Why people hate Narendra Modi?

This is a question that has baffled me quite a bit. For the longest time justified their hate (cant really think of another word to describe their reaction to him) by citing his role in abetting the tragic 2002 post Godhra train burning riots. While they may have felt their anger justified soon after the riots, it should logically have abated after the court appointed investigations have all but exonerated Namo from any alleged role in the riots. But that has not happened and these people still are all fire and brimstone over what has happened.

In the earlier post (http://megadodopublication.blogspot.in/2013/08/the-curious-logic-of-hate.html), I have briefly touched upon the brainwashed nature of this hate. However that is applicable to the ‘opinion takers’ amongst us. Lay people, or people who live abroad and try to sound intelligent about India or just the general populace whose daily information dose consists of taking their opinions from Main Stream Media (MSM), rather than forming their own through an application of brains.

However, in this post I want to look closer what why drives the hate of ‘opinion makers’. Ie the people who are in the position of influencing the opinion of ‘opinion takers’. This would normally consist of people who like to interact with a whole bunch of other people: journalists, editors, think tanks, politicians, ‘intellectuals’, celebrities, talking heads on TV panels etc etc. Why should they hate Narendra Modi? The answer that comes to my mind, albeit perhaps incorrect, is that they are simply discriminating against him, but are afraid to do so openly.

Before I explain, I want to highlight a study I briefly read about in (I think) an excellent book ‘Freakonomics’ by Levitt and Dubner. The study was to highlight the racism that continued to exist in sections of America but how it was hidden or channelled differently. The study used the then popular game show ‘The weakest link’ to showcase its theory. The game consists of 6-8 contestants who each answer trivia questions by turn. For each correct answer money gets added to the prize kitty. The game proceeds through multiple rounds and at the end of each round the players collectively to vote out one person from amongst them. Finally the person remaining in the end wins the pot collected through the series of right answers during the game. In the first few rounds it makes sense to vote out the weakest players so that the pot grows bigger. In the later rounds it makes sense to eliminate the strongest players so that the final rounds one has to face only a ‘easy’ opponent. Now the social movements that demonised discrimination against blacks and women are the freshest in ones memory. As such, someone playing on the show with the nation watching would not like to take the risk of being seen as a racist or a sexist. So it appears that the elimination of these two classes of contestants (blacks and females) did not seem to follow the logic of elimination elucidated earlier. But this does not mean the ‘discrimination’ itself vanished. The study found that the targets of discrimination shifted to Hispanics and senior citizens. So Hispanics were voted out in earlier rounds even if they did well etc etc. So the disease of discrimination remains, but the carriers only show it in a different way. For more on this, please read the book I mentioned earlier and/ or have a look at this: http://www.wattpad.com/334172-freakonomics?p=32

Now why do I think the story above is relevant to the ‘opinion maker’ hate of Narendra Modi and the use of 2002 riots to justify it. The reason is simple, Narendra Modi is not ‘one of them’. Consider the senior politicians and journalists and other opinion makers that exist today. Many of them have a ‘pedigree’, atleast in their minds of sorts. A pedigree that comes from belonging to a certain family with a certain surname or having a certain bank balance or a certain award or then having gone to a certain type of school or even the people with whom they have gone to a school with. A simple wiki search for some of the senior editors of MSM and politicians will indicate to you what I am trying to say. Now contrast this with Narendra Modi’s wiki (excerpts below):

“Modi was born on 17 September 1950 to a family of grocers in Vadnagar in Mehsana district of what was then Bombay State (present-day Gujarat), India. While a teenager, Modi ran a tea stall with his brother around a bus terminus.[14] He completed his schooling in Vadnagar, where a teacher described him as being an average student but a keen debater. He began work in the staff canteen of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC), where he stayed till he became a full–time pracharak (propagator) of the RSS. Modi remained a pracharak in the RSS while he completed his Master's degree in political science from Gujarat University.”

Once you read both the sets of data, you can see why one set of ‘opinion makers’ discriminate against Namo. BUT, BUT, BUT…that is not considered socially acceptable, so this set needs to bring out a acceptable reason to justify their hate for him. Another reason for discrimination could likely be Narendra Modi belonging to a so-called lower caste. This also is not an acceptable reason (morally reprehensible in fact) of hating someone. So again, they bring out the bogey of 2002 riots to justify their hate of him, which is in fact, IMHO, caste-ist and class-ist.

Let me illustrate this point by an example. For a minute forget everything you have read above here. Lets say you are back in 1940s in the USA when blacks were still discriminated against to some extent. Now one morning you open a newspaper and read a story of a first time elected black governor of a state in the mid-west of USA. He is one of the few black politicians around. He has come up from a very humble background, worked very hard, studied in local universities, did a lot of social work and through his dint of hard work and determination broke through the not-so-glass glass ceiling and got elected governor. He manages the state very well, in fact it is the best managed state in the entire country in the opinion of many. However one day, things take a turn for the worse and there is a violent incident in the state. That incident prompts a violent reaction. The first-time governor takes immediate action but is sadly unable to prevent the loss of lives associated with a spontaneous social conflagration. Despite his quick control of the situation, this black governor is accused of being complicit in the riots. Lies are invented by the editors and journalists and NGOs to vilify this governor. Incidents that have never happened are passed around MSM as gospel truth. The Government orders all sorts of hearings and enquiries against this governor. The Governor too humbly submits to all these multiple investigations to clear any doubts and instil confidence in the people. While these enquiries are on, the governor also wins three elections, getting a vote of confidence of sorts from the people who actually suffered in the events that he is accused of engineering. The US Supreme court finally orders a thorough all-encompassing enquiry against the black gent in which he is given a clean chit. This is in addition to all the other enquiries that have not been able to find anything on the governor earlier. Finally the people feel that the matter has been settled and the process of healing can begin. However, the media and the opposition governor candidate and his acolytes continue to accuse the governor of the same crimes he has been all but completely exonerated of. The same accusations continue to be repeated in the national media and opposition speeches while the lone governor continues to do good work for the people of his state. End of story. Important to note that this is a hypothetical example made up to illustrate a point, in no way reflective of my opinion of the USA which I consider the biggest meritocracy today.

Now for what would you say this governor is targeted for by the ‘majority’ of his country. For any actual criminal act? No…the courts and investigations have prima facie rejected that. For his economy and development focus….? Perhaps not, who doesn’t like good roads and prosperous industry.  Then what? His skin colour and background? Hmm.

Now compare the situation of this hypothetical black governor with whats happening to Narendra Modi today. You will have the answer to the question asked in the title of the post.