The unthinkable no longer looks impossible. It is less than two months before Americans elect a new President after eight years of Barack Obama. Virtually all opinion polls seem to suggest that a victory for Donald Trump is no longer impossible. Some "right wing" pollsters suggest that Trump now leads by more than 3 per cent while "liberal" pollsters suggest that a Clinton lead of more than 10 per cent has now shrunk to just about 1 per cent. This is sending shockwaves across the liberal establishment in the United States. They are wondering how a man so full of prejudice, racism, bigotry and buffoonery could actually become a serious candidate? Many are mourning the death of the "Idea of America". Quite a few have hinted that they might just up and leave the United States if Trump is elected President.
On September 15, 2016,
The New York Times published an anguished op Ed written by well known columnist Nicholas Kristoff. Horrified at the prospect of a Trump presidency, he turns the spotlight on media and writes, "So I wonder if journalistic efforts at fairness don’t risk normalizing Trump, without fully acknowledging what an abnormal candidate he is. Historically we in the news media have sometimes fallen into the traps of glib narratives or false equivalencies, and we should try hard to ensure that doesn’t happen again. We should be guard dogs, not lap dogs, and when the public sees Trump as more honest than Clinton, something has gone wrong."
"Liberals" in India have been fairly predictable in drawing analogies and making comparisons. For them, the rise of Donald Trump in the United States resembles the rise of Narendra Modi in India. The more generous liberals in India contend that intolerable excesses of dynasty politics and cronyism created the situation for a "polarizing" and "divisive" figure like Modi to become attractive to large sections of voters. The typical liberal of course is far more judgemental. According to her, the rise of a "fascist bigot" like Modi mirrors the disturbing rise of Hindu majoritarian forces in India. Church attacks, cow vigilantism and Dalit atrocities are cited as proof of the fascist road that India has started travelling under Modi.
For all his faults (and there are many), it is a travesty to compare Modi with Trump. This piece is anyway not a debate on how good or bad Modi is. The interesting analogy here would be: what would a Trump vs Hillary contest look like in the Indian context and who would be the principal gladiators? What if the 2019 Lok Sabha elections turned into a de facto presidential one with two principal contenders?
At the risk of sounding outrageous, this author offers two most likely candidates for a fight that resembles the Trump-Clinton duel. The Indian political figure that would resemble Trump the most would be Dr. Praveen Togadia of the VHP. And the Indian leader who would resemble Hillary Clinton the most would be Sonia Gandhi. If you are shocked, think again and look deeper to recognize the similarities.
Praveen Togadia as a candidate was as difficult to imagine as Donald Trump till the end of 2015. In ideological leanings and worldview, both share extreme levels of prejudice and bigotry. Trump wants to ban the entry of Muslims into the United States. Togadia would love to throw the 200 million Muslims out of India, if he could. Trump wants to build a wall to prevent illegal Mexican migrants. Togadia would love to do something similar on the borders of Bangladesh. Trump invokes some twisted version of Christianity to project women as objects. Togadia does the same with some twisted version of Hinduism. Trump has gone so far that even the Republican Party and the right wing ecosystem in the United States is embarrassed about him. Togadia invokes similar embarrassment in the BJP and RSS. And yet, Trump has become a serious candidate.
If Togadia looks like the Indian alter ego of Trump, Sonia Gandhi could be the Hillary Clinton of India (Except that Sonia has already ruled India from behind the scenes during the 10 year UPA regime). Bill Clinton was President and Rajiv Gandhi was Prime Minister. Like Hillary, Sonia prefers to operate with a ruthlessly imposed veil of secrecy. Like Hillary, Sonia has the "liberal" media eating out of her hand. Both Hillary and Sonia have faced repeated allegations of cronyism though nothing has ever been proven in a court of law. Both run private trusts in the names of their husbands that are highly controversial. The Bill Clinton Foundation has been accused of accepting money from dubious sources in Saudi Arabia in return for favors clandestinely given to Islamist lobbies. The Rajiv Gandhi Foundation has accepted money from the likes of Dr. Zakir Naik and has been accused of turning a blind eye to his Islamist preaching in violation of Indian law. Sonia's illness continues to remain a mystery. Hillary's illness continues to remain a mystery and has now become a campaign issue.
What do these analogies and comparisons-far fetched as they sound- prove? Nothing is impossible in politics!
