This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/world/asia/modi.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Strong Hand Hasn't Fared Well in India Strong Hand Hasn't Fared Well in India
(4 months later)
NEW DELHI — At a dinner party in one of this city’s wealthy enclaves recently, the subject had turned to the Indian election, and the elegant, accomplished woman sitting beside me explained why she had decided to back Narendra Modi. “What India needs right now,” she said, “is a benevolent despot.” NEW DELHI — At a dinner party in one of this city’s wealthy enclaves recently, the subject had turned to the Indian election, and the elegant, accomplished woman sitting beside me explained why she had decided to back Narendra Modi. “What India needs right now,” she said, “is a benevolent despot.”
It’s not unusual to hear this sentiment in New Delhi drawing rooms these days. These are not necessarily speeches in praise of Mr. Modi, the hard-nosed, pro-business leader of the state of Gujarat. They describe a yearning for restoration of control, and the hope that it will translate into growth.It’s not unusual to hear this sentiment in New Delhi drawing rooms these days. These are not necessarily speeches in praise of Mr. Modi, the hard-nosed, pro-business leader of the state of Gujarat. They describe a yearning for restoration of control, and the hope that it will translate into growth.
Over the last five years, optimism about India’s future has been replaced by anxiety about slipping behind — in particular, behind China. Blame has settled on the Indian National Congress-led government: its prime minister ineffectual, its parliamentary sessions clamorous and embarrassing. The desire for a strong hand has taken hold among the elites. Mr. Modi has had fortunate timing.Over the last five years, optimism about India’s future has been replaced by anxiety about slipping behind — in particular, behind China. Blame has settled on the Indian National Congress-led government: its prime minister ineffectual, its parliamentary sessions clamorous and embarrassing. The desire for a strong hand has taken hold among the elites. Mr. Modi has had fortunate timing.
It reminded me of something. In the late 1990s, the same yearning had emerged in Russia, a country I had covered on and off since the Soviet collapse. With the economy in disarray — a situation far more dire than India’s, it should be said — President Boris N. Yeltsin was seen by Russians as a drunken bumbler, allowing oligarchs to plunder the state’s assets while ordinary people suffered.It reminded me of something. In the late 1990s, the same yearning had emerged in Russia, a country I had covered on and off since the Soviet collapse. With the economy in disarray — a situation far more dire than India’s, it should be said — President Boris N. Yeltsin was seen by Russians as a drunken bumbler, allowing oligarchs to plunder the state’s assets while ordinary people suffered.
The cry went up, even among liberals, for some version of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. Against that backdrop, Mr. Yeltsin handed off power to a former K.G.B. agent, Vladimir V. Putin.The cry went up, even among liberals, for some version of Gen. Augusto Pinochet, the former dictator of Chile. Against that backdrop, Mr. Yeltsin handed off power to a former K.G.B. agent, Vladimir V. Putin.
Mr. Putin, alert to his mandate, set about consolidating power: He stripped the country’s oligarchs of their media holdings and political voice. He neutralized the threat posed by regional political heavyweights. Creating a superpresidency, one of his aides told me years later, was the only way to get anything done.Mr. Putin, alert to his mandate, set about consolidating power: He stripped the country’s oligarchs of their media holdings and political voice. He neutralized the threat posed by regional political heavyweights. Creating a superpresidency, one of his aides told me years later, was the only way to get anything done.
The trouble with consolidating power, even in a centralized state like Russia, is that the job is never finished. New political challenges kept arising — from the middle class, from the Internet, from economic technocrats. After the smart economic reforms of Mr. Putin’s first term, vital tasks, like rebuilding the country’s infrastructure and manufacturing base, went neglected.The trouble with consolidating power, even in a centralized state like Russia, is that the job is never finished. New political challenges kept arising — from the middle class, from the Internet, from economic technocrats. After the smart economic reforms of Mr. Putin’s first term, vital tasks, like rebuilding the country’s infrastructure and manufacturing base, went neglected.
Today Mr. Putin has more unchecked authority, arguably, than any other world leader. He is certainly credited with restoring Russia’s position on the world stage. But can he govern? Corruption has flourished. Russia’s economy is no more diversified than it was when he took power. And after 14 years of economic growth, the road between Moscow and St. Petersburg — the most heavily trafficked cargo route in the country — remains a potholed mess.Today Mr. Putin has more unchecked authority, arguably, than any other world leader. He is certainly credited with restoring Russia’s position on the world stage. But can he govern? Corruption has flourished. Russia’s economy is no more diversified than it was when he took power. And after 14 years of economic growth, the road between Moscow and St. Petersburg — the most heavily trafficked cargo route in the country — remains a potholed mess.
This yearning for an enlightened despot has emerged before in India. When Indira Gandhi introduced the Emergency in 1975, imposing harsh penalties for acts that “cause or tend to cause public disorder,” well-off Indians loved it. Trains ran on time; bureaucrats were more disciplined; the streets felt safer; and, as a New York Times correspondent wrote at the time, “many Indians feel that they are now better off, economically or in some other way.”This yearning for an enlightened despot has emerged before in India. When Indira Gandhi introduced the Emergency in 1975, imposing harsh penalties for acts that “cause or tend to cause public disorder,” well-off Indians loved it. Trains ran on time; bureaucrats were more disciplined; the streets felt safer; and, as a New York Times correspondent wrote at the time, “many Indians feel that they are now better off, economically or in some other way.”
That time lasted 18 months. Unlike Russia, India has repeatedly proved ill suited to authoritarian rule, a fact that Mr. Modi will surely encounter if he becomes prime minister.That time lasted 18 months. Unlike Russia, India has repeatedly proved ill suited to authoritarian rule, a fact that Mr. Modi will surely encounter if he becomes prime minister.
Nor is it clear that a consolidation of power can give India economic growth. The 20th century was full of examples of authoritarian leaders, among them Mao and Stalin, who transformed their economies by imposing policies on unruly societies. Since then, though, the correlation has weakened. Globalization has forced leaders to consider external factors like investment and access to private capital, which are drawn to democratic systems.Nor is it clear that a consolidation of power can give India economic growth. The 20th century was full of examples of authoritarian leaders, among them Mao and Stalin, who transformed their economies by imposing policies on unruly societies. Since then, though, the correlation has weakened. Globalization has forced leaders to consider external factors like investment and access to private capital, which are drawn to democratic systems.
If Mr. Modi becomes prime minister, there will almost certainly be moments when he glances over with envy at his counterpart in Moscow, but he would be wise to focus on building roads and factories, the accomplishments that have made him popular in Gujarat. He can’t behave like Mr. Putin. For that, you need 10 million barrels of oil per day.If Mr. Modi becomes prime minister, there will almost certainly be moments when he glances over with envy at his counterpart in Moscow, but he would be wise to focus on building roads and factories, the accomplishments that have made him popular in Gujarat. He can’t behave like Mr. Putin. For that, you need 10 million barrels of oil per day.