Demolishing Myths about Modi's governance and efficiency

In inimitable and meticulous fashion, Salil Tripathi demolishes the myths about Modi's governance and Gujarat's pro-business atmosphere under his fascist eye.

Here is Salil's article in Livemint:
The real Narendra Modi story

Sociologist Shiv Visvanathan also has an article in The Times of India. "At the Margins of Competence" which talks about the shabby and empty aura of efficiency and competence associated with Modi. (referece via South Asians Citizen's Watch)

If there was any lingering doubt about the matter, the glorification of Modi by Ratan Tata and others in corporate India is a perfect example of the dangers of governing society like a business. Managerial rationality and fascism are made for each other. In Mussolini's Italy too the trains ran on time. The love affair between Modi and Indian corporates also calls into question the assumption that free markets and pro-investment environments automatically result in politically free societies.

A related thought: when did corporate achievement, entrepreneurial success, and the accumulation of wealth become the only models of human accomplishment and achievement? When and why did we start believing that the Bill Gates, Ratan Tatas, Warren Buffets, and George Soroses of the world are the only ones who understand how society functions, how hunger and global poverty can be eradicated, where the essence of democracy lies, how globalization should be regulated, how global warming can be reversed, and what the future of humanity might be.

These individuals are good at making products, profits, supporting causes, and running firms. Aside from their limited sphere of competence, they all happen to be very wealthy, and donate money to charitable causes, endow chairs in universities, fund research centers, and the like. But on what basis do we believe that their insights on society, culture, art, public health, social mores, and the very future of humanity are necessarily worth more than the insights of any other individual on these issues of fundamental importance?

It is ironic that many of these individuals define themselves as supporters of democratic values (which one has no reason to disbelieve). What could be more undemocratic than blindly believing their mantras, hanging on to their words, monitoring their every move like star-struck paparazzi?

PS: Here is a terrific article in The London Review of Books by the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek on the immensely problematic philanthropy of folks like Bill Gates and Soros. To quote from the essay:

The two faces of Bill Gates are exactly like the two faces of Soros: on the one hand, a cruel businessman, destroying or buying out competitors, aiming at a virtual monopoly; on the other, the great philanthropist who makes a point of saying: ‘What does it serve to have computers if people do not have enough to eat?’