Gujarat Under Modi - Part 1

 



 

1^st May is Gujarat Day. Back in November 2013, just before the Indian general elections of 2014 which Narendra MODI won with a landslide victory, Professor Christophe JAFFRELOT’s book, “Gujarat Under Modi” was ready for publication. However, no publisher was willing to publish it then. It took finally 2024 for that to happen. 

Interestingly, the author makes a difference between the words, “tolerance” and “toleration” to explain this conundrum. In his view, the regime uses “toleration” as a proof of thriving “dissent” and “democracy”. However, the primordial question that Christophe asks us is, “Do you have a spine? Do you have courage?” 

Check out the interview also to find out how Christophe reacted when I pointed out an uncanny similarity between him and the Prime Minister Narendra Modi! 

Here is Part 1 of a fascinating series of interviews with Professor Christophe JAFFRELOT! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzymIK_06ws

 

Note: 

1) The music video at the beginning and at the end of the interview is the “Saheb” video clip produced by Paranjoy GUHA-THAKURTA. The original clip could be consulted at the below link. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_x0KVSOEhc

 

Anubandh: Hello! My name is Anubandh KATÉ. I am a Paris based engineer. I have a pleasure today to have, one more time, Christophe JAFFRELOT, who is a politologue, who is a historian as well, if I may say so. If you want to have a detailed description of his work, I invite you to look at my previous interview with him but I would still say that he is a professor of South Asian politics and history at “Centre de Recherche International”, CERI at SciencesPo, Paris. He is also a professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King's Institute, India Institute and a Research Director at Centre National de La Recherche Scientifique, CNRS, Paris. He has written more than 24 books on India and seven books on Pakistan. Christophe, welcome back to the show! 

Christophe: Thank you for the invitation Anu! 

Anubandh: My pleasure! And It is really a pleasure because today we are going to talk about your last book

“Gujarat Under Modi”. I read this book. It is a 600 pages book and out of which 200 pages are devoted to references, bibliography, appendix… So, this gives you an idea of the kind of work that you have done into this book. But as you mentioned to me earlier, this book has a long history and I invite you to introduce us to this history of this book. 

Christophe: Yes, every book has a long history but this one has a very particular history. Because, I was doing research in Gujarat from 2001 onwards. I have been at least two times a year to Gujarat between 2001 and 2020. And when it became clear that Narendra MODI would be the BJP candidate for the 2014 elections, I completed my manuscript on his politics in Gujarat as Chief Minister. The manuscript was submitted to the publisher by 2013. November 2013, to be precise. Thus, I met the deadline. But nobody wanted to publish this book! I was asked to cut away so many pieces of information I found absolutely crucial, so I preferred not to publish this book. Instead, I did another one on Pakistan first. That was in 2015. And then on “Modi's India”, that was in 2019. Later, I returned to this book, The Gujarat book immediately after. Finally, I found a publisher. Of course, in UK, my old publisher HURST but also in India. I must say that most of the publishers turned down this manuscript. Yet,  there is one publisher that is still showing some courage, “Westland”. And in “context” because the imprint of Westland that has published my book is known as “context”. I must say that Karthika, who has been my publisher since day one in India. In fact, she did my first book at Penguin India in 1996. I was the one who made this possible. So, It is true for the media, It is true for the NGOs, It is true for the academia, to some extent. The main difference is, “do you have spine or not?”. This is key for any regime, anywhere, any country, anywhere.. 

Anubandh: True. But, I would say, you also mentioned in the book that most of the things that you published are from the public domain, public sources.

Christophe: Sure. 

Anubandh: Which means, it was not just you. Someone else could have also done this job. If they had wanted. Right? So, That is the first point. Second point, I want to raise is that in 2001, you were the first one who read the writing on the wall. And you said, Gujarat was the “Hindutva Laboratory” and it was going to be this model that was going to be replicated at the pan India level. That is what has happened. 

Christophe: Right. In the book I co-edited with Thomas Blom Hansen, “The BJP and the compulsions of politics”, in the second edition 2001, there is one section called “Gujarat: a laboratory of Hindu Nationalism”. It shows that, in fact, even before MODI took over, under Keshubhai PATEL, it had become very clear that this state could be the state where the BJP would, I would say deepen its politics and policies. It is really a prototype to a large extent. 

Anubandh: It indeed took courage to write this book and also to publish it. But would it be wrong to interpret that the fact that it is finally published in India and elsewhere, is a proof of some kind of semblance of tolerance That is still left in India? 

Christophe: I would not say “tolerance”, I would say “toleration”. It is the best way for the regime to say, look there is dissent. There is democracy. It is exactly what I could see in Pakistan when in the English media you still have critical voices which could, which can be heard. It is a very sophisticated strategy to defuse the critics of authoritarianism. However, I say authoritarianism on purpose. These are not totalitarian countries and there is still some room for critique. 

Anubandh: That is absolutely true. We can see this in the publication of such a book. Since you mentioned Pakistan. A few days earlier I was watching an episode on the YouTube channel, “The Pakistan Experience”. And the anchor, in a very interesting way said that had Zia Ul HAQ in the 1980s had all the tools and resources which MODI today has, including WhatsApp Groups, media and other institutions, it would have created a havoc in Pakistan. Do you agree with this Assessment? Comparison`? 

Christophe: It is very difficult to say. This is completely counterfactual, you know. There was hardly any revolt against Zia UL HAQ till the movement for the restoration of democracy took shape when Benazir took the lead. Therefore, this is a little bit, I would say, well a non-scientific question that social scientists cannot do justice to. 

Anubandh: Okay. Fair enough. Next, I would just like to give an idea of the themes you have treated in the book and we will see how far we can go. Nevertheless, you have promised me that we could carry on this discussion (even after this session). This is especially important because as you know, I represent a generation where not many people read. We are busy with our mobile phones. Thus, at least through this discussion, I believe, this very important topic is presented to Indians and to people from other countries. 

You have discussed in the book about the political history of Gujarat and I think this is something very important. A lot of people, including myself (do not really know about it). I come from Maharashtra and yet I know very little about Gujarat (a neighbouring state) and its political history. Therefore, that is an important chapter. You talked about Gujarat pogrom 2002. You talked about the fake encounters, de-institutionalization, capture of institutions. Then there is creation of a deep state. Which talks about the criminalization of a deep state. Crony capitalism. Social polarization where you discuss jobless growth and the Urban- Rural divide. later you talked about MODITVA: the personal power. National-populist way and finally domination. Two kinds of dominations, through promotion of elite and new middle class and then oppression of the victims or dissenters. 

So, let us start with the political history. I must say, again, for example you talked in the book about Indulal YAGNIK. Now, we do criticize the history. How history is tampered today. You know, with the exclusion of Mughal and Muslim History, (exclusion of) Pandit Jawaharlal NEHRU and GANDHI and others. However, even before, very little was talked about leaders like Indulal YAGNIK. So, could you tell us about this political history of Gujarat? Where you talk about the conservatism, traditionalism of Congress under GANDHI…. 

Christophe: Gujarat is a very interesting state, so far as political history is concerned, because you can see there this polarization, within Congress in the first place. You have a long tradition of progressive attitudes, reformism, social reformism, cultural reformism. Indulal YAGNIK is a great example of that. He was, a journalist by training who met Mahatma GANDHI in Bombay in the first place, at a very young age. He became one of his editors for his newspapers. Then he moved to Ahmedabad. He was, of course, from Gujarat but his passion was about the poor. He wanted to work among the Adivasis. He wanted to work among the dalits. And he did. He did it in 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918. He was recurrently going to villages where he saw (the) real poor (people), real poverty.  He wanted the Congress to fight poverty. He thought that the first priority was to fight poverty. But there was this other wing of Congress at that time, embodied by Vallabhbhai PATEL who had become the Mayor of Ahmedabad and who was an advocate.

One of the first PATELs who became educated. PATELs have had a very interesting transition from agriculture to services. All kinds. Of course, trade but also they became professionals, including lawyers.  PATEL was in charge of the organization of Congress. He was really at the helm of the party machine and he opposed Indulal YAGNIK. Saying, no way. We have other priorities. Of course, Mahatma GANDHI had to, somewhat decide. He was the referee and he chose PATEL. He chose PATEL in a very emotional moment. Because he was devastated by the fact that he had to betray YAGNIK but he chose PATEL. And that is very revealing of the rather conservative brand of congressism that prevailed in Gujarat. 

Anubandh: If I may, if I may pick that up. Because in the book you mentioned that Indulal YAGNIK wanted to build schools for Dalits. And PATEL was the one who was like a treasurer. He used to collect money for the Congress. And he said, the Congress does not have money for this cause and it had to save money for other national struggle, freedom activities. He denied. And that is why Indulal YAGNIK, in frustration, gave his resignation (from Congress). To this, GANDHI said: “PATEL and YAGNIK cannot work together!” That is the reason he accepted his resignation. We should also mention that PATEL had different priorities. For instance, PATEL used the money to rebuild the Somnath temple. Thus, how do you explain such distinguished priorities? 

Christophe: No, this is exactly what I said. It is a very polarized political history.You know, you have the progressives and the conservatives. And that was of course, occulated. It was concealed by the fact that GANDHI could claim that he represented both! But YAGNIK never came back to Congress till Indira GANDHI invited him to do it in 1971. YAGNIK is back to Congress, at a completely different Congress. Congress I - Congress R. that will be Congress I for Indira GANDHI. And he won. He won against Congress 0. Congress 0 was precisely at that time the legacy of the Patelites. Therefore, till 1969 you can say that in a Gujarat, like elsewhere, the two sides, the conservative and the progressive had been somewhat merged and had cohabited,  coexisted. But this division is back in 1969. This is what Congress should have probably done. That is what the progressive wing of congressmen should have done. To leave the Congress and join the left. Some of them did it. The Congress Socialist Party in 1948 became independent but most of the others preferred to remain in the Congress party that was predominantly… predominantly in the hands of the Conservative Party bosses, at least at the state level. 

Anubandh: Before we continue talking about PATEL. Let us make a small detour. Therefore, I would request some comments from you. This is especially in terms of the caste

distribution, which you gave about Gujarat and the map of Gujarat. I think these two are related. So, please tell us about the distribution of caste and if there are any peculiarities of the state. 

 

 

\

Christophe: Well, the specificity of each sub region is not necessarily connected to social composition. Certainly, South Gujarat is more inhabited by the Adivasis. Therefore, this is where you have the tribal belt. But in the rest you have almost all the caste groups. All the tribal groups as well, almost evenly distributed. What is more important is the, if you want the mode of production that prevailed. Saurashtra was dominated by the princely states.  There were so many princely states with a Rajputs at their helm.  Small Rajputs, small principalities, small kingdoms, very small zamindaries. But you had nothing of that kind in North Gujarat and central Gujarat where the PATELs could flourish earlier, much earlier. When the land reform came in 1947-1948-1949 and the zamindari abolition took place, then the PATELs could, in a way, dislodge the Rajputs from power. This was at the village level and Rajputs therefore joined hands with the Kolis, a very large OBC caste that was already very well represented among tenants. These people, the Kolis and the Rajputs created a new caste group, which is rather unique in the history of India.  the “Kshatriyas”. The Kshatriyas were made of some Rajputs and some Kolis to resist the PATELs. 

All these people still remained together within the Congress for a long time till the 1980s when (Madhav Singh) SOLANKI, the Chief Minister of Congress decided to create a coalition known as KHAM: Kshatriyas (Kolis + Rajputs), Harijans - Dalits, Adivasis and Muslims. Then he introduced reservations for the OBCs, for Dalits. And then PATELs left Congress at that time and joined the BJP. That was the parting of the ways, preparing the ground for the BJP domination after 1990. 

Anubandh: Let's come back to PATEL. You know, in India there is this prevailing discussion that PATEL would have made a better prime minister than NEHRU. In Ramchandra GUHA's book “India after GANDHI”, he has diffused that argument with a peculiar justification. However, how would you respond to this argument? 

Christophe: Again, this is completely counterfactual, you know. It would mean so many “ifs”. The thing is that PATEL was a great organizer and he had never been against NEHRU in terms of Politics. Yes, they differed on few policies but when they differed, NEHRU accommodated him. Therefore, it is not as if they had not led the party together. This is a very artificial division that is created by the BJP leaders who want to give a bad name to Jawaharlal NEHRU.  Nevertheless, NEHRU and PATEL were comrades in arms, from day one, till the end. 

The only very clear difference, and that is why the BJP leaders are so upset with NEHRU. That was that NEHRU was absolutely not prepared to make any concessions to the RSS. While PATEL considered that this organization could join Congress, could be amenable to a form of Patriotism. That is a big difference, but it reflected only in very few decisions. 

Anubandh: Right. Few decisions. This is ideological difference and (yet) collaboration, you can say. However, Ramchandra GUHA, he had an argument. And it was (very) factual. PATEL died in 1950 while NEHRU died in 1964, right? Therefore, there was no way PATEL could have been the Prime Minister! 

Christophe: This is exactly why I said. This question does not arise! Because it is based on a very long series of “ifs”. If PATEL had lived, if… 

Anubandh: However, your book also talked about some very revealing information that at least I did not know about PATEL. I will highlight them. One of them is that he was quite keen to control the Congress and that too against the direction that NEHRU wanted to give it. Thus, he had Purshottam Das TANDOM who he reinstated as the president of Congress, in place of NEHRU. NEHRU then resigned from the Congress Working Committee. However, after PATEL died NEHRU forced TANDON to resign. Before the 1951-1952 elections NEHRU was in full control (of the Congress). During these first Indian elections he described the Hindu nationalists as the main enemy of the Congress. We also have another instance that you mentioned in the book where PATEL wrote a letter to the then president India, Rajendra PRASAD. Where he said that in 1947 he had issued licenses of arms to some Hindu groups. This was quite striking to me. Further, not just that, he openly invited Hindu Mahasabha and RSS to join Congress and to change it from within! Therefore, this goes really very far. And I think this is not really talked much in India. 

Christophe: It is not. Well, so many things are not talked about in India! These days… No, these are, of course, historical facts.. You need to qualify the importance of these facts from two points of view. 

Number one, you had the president of the Hindu Mahasabha, Shyam Prasad MUKHERJEE in NEHRU's government at that time. Therefore, it is not as if PATEL was doing something so extraordinary by relating to the Hindu Mahasabha. Jawaharlal NEHRU himself had related to the Hindu Mahasabha by including their leader in his government! Because that was Mahatma GANDHI's wish to have a government where you would have Dr. AMBEDKAR, Maulana AZAD, Shyam Prasad MUKHERJEE. You know, it had to be the government of India. With its diversity in actual terms. 

Secondly, you need to qualify the importance of this by looking at what RSS was at that time. In 1947-1948, it is a minuscule organization. It is very small. Of course, it is active. Especially at the time of partition. However, you need to relativize the importance of this by looking at what they really represented in the in the Indian landscape. Congress was completely hegemonic across the territory. 

Anubandh: There is one last instance which comes to my mind that you mentioned in the book. It is about the fact that PATEL, while Pandit NEHRU was on a foreign trip passed a resolution to include, to induct RSS members in Congress. This decision later was revoked, rejected by NEHRU when he came back. 

However, let's move on to other leaders of those times as well. How would you assess Rajendra PRASAD and his involvement in that famous Somnath temple inauguration? 

Christophe: Well, this is the Hindu traditionalist wing of congress. Patelites; all kinds including K.M. MUNSHI, including Rajendra PRASAD. They were the ones who were very much behind this idea that you need to give Hinduism a special status in the national identity. Thus, to rehabilitate the Somnath Temple was one way to do it. Jawaharlal NEHRU was against this decision considering that it was a form of bigotry. He was also opposed to all these very history oriented Leaders. He was looking for the future. He was building the future. He was for reforms. He was not for traditions. He modernized India in spite of these people! Creating the IITs, the IIMs and of course ISRO.. the list is so long.. The others were just rebuilding temples! What they are doing till today. Nevertheless, clearly, it was a good reason for not, another reason. In addition to alienating the Muslims, of course, humiliating the Muslims or infuriating the Muslims. The idea was, we need traditions but we need modernity first. 

Anubandh: Next on my list is K.M. MUNSHI who had founded Bhartiya Vidhya Bhawan. He was also part of the Constitution drafting committee. However, importantly and contrastingly rather, he wrote in the “Organizer” (magazine) of RSS (Rashtriya Swamsevak Sangh). He founded the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad) in Bhopal and remained a member of it, till he died. So, how do you explain this capacity of Congress to take within itself some ideologically very antithetical groups? In addition, the fact that the Hindu Mahasabha was part of the Congress initially? How do you reconcile with that? 

Christophe: As I said, Congress is this very porous, amorphous organization where you have all kinds of characters. It is an umbrella organization, especially in Gujarat where you have the progressives and the conservatives, covering the political space. This is exactly what Rajni KOTHARI, the great political scientist of India called the “Congress system”. Here is a party that is its own opposition! You know, it is its capacity to cover the whole of the political spectrum, making no space, leaving almost no space to the opposition! This is why (Ram Manohar) LOHIYA will create anti-congressism with an equally bizarre coalition. The socialist LOHIYA had Dindayal UPADHYAY in his coalition when in 1963 they fought by elections against the Congress. Therefore, ideology is definitely not the main, I would say landmark criterion for distinguishing parties, at that time. It will come with Indira GANDHI, not before. 

Anubandh: Right. The next person that I would like you to comment on is Gulzarilal NANDA. I will read few things that I really found striking in your book. Gulzarilal NANDA had an idea in the mid-1950s to enroll sadhus in the economic development of India! This makes a parallel with the influence of Ramdev BABA today and that of (Yogi) ADITYANATH in politics. Further, Gulzarilal NANDA also supported RSS joining the government administrative services. He was, and this is really incredible… he was the then Home minister and he invited before 1965 war (M.S) GOWALKAR of RSS. Asking him help to maintain law and order! Now, this is unthinkable! But That is true.. How would you assess Gulzarilal NANDA? 

Christophe: Same, Patelite! You know, all these Gujaratis… MUNSHI, PATEL, NANDA they have all been the conservative congressmen of Gujarat. You can also mention Morarjee DESAI. Morarjee DESAI is in the same league.  You know, he is the Member of Parliament of Surat for many years. There is a porosity. Congress is a porous party vis a vis the right, with these people joining Vishwa Hindu Parishad, joining the religious, I would say the religious dimension of Hindutva. In the name of the defense of traditions. The same way, you have the porosity of the left! You have so many former communists, including Krishna MENON in NEHRU’s entourage.  The Congress is a very specific animal, especially in Gujarat, especially in the West, in western India at large. Because in 1957 MENON will become a Member of Parliament of Bombay. At that time, Gujarat is part of the Bombay Presidency. This is the same state. This is the same province. Therefore, Western India is probably very different from many other parts of the country. You cannot see that in Bihar. The Congress in Bihar has so much more low caste politics, socialist ideology. However, in western India, this porosity, this amorphous character of Congress is all pervasive. 

Anubandh: And Gulzarilal NANDA's fascination about the RSS, the Hindutva was so overt that Indira GANDHI had to finally ask his resignation in 1966 as the Home Minister after he had defended, perhaps the agitating anti cow slaughter protesters. 

Next person on the list is Ehsan ZAFFRI who was quite communist in his inclination. Could you please tell us about Ehsan ZAFFRI and his importance to this political picture? 

Christophe:  Well, Ehsan ZAFFRI is primarily a literary person, a poet, an intellectual, an academic to some extent and an activist. Very much on the left, with the Progressive Writers’ Association as his main Ecosystem. Again we are in the Bombay Presidency. Bombay at that time is the headquarter of the Progressive Writers’ Association. It is also the headquarter of the progressive painters. M.F. HUSAIN is there. By the way, after some time M.F. HUSAIN will have his gallery in Amedabad. 

Ehsan JAFRI is from Amedabad. When Indira (GANDHI) splits the Congress in 1969 he follows her. When in 1971, YAGNIK is candidate in Ahmedabad, he supports him. In 1977 when YAGNIK had just died, he contests in the same seat that YAGNIK had won in Ahmedabad. He won and he wins with an absolute majority! In 1977, Ehsan JAFRI won more than 50% of the votes in Ahmedabad. He is the only Muslim Minister of Parliament. Of course, he is not a politician. Thus, he doesn't want to make a career. He doesn't want to contest again. In 1980, he is not  contesting and he withdraws. In 1985 there is this huge riot in Ahmedabad, devastating and his House, Gulburg society is attacked. However, he can get the protection from the then Chief Minister of Congress. 

The same house is again under attack in 2002, during the pogrom. That is a different story. He tries hard to talk to the Commissioner of police, to the Chief Minister himself. Apparently, he could talk to these people but to no avail. And thousands of assailants, armed with swords and trishuls, finally persuaded him that he must sacrifice himself. Therefore, he leaves… he goes out. He is butchered and then they penetrate in the house and kill dozens of people… this is the Gulburg Society moment. The very beginning of the pogrom…

Ehsan JAFFRI was targeted first. Why was he targeted first? Because he had campaigned against Narendra MODI, a few days before when there was a by election. Narendra MODI needed to win because he had no seat in the Gujarat assembly. He had been appointed Chief Minister of Gujarat in September 9, 2001 but nobody wanted to resign and offer him his or her seat. Haren PANDYA in Ellis bridge constituency in Ahmedabad had said, “No way!”. That was one of the reasons why there was a lot of tension between these two men, Haren PANDYA and Narendra MODI. Therefore, you had to find a seat in Rajkote. You had to canvas there and Ehsan JAFFRI had gone to Rajkote to canvas against him. 

Anubandh: We will come to the details of the riots in perhaps the next session. However, I would like to take a bit of a step back. We have a few minutes left. You mentioned in the book that Gujarat has a strong Gujarati Asmita (sub nationalism). At least it was cultivated, perhaps artificially. And yet, the contrast is that there is no regional party (in Gujarat) unlike in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu or Bengal. Therefore, how would you explain this contrast? 

Christophe: Well, you know, each state has a subnational identity in India. Even in the Hindi belt. Because language is not the only criteria for sub nationalism. It takes time before you see a party embodying this sub nationalism. Shiv Sena could be created only in the late sixties. And Maharashtra itself cannot be created before 1960. Thus, it took time also for Gujarat. However, in Gujarat it never happened. There was no regional state party. BJP became the embodiment of this “asmita”. Now, this is what they have achieved. They could claim. Narendra MODI in the first place could claim that he epitomizes the Gujarati asmita, because of language, because of vegetarianism, because of a very specific cult Vaishnav cult but also the Swaminarayan. The Swaminarayan cult is of course the religious embodiment of this identity. Therefore, BJP could claim that he embodied the regional asmita, the Gujarati Asmita, against Islam. That is something that of course you need to relate to the geographical position of Gujarat. Gujarat is the bordering state of Pakistan. In 1965 it was invaded by Pakistan and the then Chief Minister of Gujarat (Balwantrai MEHTA) had been killed by the Pakistani army. Plus of course, the memories of Somnath, the Muslim, the Islamic raids. For all these reasons, the identity of the state is not only rooted in language, in poetry, in literature, in the difference of Vaishnavism and so on. Also it is potentially anti-Islamic, anti-Muslim. That is why it was so easy for the BJP to become the, I would say “regional party with a national perspective”. 

Anubandh: You mentioned about Maharashtra, Shiv Sena. I was in my adolescent years when I grew up there and I remember this title claimed by Balasaheb THAKRE, “Hindu Hriday Samrat” (The King of the Hindu Hearts) which was later awarded, in a way to MODI, and now perhaps to Yogi ADITYANATH. How does this work? How does this title move from one leader to another? How does one do a candidature to it? Can I, for instance, apply for it? 

Christophe: No…it has to do with anti-Muslim violence. Bal THAKRE could get this title after the  1992 - 1993 anti-Muslim pogroms. That was a very significant episode. Bombay never recovered from this. Then of course the largest pogrom after Bombay (1992-1993) is Gujarat 2002. Therefore, if Yogi ADITYANATH wants to get the title, he has to beat them at that game.. at their own game, which is certainly one of the possibilities. It has to do with violence because it has to do with you know, this very masculine way to show their place to those. So many Hindus fear this kind of feeling of “vulnerability” vis-à-vis the Muslims. It is so much there. Especially, in a place like Gujarat where you have this “inferiority complex”, that is related also to vegetarianism. By the way, vegetarianism is very much a public attitude. You may privately eat meat and precisely for emulating the Muslims. Remember Mahatma GANDHI's autobiography? To run as fast as his Muslim friend, he is eating meat secretly. This is not new. This is an old practice. Thus, all this go together for understanding how you can get such a title when you show the Muslims their place. This is to cite what I have heard so many times. To teach them a lesson… something we have heard also repeatedly. 

Anubandh: Thus, it is highly linked to the extent of violence that you can create and impose. And perhaps later self-proclaim oneself (being a “Hindu Hriday Samrat) … 

You talked about GANDHI's autobiography and it reminds me that I read somewhere that Indulal YAGNIK had written a few of the chapters or helped him or they had collaborated.. 

Christophe: This is possible but you know most of these texts have been written in jail. Thus, I don't know how far Mahtma GANDHI could interact with YAGNIK when he was in jail. Perhaps, some of the chapters.. which we were written subsequently.. 

Anubandh: There is now one interesting thing I found in the book. There is one similarity I found between you and Mr. MODI! Can you guess it? 

Christophe: No, I really can't. 

Anubandh: Ok. I will help you… So, you have written a book on the “Emergency”, right? In your book (on Gujarat) you mentioned that even Mr. MODI was given this responsibility. Thus, have you read Mr. MODI's book on emergency? 

Christophe: No. No. 

Anubandh: Okay. Even I haven't and I don't know if It is published. 

Christophe: Well, if it is.. If it exists.. 

Anubandh: Indeed. So, there are a lot of grey areas there.. including his degree… 

Christophe: Oh.. there are so many grey areas, so far as a literary accomplishments of Narendra MODI are concerned. 

Anubandh: We are now into the closing few minutes of this interview. I just wish to ask you one more question. Perhaps you know the leader (intellectual) from Maharashtra, Narhar KURUNDKAR. His argument is that we are often very impressed, even shocked sometimes by the charisma of leaders like MODI or it could be TRUMP.. it could be someone else. We tend to forget the background, the context in which they got prominence. Thus, his argument is that for these leaders to become what they are, you need to have a context. You need to have some ideas, because those very ideas are picked by these leaders. This links to “populism”. So, It is not magic that they come, that they get prominence. As they talk things which people like to hear. Therefore, to what extent would you agree with this argument? 

Christophe: Sure. No but it goes without saying. You know, populists by definition go by the wind. They follow the trend that people themselves are promoting. For instance, in the case of Narendra MODI he fully exploited the impact of Islamic terrorist attacks which took place in the 2000s in India, including the Mumbai attack of 2008. This has created a context. It was very much favorable to the BJP. I mentioned Bombay 2008, Mumbai 2008 but it started in the early 2000s. The attack on the Parliament in Delhi in 2001. The 2000s forms a decade when the fear of Islamism can be exploited and transformed into polarization. Therefore, yes the context plays a big role. This is one of the contextual element. Another one of course is reservations. The rise of the BJP is a response to the rise of the OBCs and the fact that MODI is an OBC himself helps a lot because you can use an OBC leader to counter a positive discrimination in favor of the OBCs.. Brilliant! That is again an element of context that matters a lot. Because so many groups were looking for someone who could protect them, from reservations and not only upper caste, but dominant castes, precisely, the Patels.  The Marathas, the Jats as well. So, the context matters for sure. 

Anubandh: Thank you Christophe! 

With this, we have covered the first, the initial political history of Gujarat. I really thank you for having written this book. People from my generation, again, I would like to stress. This is invaluable information. This is information, which is under quite some pressure to disappear. We have many proofs of that. So, thank you very much again for this effort, for this book and I wish to carry on our discussion

Thank you Christophe. 

Christophe: Sure. You're welcome. 

 

Christophe JAFFRELOT is a professor of South Asian Politics and History at the Centre d'Études et de Recherches Internationales (CERI) at Sciences Po (Paris). He is also a professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at the King's India Institute (London) and a Research Director at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Paris. JAFFRELOT is a visiting professor at the India Institute, King's College London. He has taught at the Columbia University, Yale University, Johns Hopkins University and Université de Montréal. He has worked as a Global Scholar at the Princeton University. 

Christophe JAFFRELOT is a permanent Consultant at the Direction de la Prospective of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

He has written more than 24 books on India and 7 on Pakistan. 

Christophe JAFFRELOT is a frequent columnist in major Indian news publications such as The Hindu, The Indian Express, The Wire.

 

Anubandh KATÉ is a Paris based engineer and is the co-founder of the association, “Les Forums France Inde”.