The instant reaction of a reader would be that Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is misleading its nation. Sometimes, the illusions could very well be delusions. The Economist is a revered publication, perhaps this is its style. A provocative headline draws attention of the readers. Who reads the fine print?
The Economist has devoted a three-page article, along with a whole page leader (comment) worth up to 5000 words to emphasise its claims on what they feel is a flawed leadership.
We need not just focus on the headline. Let's see what the fine print says. The sub-headline on Page 21 reads, “Narendra Modi has done a passable job administering the Indian economy but not enough to reform it”. The Economist has a very positive observation of the Goods and Services Tax, which will be operational from July 1. In terms, while the historic move will act as a relief for Indian businesses, it also says that it, “Hopes that liberalising reforms would breathe new life into India's economy have permeated the air since Narendra Modi swept to power...” Of Course. There is a possibility that the GST could have been made more perfect. We are all aware of the half glass full, and the half glass empty overview.
Moving ahead, The Economist claims that during the election campaign leading up to the chapter of 2014, “(this newspaper) winced at the sectarian and polarising bent of his BJP”. Really? Some would say that till Modi was almost elected, The Economist had a very different opinion of Narendra Modi.
Let's look at other statements from the piece. “Mr Modi has shown that he is an astute administrator of the economic machinery he inherited. Corruption seems to have abated, at least at the highest levels of government. But he has demonstrated little appetite for the reforms, which would bring sustained growth...” Any observer of the government in a huge continent-like country, India, where there is a vibrant, noisy, and sometimes, divisive democracy, would perhaps be happy and almost contented with the first three years of the Modi-led NDA, headed by BJP, government. Let's quote The Economist again. “The sporadic liberalisation of investment rules has helped to record amounts of foreign cash, albeit from an abysmally low level. The stockmarket has boomed. Tech giants such as Apple and Amazon see India as the next frontier.”
Luck is Oil
India is a huge importer of oil, and the tumbling of price has naturally been very helpful to India and even The Economist says, “Mr Modi should also receive credit for sensibly using the oil windfall to pare fuel subsidies and keep the budget deficit mostly in check.”
“A new bankruptcy law, introduced in May 2016, may enable the enforcement of lending contracts... Mr Modi has also championed a nationwide biometric scheme known as Aadhaar... The gains made from Aadhaar could end up being sizeable...” Perhaps The Economist should have said, the Modi government had no hesitation to implement Aadhaar, which was actually developed durign the UPA government. The Economist can see the gains made from Aadhaar could be sizeable. As for demonetisation, it said it was a bold step. In a way it can see it was necessary, but obviously a gigantic change in the mindset of the people, or the administration cannot happen overnight within the restraints of democracy. India is not China.
The Economist is concerned about several other issues like, opacity in the market, lack of capable workforce in the education sector, etc. Sure, all these things and many more are necessary. But, one wonders why The Economist perhaps stooped so low by putting a distinctly negative gloss with 'Modi's India'. “More an administrator than a reformer...He is more energetic than his predecessor.”
The Economist is rightfully concerned about some religious issues in India and correctly so. We ourselves, or I, even as a vegetarian, do not support any state machinery directing people on what they can and can't eat.
“Political conditions are about as propitious for reform as they are ever likely to be. Mr Modi's government is the strongest in decades. It has a big majority in the lower house of parliament and is edging closer to control of the upper house, as well. It runs most big states. The opposition is hopeless.” Slow right down there. You can't change the juggernaut so easily. Things are on the way, we believe. As usual, perhaps less so now, than before, The Economist reminds the readers of the Gujarat riots of 2002. I must say clearly that The Economist, Financial Times, and some other publications have changed their opinion or toned down the rhetoric when approached repeatedly by my own small publications and stopped using such improper and provocative words like 'genocide', etc.
So The Economist is not beyond the pale. Perhaps, with a more equivocal balance-sheet of the Modi government, we will welcome a befitting journal. However, until then, the headline salvo remains sufficiently unsupported by a cluster of words, all written in small print.
