2015 leaves questions

The year 2015 ends not with a bang, but with a whimper for Narendra Modi’s government. Parliament’s winter session has disappointed, with the government’s hopes of passing the GST temporarily dashed. The finance ministry’s Mid-Year Economic Analysis was notable for its disquieting prognoses: the government has slashed its growth outlook for the year and cautions that onward fiscal consolidation[kun,só-li'dey-shun(integration,दृढ़ीकरण)] targets look dicey[dI-see(uncertain,अनिश्चित)] .

Analysts are looking to the PM for answers — but even after 18 months in office, Modi’s mood is inscrutable[in'skroo-tu-bul(mysterious,रहस्यमयी)] . Indeed, there is a cottage industry of outsiders reading the tea leaves to divine why he is acting the way he is. Three questions are the subject of heated debate. The first is about Modi “the Decider.” Why has the man who so skillfully branded himself a CEO-style leader allowed his party colleagues to repeatedly undermine him? Indeed, many ministers have engaged in distracting majoritarian rhetoric[re-tu-rik(loud talk,वाक्पटुता)] , damaging the PM’s standing and giving the opposition ammunition. Yet, no heads have rolled. Cynics[si-nik(faultfinder,निंदक)] point to the PM’s own campaign speeches in Bihar, claiming that Modi, a former RSS pracharak, implicitly[im'pli-sit-lee(indirect,अप्रत्यक्ष)] endorses these views and sees no need to rein in his colleagues. Another narrative posits that Modi hesitates to silence voluble ministers for fear the Sangh will either ramp down support for the party or ramp up sabotage[sa-bu,taazh(destruction,विनाश)] .

Beyond Hindutva distractions, Modi is also handicapped by colleagues who articulate[aa'tik-yu,leyt(express,उल्लेख)] policy views opposed to the government’s agenda. Last week, a newspaper report suggested that the US, once supportive of India’s induction into Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, has backed down, put off by the commerce ministry’s protectionist posturing. Similarly, while Modi’s leadership was central to achieving the climate agreement in Paris, rumblings from the environment ministry were often out of sync with the PMO’s views. Even 18 months in, nobody knows whether the administration is clumsily[klúm-su-lee(awkwardly,फूहड़ ढंग से)] playing good cop/bad cop, or whether the left hand truly does not know what the right hand is doing.

The second question concerns the use of federal power. Why has Modi not done more to ensure that BJP-ruled states lead by example on reforms? Supporters point out that the government has assented to some state-level labour law alterations that improve the investment climate. But this is a far cry from articulating and implementing a common minimum reform programme for all eight BJP-controlled states. Here, too, the tea leaves are inconclusive. Some claim this reticence[re-ti-sun(t)s(silence,चुप्पी)] reflects pushback from state units, while others have suggested the PM is more interested in efficiency and infrastructure than policy change. There is a third possibility: with an overburdened PMO, Modi lacks bandwidth to micromanage directives to allied states.

The final question is why the PM, arguably the most charismatic politician of his generation, has struggled to communicate. The government has been steamrolled on big reforms, like its proposed amendments to the land acquisition bill. It allowed itself to get trampled by a party with 44 Lok Sabha seats and a snappy one-liner. Yet, even when the government wins, they do not effectively trumpet their success. There are several areas where, unless policies are rectified['rek-ti,fId(corrected,संसोधित)] , no amount of savvy[savvy(smart,होशियार)] marketing will obscure[ub'skyûr(unclear,अस्पष्ठ)] the underlying morass. But that does not mean that successes like expanding road construction, reforming subsidies, and auctioning coal blocks should remain hidden.

Modi’s silence rings loudest after moments like Dadri. Following the San Bernardino massacre[ma-su-ku(slaughter,हत्याकांड)] , President Obama delivered an Oval Office address. Debates about policy prescriptions aside, Obama used the telecast to mollify[mó-li,fI(appease,शांत करना)] the fears of America’s Muslims, and in turn the fear of home-grown terrorism. While Modi’s defenders are correct in pointing out that India lacks the precedent for the kind of public addresses US presidents rely upon, Modi exhibits little reticence to shirk tradition when it suits him. Comparisons between the US and India may be easy to dismiss, but a leader’s role as healer-in-chief should not be.

Download monthly pdf of December