Everybody wants to chacha

Modi wants to be the new Nehru, but what is his plan for a new republic?

Ironically, Modi is less like his role model Patel and much more like the first prime minister, whom he detests.

"Deftly blending the political with the personal, the Prime Minister utilised this school holiday to reach out to schoolchildren directly. In a function organised by the Union government, the PM delivered a speech and interacted with children from across the country. The event was widely seen as a PR success, with the media showering praise on the outreach."

This is a good summary of Prime Minister Modi’s Teacher’s Day initiative. However, it is also a perfectly accurate description of a function held at the National Stadium in Delhi on November 14, 1956 presided over by Prime Minster Jawaharlal Nehru. At the function, children paid tribute to Nehru with a PT display and a march past. Nehru went around the arena in an open jeep so the children could get a closer glimpse of him.

In 1952, the Indian Council for Child Welfare, an influential non-governmental organisation (one of its founding members was Indira Gandhi), decided to celebrate the Prime Minister’s birthday as Children’s Day and use that to raise funds. This idea was taken up with rare enthusiasm by Nehru himself and by various Congress state governments. The result of this propaganda is the image with which he is now bestowed, that of an avuncular statesman, a natural leader who appealed to every member of the nation, young as well as old. So powerful is this image that it survives even today; every child is taught in school that Chacha Nehru loved children and that they loved him right back.

Some dissonance

Modi’s Teacher’s Day interaction with students across the nation suggests he is doing his best to become the new Nehru, trying to burnish his image in much the same way the Pandit did. This is somewhat ironic because it is quite clear that Modi is not fond of Nehru. He has done his best to play down Nehru’s legacy, forwarding the claim of fellow Gujarati Vallabhbhai Patel as a counterweight. Modi does not mention Nehru in his speeches, and his move to disband rather than reconfigure the Planning Commission is indication of how he views Nehru’s legacy.

In reality however, Modi is more Nehru than Patel: a popular vote-catcher, not a backroom party man. Patel made seminal contributions to India but his work involved working with the nuts and bolts of the Congress party and, later, the Union government. Nehru, on the other hand, was the charismatic darling of the masses and had won elections for the Congress since 1937. The Congress was so dependent on him electorally that as Prime Minster the simple threat of a resignation was enough to get dissidents to fall in line.

Many Modi supporters expect him to fundamentally change the political consensus of country, much like Nehru did in the ‘50s and ‘60s. It is sometimes forgotten that until 1947, the Congress was by and large a Right-of centre organisation. The one bid for power by the Congress Left – the 1939 Tripuri session in which Subhash Bose decided to stand for re-election as President – was crushed effortlessly by the old guard. And while Nehru’s economic Leftism is often overstated – he simply followed the accepted consensus in development economics at the time – he had significant impact as a social progressive.

Nehru marginalised conservative thinking, bringing concepts such as secularism and social equality firmly into the mainstream. One of Nehru’s key achievements as prime minster was pushing through the Hindu Code Bills, giving most Indian women a large measure of equality in marriage and inheritance. These bills were opposed tooth and nail by the Right, both within and outside of the Congress, but Nehru saw the legislation passed.

The course this set India on is so emblematic of the nation that, five decades after Nehru’s death, the so-called Nehruvian consensus remains a significant driver in our politics, an idea formidable enough for Modi to feel threatened by and want to dismantle.

What's the plan?

But if Modi is to dismantle the Nehruvian ideas that have for so long seemed embedded in our political culture, we must ask what he will replace these with – what will be the new consensus? We know very little of the direction Modi wants India to move in, other than chasing “development”, a mantra so generic it is meaningless by itself. If Modi wants to build a new republic, he is yet to outline a plan.

Modi’s link with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has guided his political philosophy. He has written admiringly of MS Golwalkar, the second sarsanghchalak of the RSS. Golwalkar’s ideas are problematic, to say the least: he speaks of denying citizenship to non-Hindus and expresses admiration at the way Nazi Germany purged its Jews, claiming that it was “a good lesson for Hindusthan to learn and profit by”. The intellectual core of the RSS is so far from current versions of modernity that they seem almost comic. Wisely, Modi does not speak publicly of matters like this, though he does not seem averse to foot soldiers such as Yogi Adityanath using these divisive ideas when it comes to winning state elections – a decidedly short-term goal.

Modi’s interaction with some of the nation’s children indicated that he wants to fashion himself as the new Nehru, but without building a concrete set of ideas that he can call his own – a “Modivian consensus”, so to speak – and thinking only of short-term political gains, he could end up being more like Indira or Rajiv: a powerful leader with hard political power but one who does little to change the intellectual paradigm of the nation in a meaningful way.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Behind the garb of wealth and success, white collar criminals are hiding in plain sight

Understanding the forces that motivate leaders to become fraudsters.

Most con artists are very easy to like; the ones that belong to the corporate society, even more so. The Jordan Belforts of the world are confident, sharp and can smooth-talk their way into convincing people to bend at their will. For years, Harshad Mehta, a practiced con-artist, employed all-of-the-above to earn the sobriquet “big bull” on Dalaal Street. In 1992, the stockbroker used the pump and dump technique, explained later, to falsely inflate the Sensex from 1,194 points to 4,467. It was only after the scam that journalist Sucheta Dalal, acting on a tip-off, broke the story exposing how he fraudulently dipped into the banking system to finance a boom that manipulated the stock market.


In her book ‘The confidence game’, Maria Konnikova observes that con artists are expert storytellers - “When a story is plausible, we often assume it’s true.” Harshad Mehta’s story was an endearing rags-to-riches tale in which an insurance agent turned stockbroker flourished based on his skill and knowledge of the market. For years, he gave hope to marketmen that they too could one day live in a 15,000 sq.ft. posh apartment with a swimming pool in upmarket Worli.

One such marketman was Ketan Parekh who took over Dalaal Street after the arrest of Harshad Mehta. Ketan Parekh kept a low profile and broke character only to celebrate milestones such as reaching Rs. 100 crore in net worth, for which he threw a lavish bash with a star-studded guest-list to show off his wealth and connections. Ketan Parekh, a trainee in Harshad Mehta’s company, used the same infamous pump-and-dump scheme to make his riches. In that, he first used false bank documents to buy high stakes in shares that would inflate the stock prices of certain companies. The rise in stock prices lured in other institutional investors, further increasing the price of the stock. Once the price was high, Ketan dumped these stocks making huge profits and causing the stock market to take a tumble since it was propped up on misleading share prices. Ketan Parekh was later implicated in the 2001 securities scam and is serving a 14-years SEBI ban. The tactics employed by Harshad Mehta and Ketan Parekh were similar, in that they found a loophole in the system and took advantage of it to accumulate an obscene amount of wealth.


Call it greed, addiction or smarts, the 1992 and 2001 Securities Scams, for the first time, revealed the magnitude of white collar crimes in India. To fill the gaps exposed through these scams, the Securities Laws Act 1995 widened SEBI’s jurisdiction and allowed it to regulate depositories, FIIs, venture capital funds and credit-rating agencies. SEBI further received greater autonomy to penalise capital market violations with a fine of Rs 10 lakhs.

Despite an empowered regulatory body, the next white-collar crime struck India’s capital market with a massive blow. In a confession letter, Ramalinga Raju, ex-chairman of Satyam Computers convicted of criminal conspiracy and financial fraud, disclosed that Satyam’s balance sheets were cooked up to show an excess of revenues amounting to Rs. 7,000 crore. This accounting fraud allowed the chairman to keep the share prices of the company high. The deception, once revealed to unsuspecting board members and shareholders, made the company’s stock prices crash, with the investors losing as much as Rs. 14,000 crores. The crash of India’s fourth largest software services company is often likened to the bankruptcy of Enron - both companies achieved dizzying heights but collapsed to the ground taking their shareholders with them. Ramalinga Raju wrote in his letter “it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten”, implying that even after the realisation of consequences of the crime, it was impossible for him to rectify it.

It is theorised that white-collar crimes like these are highly rationalised. The motivation for the crime can be linked to the strain theory developed by Robert K Merton who stated that society puts pressure on individuals to achieve socially accepted goals (the importance of money, social status etc.). Not having the means to achieve those goals leads individuals to commit crimes.

Take the case of the executive who spent nine years in McKinsey as managing director and thereafter on the corporate and non-profit boards of Goldman Sachs, Procter & Gamble, American Airlines, and Harvard Business School. Rajat Gupta was a figure of success. Furthermore, his commitment to philanthropy added an additional layer of credibility to his image. He created the American India Foundation which brought in millions of dollars in philanthropic contributions from NRIs to development programs across the country. Rajat Gupta’s descent started during the investigation on Raj Rajaratnam, a Sri-Lankan hedge fund manager accused of insider trading. Convicted for leaking confidential information about Warren Buffet’s sizeable investment plans for Goldman Sachs to Raj Rajaratnam, Rajat Gupta was found guilty of conspiracy and three counts of securities fraud. Safe to say, Mr. Gupta’s philanthropic work did not sway the jury.


The people discussed above have one thing in common - each one of them was well respected and celebrated for their industry prowess and social standing, but got sucked down a path of non-violent crime. The question remains - Why are individuals at successful positions willing to risk it all? The book Why They Do It: Inside the mind of the White-Collar Criminal based on a research by Eugene Soltes reveals a startling insight. Soltes spoke to fifty white collar criminals to understand their motivations behind the crimes. Like most of us, Soltes expected the workings of a calculated and greedy mind behind the crimes, something that could separate them from regular people. However, the results were surprisingly unnerving. According to the research, most of the executives who committed crimes made decisions the way we all do–on the basis of their intuitions and gut feelings. They often didn’t realise the consequences of their action and got caught in the flow of making more money.


The arena of white collar crimes is full of commanding players with large and complex personalities. Billions, starring Damien Lewis and Paul Giamatti, captures the undercurrents of Wall Street and delivers a high-octane ‘ruthless attorney vs wealthy kingpin’ drama. The show looks at the fine line between success and fraud in the stock market. Bobby Axelrod, the hedge fund kingpin, skilfully walks on this fine line like a tightrope walker, making it difficult for Chuck Rhoades, a US attorney, to build a case against him.

If financial drama is your thing, then block your weekend for Billions. You can catch it on Hotstar Premium, a platform that offers a wide collection of popular and Emmy-winning shows such as Game of Thrones, Modern Family and This Is Us, in addition to live sports coverage, and movies. To subscribe, click here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Hotstar and not by the Scroll editorial team.