No Modi mania, only Modi phobia

BY AMRIT DHILLON| IN Media Practice | 13/11/2015

PIB

Narendra Modi inspecting the guard of honour at the Drum

Here’s a thought. If Bill Clinton had been re-elected President of the USA after the Monica Lewinsky affair and had visited the UK 13 years later, would the British press have questioned him about the scandal? Or talked about how some people believed that Clinton, because of his sexual shenanigans, was unfit to be welcomed by 10 Downing Street?  And would the Lewinsky affair have been the first–the first–question to be posed to Clinton by a BBC reporter, ahead of trade, investment, bilateral relations, billion dollar deals, and cooperation on terrorism?

A mere sexual misdemeanour cannot be equated with the deaths of around 800 (official statistics) innocent Muslims. But you had to wonder, while watching all these questions being put to Narendra Modi in London yesterday during his first press conference, why closure is given to some politicians but not others. Just a thought…..

The visit has been given extensive coverage by the British press, not just by the big national papers and TV news channels but by papers like The Scotsman and The Yorkshire Times, the latter rather oddly choosing to highlight the fact, above all others, that India and the UK have announced that the 70th anniversary of Indian independence will be celebrated in 2017 with a UK-India Year of Culture.  

The coverage was a perfect reflection of the polarizing effect that Modi has on everyone, even in the UK. It featured images of grandeur and solemnity – Modi addressing the House of Commons, the RAF’s flypast, paying homage to Gandhi’s statue, and addressing business leaders at the glittering Guildhall.

Ranged on the other side were images of protests and angry slogans on placards, along with widespread coverage of the petition signed by 200 academics and writers urging David Cameron to take up freedom of expression with Modi. The attacks on Modi made him look like Latin American despot being feted in London despite throwing children out of aeroplanes back home. Even Uganda’s Idi Amin, who reportedly kept a fridge full of his opponents’ heads, was never vilified quite as badly as Mr Modi.

Much of the press covered both these aspects of Modi. Others, like The Guardian were more venomously one-sided. In its curtain-raisers, the paper had the usual suspects, Arundhati Roy and Pankaj Mishra, foaming and hyper-ventilating. The headline for Mishra’s article was ‘The divisive manipulator who charmed the world’ and the strapline was: ‘This week, the Indian prime minister makes a triumphant visit to the UK after cosying up to everyone from Silicon Valley CEOs to Rupert Murdoch. What’s behind the uncritical embrace of a man who has presided over a rising tide of assassinations and religious zealotry, and driven the country’s writers and artists into revolt?’

‘A rising tide of assassinations'? Hmm.

Mishra listed every possible indictment against Modi in great detail including the fact that people like Mukesh Ambani supported him to get ‘cheap land and tax concessions’, (as though Ambani hadn’t been rich under Congress governments), called Swapan Dasgupta, en passant, a ‘publicist’, and describe Modi’s alternative idea of India as ‘a post-human India, where lynch mobs roused by their great leader shout: “Kill him! Kill him!” Note the clever use of the word ‘rouse’, making Modi directly and personally responsible. 

And Roy of course, in an article reprinted from The Indian Express, produced the hyperbole that The Guardian  loves. ‘Whole populations — millions of Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and Christians — are being forced to live in terror, unsure of when and from where the assault will come.’ 

The widespread dislike of Modi has overshadowed the visit. The Times today carried a column by Philip Collins entitled: ‘Hold your nose and shake Modi by the hand: The egregious PM is not a man who shares our values but Britain’s relationship with India is bigger than one man.’ Very condescending.  Again, you’d think Modi began his day impaling babies on the railings of 7, Race Course Road.

The loathing forced David Cameron almost to be defensive about hosting Modi.  In The Times again, columnist Michael Savage complained ‘‘Cameron buys into Modi mania’.

On a mercifully lighter note, Nicola Smith of The Times talked of how Modi’s world tour rivaled those of the Rolling Stones and Madonna. In an interesting detail, she said the attention being lavished on Modi by his admirers extended to heating the podium at Wembley Stadium where he will address a 60,000-strong crowd today.

Unlike Roy and Mishra’s heavy bludgeoning, the sneering of some British commentators was more subtle. Mirza Waheed in, yes, how did you guess, The Guardian, inserted the knife delicately with this:

‘A former tea seller who rose through the ranks of a Hindu nationalist and revivalist movement, the Indian prime minister is very different from the many Oxbridge-educated, or Temple-trained, or at least anglophone leaders who have previously made their way to No 10. British literature, language, values and lifestyle do not resonate with Modi in the way they did with previous generations of Indian politicians and the elite from which they were drawn.’

That should put the uppity tea seller in his place.

The tabloid, The Daily Mail, took the same line as most papers, ie pointing out what Cameron wanted from the visit but highlighting the allegations of intolerance that dog Modi. On November 11, its political editor, Matt Chorley’s piece was headlined: ‘Indian Prime Minister Modi arrives in Britain for lavish three-day visit but faces questions over muzzling free speech’.

Chorley wrote: 'David Cameron claimed the trip was an "historic opportunity" for Britain and India to forge closer ties, with billions of pounds worth of commercial deals due to be signed. But the visit has proved controversial before it even started, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn planning to challenge Mr Modi over human rights concerns and muzzling free speech.'

The Daily Mail quoted London-based writer Salil Tripathi saying: ‘Modi's refusal to apologise for the massacres in 2002 have given him the aura of being a strong leader. But the recent defeat in Bihar (a large provincial election) shows his magic may be waning and the next three years will remain tense and interesting.’

Amid all the criticism, some of Modi’s British supporters stood firm. Siddhesh Govind Kabe, who has a ticket for the Wembley event, was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying:  'He is the coolest thing to happen to India since independence. A proactive PM better than the previous 40 years of corrupt, unimaginative and reactive government.'

There was also some, but not much, sober analysis of the import of Modi’s visit. The BBC’s Justin Rowlatt talked of how both sides want to enhance the partnership and how the City of London might end up playing a bigger role in the Indian economy.

The Times had Robin Pagnamenta reminding readers of the important issue of retrospective taxation that was brought in by the previous government. Many foreign investors had hoping the Modi government would repeal this provision because, as long as it stays on the statue book, it strikes fear in the heart of any foreign investor or MNC. But Arun Jaitley has not obliged them.

The Sun predictably ignored Modi, choosing to focus instead on reports that notorious ISIS beheader Jihadi John has been killed in Syria by an US air strike. Modi should count himself lucky that  he escaped being compared with John.