The resources at the Centre’s disposal are generated by the people. Modi is not a monarch to distribute largesse at his sweet will.

“One has also to remember that unlike China, India is a multiparty democracy. Its people can experiment with different ideas of development. Thus, Tamil Nadu under the AIADMK brought something new to development and Kerala under the CPI(M) offered a different idea of development. Similarly, Maharashtra did things differently. Despite disagreeing with the politics or ideology of Jayalalithaa, her social welfare schemes were admired across political parties and parties sought to emulate them in the states they were ruling. That is how we have a Kerala model or a Tamil Nadu model or even a Gujarat model. Each of them offers something new or different”, says the author.

 In 2015, a party like the BJP should have objected to the Delhi electorate being asked to give an absolute majority so that it would work effectively under Narendra Modi’s fear. The BJP has existed prior to him and hopefully sees itself as outlasting him. But to expect a soul in the BJP to raise a voice against this extraordinary arrogance was too much.

However, the people of Delhi did take exception to this bullying and showed him his place. The BJP had to pay the price for his haughtiness.  A party holding all seven parliamentary seats had to console itself with only three seats in the Assembly.

Modi tried to repeat this act in Bihar. Again in 2015.We still remember his swagger when he went on to ask people to guess the amount he had in mind for the people of Bihar, “Should it be Rs 50,000 crore or more; Rs 60,000 crore or more; Rs 70,000 cr…,’’ he intoned theatrically. Then after a dramatic pause, he announced the final figure: Rs 1.25 lakh crore.”

“I have announced a Rs 1.25 lakh crore package to change the fate of Bihar, to make a ‘naya’ Bihar. I assure you that I will change the face of Bihar,” Modi declared asking the electorate to choose him.

The people of Bihar noted the repeated deployment of capital “I’’ in the speech. The distaste for this bullish approach was reflected in the election results. The BJP under Modi got a sound drubbing.

The bully reappears

The bully has reappeared now; this time in Gujarat and again in an election season. The people there were subjected to the same imperial approach when Narendra Modi threatened that the Central government under him would not give a single penny to anti-development governments in the states. This was a direct message to the people of Gujarat that if they elected a non-BJP government, they would be deprived of Central funds.

Which government is pro development and which is anti-government? By the definition of the emperor, only a government patronized by him can be said to be pro-development. All other governments are bound be anti-development. The Bihar Government before Nitish Kumar’s capitulation to Modi was anti-development but from the day the JD(U) decided to lift his shoes, it automatically turned pro-development.

Modi forgets that he is only a prime minister and not the lord of the land. The resources at the disposal of the Central government are generated by the people of India. He is not a monarch who distributes largesse to people at his sweet will. It is not for him to bestow or deny central fund to any state.

This hubris was in full play at the heights of Kedarnath where he said that it was for him, the son of Shiva, to reconstruct the Hindu shrine. His claim took one back to 2013 when he had landed in the flood-ravaged Uttarkhand and assertions were made on his behalf that with 85 SUVs and many helicopters, he had evacuated 15,000 Gujaratis in a day. Nitish Kumar was taunted for not having done anything for the stranded Biharis. It is quite a different matter that the claims were disproved by the experts and a section of the media.

Not to be ignored

This time what Modi said in Gujarat should not be ignored. It should not be allowed to pass as a rhetorical statement which is permissible in electioneering. For he arrived in Gujarat not as a campaigner for the BJP but as PM. He was there thanks to a pliable Election Commission which gave him an extraordinary window to visit the state and announce schemes on the eve of the elections.

All opposition parties and state governments they lead need to remind him that India is still a federal country. All states have relative autonomy to decide what is best for them. There are areas in which the Centre cannot interfere. States have legislative powers which cannot be appropriated by the Centre. Even while deciding about the distribution of Central funds it has to keep the suggestions made by individual states in mind.

One has also to remember that unlike China, India is a multiparty democracy. Its people can experiment with different ideas of development. Thus, Tamil Nadu under the AIADMK brought something new to development and Kerala under the CPI(M) offered a different idea of development. Similarly, Maharashtra did things differently. Despite disagreeing with the politics or ideology of Jayalalithaa, her social welfare schemes were admired across political parties and parties sought to emulate them in the states they were ruling. That is how we have a Kerala model or a Tamil Nadu model or even a Gujarat model. Each of them offers something new or different.

Modi wants to treat state governments as its Mansabs or as its subsidiaries. His government’s tendency to centralize is too manifest to be missed. The central agencies feel it appropriate to ask schools in the states to observe programs which propagate the BJP’s ideology. It does not shy away from using central agencies like the UGC or the CBSE or the MHRD to push it down the throat of unenthusiastic state universities and schools. They follow its diktat for the fear of losing central assistance.

In the fourth year of his stint, development has got reduced to endorsement of demonetization and GST. We see that nearly all institutions which help a government take rational decisions have been disempowered. The EC’s withholding of election dates for the Gujarat assembly is too glaring.

Not convincing enough?

The way Modi is showering Central gifts on Gujarat seems to suggest that the record of his and his successor’s governments is not seen as convincing enough to win back the confidence of the people. Hence this Central largesse. It also suggests arbitrariness in the style of his governance. If it is the sweet will of the monarch which would decide the flow of resources, then we need to worry about the future of democracy in our country.

The Prime Minister’s thunder, however, also shows that the ground under him is shifting. If he has started sounding like the blackmailer of 2015, then to expect a repeat of Delhi and Bihar in Gujarat is also not a mere fantasy.

(The author is a Professor of Hindi in Delhi University)