The Economist magazine which is the internationallyrecognised voice of Britain’s conservative establishment has done it again.Before the 2014 elections it had advised Indian voters to prefer the Congressto the BJP despite, as it put it, the UPA’s poor record of governance. It hasnow, while the elections are underway, implicitly advised them: they would be”better off with a different leader”, (comment: meaning Prime Minister NarendraModi) even though the Congress may be “hidebound and corrupt”.
Clearly, it is only for the Indian people to decide whoshould they vote for in the elections but it appears that a section of Britishopinion feels that they need to be counselled in the matter. Perhaps they arestill unaware that the British empire has gone into the dustbin of history.They also do not realise that Britain is just a small island with much still tocommend it but its star is on the wane. And strangely they are also overlookingthe fact that Britain is in the middle of almost complete political chaosbecause of its inability to handle Brexit. In such a situation the Britishpolitical class should only focus its energies on how to extricate itself fromits present mess.
Instead, theEconomist obviously feels compelled to bear the white man’s burden and advisethe ‘natives’ on who is worthy of getting their vote. Hence, its offensivelecturing tone. Small mercy that it does not repeat the sentiment engraved instone on the gateway to the North Block rotunda in New Delhi— “Liberty will notdescend to a people. A people must raise themselves to Liberty. It is ablessing which must be earned before it can be enjoyed”.
It is for the Indian people, as for all peoples in alldemocratic countries, to decide who would govern them. This is an essentialattribute of national sovereignty and has to be exercised without outsideinfluence or interference through free, fair and impartial elections. India’srecord of conducting such exercises at the national level has been excellentever since the first Lok Sabha election of 1952. It needs no advice on howelections should be conducted, including campaigns. As noted earlier in thesecolumns whenever for whatsoever reasons free elections at the state level havebeen tinkered with the country as a whole has suffered. These are now matters ofthe past and the nation has learnt appropriate lessons.
The record of the Indian people in scrutinising the recordof ruling parties is robust despite all the din of election time propaganda.Indian voters in this election are doing so too; examining the claims of the ruling BJP of what it states to have accomplished overthe past five years on the economic and security fronts. In so doing they wouldhave applied the real test: how did its actions make a difference in their dayto day lives.
Did demonetisation impact on their livelihoods and has itaccomplished its many stated objectives? Has the GST clearly helped in reducingprices of commodities and services or in improving their quality? Have the manygovernmental programmes for cleanliness, clean domestic energy, housing, roadsand many more been implemented well? The Indian people do not need others likethe Economist, to tell them that they should evaluate these while making uptheir minds on the BJP’s performance.
The BJP has projected that it has strengthened nationalsecurity. Modi has asserted that he is strong leader who has ensured that thenation is safe in his hands. He has pointed to the actions that he has taken inthe neighbourhood for national security. However, the opposition parties led bythe Congress have given a counter-view. Thus, the electorate has theopportunity to make up its mind on these issues without foreign inputs.
The Economist has drawn special attention to the socialsituation in India. This is an aspect of the present BJP period which hasattracted a lot of comment. Some sections of Indian opinion are deeplyconcerned about alleged attempts at changing the orientation and direction ofthe Indian social order and moving it away from fundamental constitutionalprinciples. There are others in India who deny that such attempts are beingmade.
Social peace is vital for national progress and that canonly be secured if all the people feel that they have full and equal status inIndian life. This is also the assurance of the Indian constitution. A foreignmagazine does not need to inform the people that social harmony is critical forIndia. The people know this instinctively. While there may be momentary tiltingin one or the other direction Indian society has demonstrated the capacity torestore balance. There is no doubt that in this election too, the vote will goto those parties which the people assess will provide truly balanced andinclusive growth.
Apart from issues relating to some external aspects ofnational security India’s foreign relations have not attracted attention duringthe campaign. Nor have internal issues relating to centre-state relations havebeen priorities except in some states. Certainly, these aspects would not haveescaped the people’s attention. Popular sentiment favours, even in unsettledand violent conditions, firmness to be accompanied with fairness and the doorsof dialogue to be open at all times. This is also a basic need in a countrywith large diversity although subsumed in common nationhood.