As an authoritarian, he has chewed up civil society institutions. He has stated that Muslims are less than citizens till they join the mainstream; he treats secularists like unpatriotic dirt. Any one in civil society who dissents is labeled an outsider. In fact, Modi has de-institutionalised politics by making even his followers redundant and the Congress a weak wish list of himself.

Given the logic of such a style, no opposition can be external to the BJP collective. An opposition based on a competing or alternative philosophy, ideology or vision does not exist. Therefore, opposition can only be internal to the Modi frame. The Modi juggernaut can only slip on a banana peel of its own making.

Dissent therefore has to come from within. First, by those who feel they can substitute him as leader. Secondly, by those who feel they anchor him and are yet subject to benign neglect. Thirdly, from those who see his industrialising politics as a neglect of upwardly mobile rural interests. Fourth, from those who feel he doesn’t know how to behave so his own party members feel redundant. If you treat the above as a quiz, the answers are 1) Pravin Togadia; 2) the Leuva Patel lobby; 3) the Kolis; 4) assorted party people.

The opposition is thus composed of the VHP who feels that it patented the Modi approach. Modi’s real threat comes from the dominant castes, the Patidars, who feel slighted by him. The neglect of the Patels is the crystal seed of the new opposition. The creation myth of this opposition is misleading. It is attributed to the Surat floods. Nature has little to do with it. A dominant caste which switched allegiance from the Congress and Janata to Modi feels neglected. The mismanagement of the Surat flood was played up as an overt symptom of this neglect.

... contd.