Reactions on Rajdeep Sardesai’s program on Modi’s speech at SRCC: shallow, rhetorical and lacking in substance

This is the program on Modi’s speech at SRCC. It includes views of many youth, Aakar Patel (a Journalist), a Muslim professor from Jamia Milia, and Tania – a girl who rattled Mamata Bannerjee with a question.

Let us look at some of the material discussed:

Modi was planted by RSS as the Chief Minister in Gujarat, even though he didn’t have any experience and so his elevation is no different from Rahul Gandhi’s. (Aakar Patel): First, this journo talks with a certain amount of disdain (and he shows that very clearly when he is making fun of another panelist outright – Chiranjeev – when he is talking about the situation in Gujarat). Ok, this remark came in response to the statement of one guy that while Modi has come up and done what he has done on his own, without family backing, Rahul Gandhi has come with a silver spoon.

There are hundreds and thousands of RSS workers. Why elevate Modi? Was he related to someone in RSS – like Rahul Gandhi is? No. If RSS made him a leader, he must have raised his stature enough for them to recognize him. What is important is that AFTER he became the Chief Minister, he did the work on his own despite the opposition from all the sides, including within BJP and RSS. Aakar Patel’s remark is as stupid as saying that Dr. Manmohan Singh and Rahul Gandhi are BOTH hoisted by a family. Well they are.. ooops. Even though Dr. Singh has never been elected. Ok, my bad. Better example would be Lal Bahadur Shastri. He had no family backup. He was made the PM by Congress. So if a party makes someone a leader – that is akin to dynastic rule. That is effectively the argument that Aakar Patel is making. Which, using his own words is “Bogus and nonsense”!

Modi was responsible for Gujarat because he didn’t do enough (Tania, Jamia Prof and Aakar Patel): Let us see the history. Modi had no administrative experience when he was made the Chief Minister. We all know that. Aakar Patel confirms and reiterates that. In fact plays on it. So, let us look at it again. An inexperienced person becomes the Chief Minister in October 2001. Riots happen in February 2002. Roughly 3 months after he assumes charge. The critics’ main charge against him is that he didn’t do enough. At most you can castigate him for errors of omission – which given his experience (lack thereof) and the time he had to come to terms and mobilize his administration are very understandable.

Now, this is apart from the fact that none of the targeting by his critics has really been honest or even credible. Sanjiv Bhatt . Teesta Setalvad – 1 . 2 – the targeting has been nauseatingly hypocritical when it comes with complete clean chit to people in parties like Congress who have actually done the mass murders! Even in the Left parties. It is incredible that Nandigram is never reminded, but Gujarat seems to be the ONLY riots that have ever happened.

Last year riots happened in Deganga. Any word on that? Temples were destroyed, homes were brought down and burnt, business burnt, people killed and injured. NO word.

Let us STOP pretending that India has not seen before or since any riots other than Gujarat. Let us stop insulting everyone’s intelligence on this please. I am sure this Jamia professor didn’t give the advice he gives to Modi .. to Dr. Singh or Rahul Gandhi. Because he is only thinking as a Muslim who has a singular agenda in his mind. Maybe he should move around the country and look at all the riots that happen EVERY year and go stop them. That would do him a world of good, because if he was doing that, he wouldn’t have had to go to Gujarat in last 10 years!

Modi has attributed Gujarat’s growth to himself (Tania, Aakar): Isn’t that the norm? Aren’t these guys trashing Modi for what the “Gujaratis” did in 2002? So, in their book – Modi should be the fall guy for all the wrong that happens, but not get an ounce of credit for all the good that happens in his rule! Convenient, huh?! No matter what happens, they win.

Modi’s success is PR work and his oratory (Aakar, Tania, Prof from Jamia): Let us go with them. Do they know that Congress pays FAR more to its PR agencies than what Modi or any other party spends overall? If a journalist doesn’t know that scale of difference between the PR expenditure between Congress and the rest, then shame on him! Actually this question from Rajdeep was pretty rhetorical. The organizer kid from SRCC didn’t say that his oratory was all that Modi brought to the table. He said – Modi brought a track record, a credible administrative and leadership experience (key word) which was articulated well. Without a track record, Modi – with or without his so-called oratory – would have been toast long time back! He is no Vajpayee in oratory. What he has is the passion that he brings in his speech and along with a confidence that what he is saying can be done, because it HAS been done.

After all Modi is only selling hope. So are Rahul Gandhi, Mamata Bannerjee and South Indian Leaders (Aakar Patel): With this Aakar Patel takes the cake in utter nonsense. Modi is not “selling hope”, he is showing that there is hope for the whole country IF it follows the “Gujarat Model”. A model, which has been time and again and profusely been admired, praised and backed by many business leaders – top Indian ones including Ratan Tata, Adi Godrej and Anil Ambani and almost all the top MNCs. As far as his track record on creating successful business friendly economic environment goes, Ambani-Godrej-Tata have far more credibility than 1000 Aakars put together.

Hope is not just a word when it is used by Modi. Quite unlike Rahul Gandhi or Mamata Bannerjee. What has Mamata given to West Bengal? What has Rahul Gandhi really done except giving scripted speeches and going to poor people’s houses and eating food from Five Star kitchens specially brought in? To talk of Mamata Bannerjee – who is utterly corrupt and idiotic/opportunistic in her behavior to Modi shows the level of seriousness that people like Aakar have in their own journalism. After all, the stark difference between Mamata’s and Modi’s rule was decisively brought out by what happened to Nano. As they say – ‘nuf said!