Prime Minister Narendra Modi is bombarding us with slogans urging voters to re-elect him for a third term. He is resorting to a three-pronged strategy combining (i) high voltage announcements of social welfare measures – although at the ground level they hardly reach the poor; (ii) projection of himself as the prophet of Hindutva by claiming that `God had entrusted him to rebuild the temple that is India’ (Re: his speech at the laying of the foundation stone of Shri Kalki Dham temple in Uttar Pradesh on February 19); and (iii) in his foreign policy, managing a bonhomie with Muslim states like UAE through profitable commercial deals that neutralize and silence them from protesting against the continuing assaults on their Muslim co-religionists within India by the same Modi government with which they sign agreements.
In a parallel move, he placates the two contending rival powers. On the one hand, he buys oil and armaments from Russia, and has allowed it during the last several years to recruit Indian mercenaries to fight Putin’s war in Ukraine (the scandal being exposed only recently). On the other hand, he has kept the US in good humour – starting from his past record of joining Trump in public in Washington to support the latter’s electoral campaign, and continuing till the present when he aids the US satellite state of Israel by allowing the import of Indian drones to Israel for use against the Palestinians. (Re: Deccan Herald. February 14, 2024). Incidentally, these drones are manufactured by the Adani industrial house, which has been known to be patronized by Narendra Modi. It is yet to be seen how long he can manage to walk this tight rope of tactics in foreign policy, veering between Moscow and Washington.
But in the meanwhile, he is making full use of the bonhomie that he has created in the global arena. He is bolstering his claim to be re-elected, by citing invitations that he has received from many foreign nations requesting him to visit them from July, August and September (thus expressing their certainty that he is sure to bounce back as the Prime Minister after the Lok Sabha polls).
Announcing this news at the BJP’s national council meeting in New Delhi on February 18, Modi added: “What does this imply ? They also know: Aayega Toh Modi Hi.” (Times of India, February 19, 2024)
Such invitations will be flaunted by Modi as signs of recognition by foreign powers of his status as a global leader to be reckoned with, and their desire for his return to power. But his braggadocio in foreign policy speeches will appeal mainly to the affluent urban elite and middle classes, which ensconced in their comfortable environs, can afford to praise India under Modi as Vishwa Guru (the term coined by Modi, meaning Leader of the World) – totally oblivious of the plight of the rural poor and urban unemployed youth in the backyard of lndia.
Narendra Modi’s twin strategy of wooing the present by recalling the past
How is Modi trying to address these problems in the backyard ? He is following the age-old motto: credulity is the necessary ground for the success of deception. He has managed to encourage credulity among the masses by constantly promising more than he delivers, granting them gifts that they can never grasp. By every act of such deception, he bolsters his image (thanks to the propaganda by the Godi-media). The people are kept on permanent tenterhooks, awaiting the promised gifts, while the imposter gains power by exploiting their credulity, and emerges as a greater-than-life saviour always assuring them of future prosperity.
In his current pre-Lok Sabha election speeches Narendra Modi is appealing to four sections – `gareeb’ (poor); `yuva’ (youth), `annadata’ ( farmers); and `nari’ (women). In his usual style of popularizing his rhetoric, he has turned this appeal into an acronym – GYAN (meaning knowledge) – each alphabet targeting the above sections of our population.
Following the other part of the twin strategy, his colleague Union Home Minister Amit Shah is bolstering up Modi’s image, by appealing to another popular credulity – the traditional belief in mythology. He is projecting Modi as a re-incarnation of their heroes of the myths whom they still worship as real personalities. Addressing a public rally on February 18th, he recalled the battle of Kurukshetra as described in the Mahabharata, and urged his listeners to choose the modern Pandavas (the BJP) over the Opposition parties which are depicted as modern Kauravas.
But if we want to hark back to the past, why shouldn’t we also recall certain events from recorded history (unlike fictional myths) which resemble the happenings under the present regime of Narendra Modi ? The record of the last decade of rule by Narendra Modi (covering his first term from 2014-19, and his second term till the present year) is reminiscent of an unsavoury phase of our past history, in a rather peculiar way. Narendra Modi seems to be repeating (and compressing within a brief spell of time), the ego-centric erratic policies and inhuman brutalities that marked the regime of a Sultan who preceded him in India some seven hundred years ago.
Muhammad-bin-Tugluq as Narendra Modi’s precursor, or Modi as his successor ?
Muhammad- bin- Tughluq ruled as the Sultan of Delhi from 1325 to 1351. During his reign, he implemented a series of administrative measures which he propagated as beneficial for his subjects – but proved to be disastrous for the economy and society in north India for the next several decades. The policies that he initiated in financial matters, domestic territorial reconstruction, and foreign territorial relations – all ended in disasters. Today, Narendra Modi, as the prime minister, seems to have re-incarnated himself as a Sultan of India, and is following in an uncanny way, the same footsteps of Muhammad- bin- Tughlaq. In an ironical twist of history, here is a self-proclaimed Hindu ruler replicating a model set by a Muslim ruler in the past.
Historically, the policies of both conflate with each other as they share the common urge to institutionalize a system of authoritarian rule based on a personality cult. To understand the phenomenon, let us take a brief look at some of the momentous decisions taken by Muhammad- bin-Tughluq during his reign, and their disastrous results.
In 1327, Tughluq ordered the shifting of his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad (in present day Maharashtra), in a public display to demonstrate his power over the vast Deccan plateau. This led to a massive migration of working people to the new capital. In the course of their tortuous journey by foot over miles, thousands including women and children died. But some eight years later, Tughluq had to reverse his decision. Having failed to suppress the growing rebellions in different parts of India, from his capital in Daulatabad, he was forced to shift the capital back to the safer environs of Delhi, where he thought he could protect himself. He therefore ordered a massive reverse migration from Daulatabad to Delhi in 1335 – again entailing deaths of thousands along the roads.
Forced migration – brought about by official policies – is a phenomenon shared in common by both the regimes of Muhammad-bin-Tughluq and Narendra Modi, although separated by several hundred years. Tughluq’s policy to shift the capital to Deccan to demonstrate his ambition of extending his rule, compelled the labouring poor to migrate to a new capital in search of jobs, and then again after a few years, to migrate back to their homes – when Tughluq decided to shift back to Delhi. Almost seven hundred years later, under the rule of Narendra Modi, we witnessed the same phenomenon of migration and reverse-migration of labourers from one place to another, resulting in deaths on roads – caused by an irresponsible decision by the present prime minister Narendra Modi. Although Modi was driven by a different motive (to protect the capital and other cities from the spread of a pandemic, unlike Tughluq’s personal ambitions), he all the same, followed Tughluq’s style of functioning by suddenly imposing arbitrarily a lock-down on the country in the name of fighting Coronavirus. This he did without caring to take adequate measures to protect the migrant labourers from the loss of jobs that they faced as a consequence of the sudden closure of small and middle scale manufacturing units, stoppage of construction activities in the informal sector, and ban on operations by pavement vendors and street corner stalls. His much hyped image of the `chai-wala-turned prime minister,’ stood as an ironical contrast to the plight of the regular `chai-wala’s who were deprived of their workplaces in pavements and street corners, and betrayed by their one-time co-worker.
Monetory policies of Tughluq and Modi
Again in an uncanny coincidence, we find a parallel between a financial decision (relating to currency) made by Tughluq in 1333 , and a decision on similar lines taken by Modi in 2019 , when he ordered demonetization of currency. While Tughluq’s decision led to a temporary disruption of trade, Modi’s decision of demonetization has ended up in a long-standing economic crisis.
Tughluq , when reigning from his new-found capital in Daulatabad, conceived the idea of minting and introducing a token copper currency. The coins were to depict Daulatabad as the second capital. But without realizing the long term implications of such a policy, he failed to take the necessary precautions against private minting of copper coins. This resulted in the flooding of the market with spurious coins. Due to confusion over the use of different types of coins, some traditionally made of brass and some copper, their value decreased in markets. Tughluq’s coins became as “worthless as stones” – as described by the modern historian Satish Chandra in his ‘A History of Medieval India’. The experimentation by Tughluq disrupted trade and commerce in India. The copper coins had to be withdrawn finally in exchange for gold and silver coins.
Narendra Modi’s experimentation with demonetization led to a similar disorder in our economy . While thousands of common citizens were left bankrupt without adequate facilities to convert their old currency into the new denomination, Modi’s cronies in industry and followers in his party, who were cautioned well before, made use of the corrupt banking system to fill their coffers. Modi’s claim that demonetization would bring back black money turned out to be false, and instead it led to an economic disaster, as exemplified from findings by economists and industrialists from both India and abroad.
Extra-territorial adventures – the China connection
To go back to another adventure of Tughluq’s, in 1333 he decided to cross the Himalayas and invade China. This involved the march of his soldiers through the hills of north India – the terrain that constitutes modern Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The local people of the hills put up a stiff resistance against the soldiers whom they regarded as invaders. Unable to fight in the unfamiliar and difficult mountainous terrain, Tughlaq’s soldiers perished. (Re: Salma Ahmed Farooqui – `A Comprehensive History of Medieval India, From the Twelfth to the Mid-Eighteenth Century.’ 2011).
Although the present circumstances around the conflict with China may be different, and their causes controversial, one finds a peculiar parallel between the consequences of the policies pursued by Tughluq in the past and by Narendra Modi today, in dealing with China. Like Tughluq, Modi today is engaged in a military confrontation with China. But unlike Tughluq’s aggressive gestures against China, Modi is engaged in a defensive posture towards China.
Modi’s combative posture against China’s building a road in Doklam in 2017, and his claim that he had stopped it, did not carry any weight, as there were reports that suggested that the Chinese were still present there with their road-building equipment. The current confrontation in Ladakh – despite all the chest-thumping by Narendra Modi, Rajnath Singh and the BJP leaders – is also likely to end up in a status-quo of sorts, with the Chinese soldiers retaining their positions in the territories that they occupy, and withdrawing from some ther spots which they may find inconsequential for their current strategic needs. At the same time, China will not dare to invade Arunachal Pradesh and occupy it, despite all its bombastic rhetoric claiming it as a part of China. Thus the Sino-Indian relationship will remain frozen in its present state, marked by occasional talks between the army generals of the two states, interrupted with exchanges of sabre-rattling rhetoric between New Delhi and Beijing.
Past experiences have shown that such confrontations with China have always proved unfavourable for India – starting from Tughluq’s misadventure in the fourteenth century to the 1962 war in the twentieth, which led to India’s humiliating defeat. This is not to valorize China’s superior military might. China is a totalitarian and repressive state run by national chauvinist rulers who masquerade under the name of the Communist Party of China (the term `Communist’ having nothing to do with Communism). But at the same time, we have to acknowledge that India, is not militarily capable of taking on China – despite all the braggadocio of our defence minister.
Real-politic should have dictated Modi to be cautious in dealing with China. Instead, he messed up by changing the status of Jammu and Kashmir – a decision that not only alienated the Kashmiri people, but also provided China with yet another excuse to fish in the troubled waters of Ladakh of the conflict-ridden territory.
Tughluq-Modi link – through the pandemic
What is less known is the other connection between the two Sultans – Tughluq and Modi. During 1334-35, a bubonic plague broke out in Bidar, which at that time was ruled by Tughluq. He himself caught the infection, suffered for sometime, but survived. However, his army was depleted by the death of many of his soldiers due to the plague. To come to the present times of the Modi regime, the Coronavirus pandemic infected even our well-protected soldiers and para-military forces, who form the backbone of India’s security infrastructure.
The historical parallel between the records of the two rulers – Muhammad-bin-Tughluq of the past and Narendra Modi of the present – sends a warning signal for the future of India. Will Modi also share the same fate as Tughluq ? Although the Sultan survived the bubonic plague, he ended up with the ill-reputation of an egoist and oppressive ruler. After his death, the later day historian Abd al-Quadir Badayuni (1540-1615) coined the following obituary which summed up his fate as a ruler:
“The Sultan was rid of the people, and the people got rid of the Sultan”
What will be fate of Muhammad-bin Tughluq’s successor, the present Sultan of India ? Will he be rid of the Indian people, and will the Indians get rid of him in the coming Lok Sabha election ?
Sumanta Banerjee is a political commentator and writer, is the author of In The Wake of Naxalbari’ (1980 and 2008); The Parlour and the Streets: Elite and Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Calcutta (1989) and ‘Memoirs of Roads: Calcutta from Colonial Urbanization to Global Modernization.’ (2016).
