modi: the other members of cabinet are no more than mere errand boys.

He has renamed and repackaged the old schemes of earlier NDA and UPA regimes and has, along with a few new ones, re-launched them with great fanfare. He has also unleashed a barrage of TV advertisements - there are by rough estimate over 700 TV channels and one advertisement is being shown at least 10 times a day i.e.:- at least 7000 ads in a day at a whopping cost. It is also taxpayers' money but our electronic tabloids are silent.

Is there a quid pro quo?

What is more worrisome is the same miasmic ambience where unstated surveillance, suspicion, fears ruled the Secretariat in Gujarat pervades the corridors of power in Delhi. The established Institutions of art, history, science, culture and education (even IITs and IIMs) are being undermined through infiltration of ideological fellow travellers of the RSS. The eminent jurist, NGOs/ Civil Society organisations are being tarred and “5 STAR” activists are being hounded through innuendos, insinuations, planting of stories, leakages of self-serving IB reports and even police action.

The insatiable greed and the immense capacity of the Corporate to contaminate, corrupt and vitiate the public discourse have impacted our polity, economy and governance. Any criticism, any doubts about the neo-liberal model of growth is rubbished as anti-development and what is worse, “anti-national”.

Yes, something has indeed gone terribly wrong with our Republic. The macho governance that dismisses dissent and disregards alternatives must be replaced with governance which is accommodative and respects choices..

Latest News