16/05/2014 Newsnight

From tea boy to Prime Minister, Mhodi wins a landslide in the

world's biggest democracy, what can India and the world expect from such

a controversial figure. We ask an Indian historian where he comes

from. He may have been hated by the liberals but he soon became the

darling of the urban middle-classes of Gujarat. He concentrated on

simple things like bringing transparent good governance, rooting

out unnecessary bureaucracy, investment and decent he can

treesity supply. We will ask what's wrong with him? Where to start,

India has dreamed itself a dream, with a mass murderer as its main

character. And... I had a girlfriend once called Double Decker, happy for

you to play upstairs. The Premier League's premier sexist, this

England striker isn't impressed. As a boy he told tea at a railway

station. Those close to him say he's so obsessed with personal hygiene he

changes clothes four times a day. To others he has blood on his hand.

He's Mr Modi. He's India's most devisive politician, he was an

international pariah after being implicated in a massacre in Gujarat

state in 2002, it left more than 2,000 Muslims dead. Tonight he

stands on the vernal of leading the world's largest democracy. In part

of the programme we recorded earlier we will hear from a Modi supporter,

and one of the observers of Indian life and history, but here is this

take on Modi's extraordinary story. India is great country, bursting

with youth, beauty and talent. The world's largest democracy, home to

850 million voters. So why is it just electing this man,

Narendra Modi, an aesthetic and authoritarian Hindu nationalist,

with a decidedly murky record with minorities. Man who some say bears

the responsibility for the massacre of hundreds of Indian Muslims in

2002. The man you see is what you get. A strong man, populist leader

of the masses. He's always work on what is beneficial to him. Narendra

Modi's early life was associated with a tea stall like this one. His

father from the low caste oil cast and didn't have much cash to feed

hungry mouths started a chai stall, and in the early mornings Modi used

to help his dad before crossing the tracks to go to school. According to

the traditions tracks to go to school. According to

pushed as a teenager into an arranged marriage. After a month he

whacked out, to go on a -- he walked out to go on a pilgrimage to the

Himalayas and never came back. When he did he set up a tea stall in a

different town, and here he did he set up a tea stall in a

under the influence of the far right. He

under the influence of the far modelled on the Hitler

under the influence of the far moved over to the BJP and moved to

New Deli to the headquarters moved over to the BJP and moved to

he lived a very austere life in the party headquarters,

he lived a very austere life in the from a regional politician into a

national figure. The BJP swept to power in India in the 1990s, in the

wake of growing religious tension and mass bloodshed between Hindus

and Muslim, as the Hindu nationalism movement began to flex its muscles.

The destruction of the B temple by Hindu nationalists, whipped into the

frenzy by the BJP leaders shocked the world. Ten years later Modi had

risen through the ranks to become chief minister of Gujarat. It was on

his watch that religious violence erupted again. Over three days of

riots hundreds erupted again. Over three days of

murdered and thousands erupted again. Over three days of

the initial massacre until five hours after it had finished, but

the initial massacre until five on camera claiming

the initial massacre until five bloodshed had Modi's blessing and

the police had been ordered not to intervene. Modi became a pariah. And

was banned from entering Britain and America. Indian liberals are

frightened of Mr Modi's history of riots in Gujarat. They are

frightened of anybody on the right any way, and Mr Modi's much more

unabashedly on the right of society, and the economy. That any leader in

the BJP has ever been. Modi may have been hated by the liberals but he

soon became the darling of the urban middle-classes of Gujarat. He

concentrated on simple things like bringing transparent good

governance, rooting out unnecessary bureaucracy, bringing investment and

a decent supply of electricity. For ten years Gujarat has enjoyed double

digit economic growth. And while economists point out that the

Gujarat model has done little to alleviate poverty, or improve

education, nutrition or health care for the poor, the burgeoning

middle-class have given him credit for their rising living standards.

It is this rapid growth of other Indians now looking to Modi to

unleash across the rest of India. So how will he govern? Will we see Modi

unleash across the rest of India. So the technocrat, who only wants to

revive India's smutering economy? Or will it be Modi the Hindu

nationalist, should Indian liberals and especially India's religious

minorities be worried? I think he wants to come back as Prime Minister

five years from now. So he will do everything that he possibly can to

remain popular five years from now, rather than to polarise the country

and allow communal tension to grow or scare away investors. India has

today taken a terrific gamble on its future. It has voted into power an

Indian equivalent of Pete President Putin, effectively choosing to

ignore Modi's record on human rights in return for putting in place a

decisive and hugely charismatic leader who millions hope will

provide the strong Government and economic management this country is

craving. We have our guest with us now and. These are dramatic results,

what is the overwhelming reaction across the country? Well, I think

one of both exhileration and relief. He can sell racial because I think

those who were committed -- exhileration, because those who were

committed to the Modi project are absolutely delighted that their

efforts have come to such a wonderful fruition, and it is the

BJP who have a simple majority on its on and they have 300 seats, much

more than any coalition or a single party has ever got since 1984. So it

is a great thing. That sense of stability that you actually elected

a Government for five years and rather than have to negotiate with

fragile coalitions. That sense of relief is also very evident. I think

it is a mixture of two moods which are there in Delhi at present. How

significant is this in Indian politics in life? Some people are

even talking about it being like a second Republic, he is within 30

votes of being able to change the entire Indian constitution. In many

ways you could say this is the most significant day in Indian politics

almost since partition, or certainly since the emergency. And this is a

man who rose from nothing, he was from a low caste, a tea boy at a

railway station, what does this say about the mood in India right now?

Well I think it constituency a very decisive rejection of the politics

of entitlement, which marked the Gandhi family's direct or indirect

rule for a very long time. I think Congress willy nilly had got to be

identified with privilege, with a sense of being born in the right

place and Mr Modi, who was incidentally taunted by various

Congress supporters as a mere tea boy who could set up a tea shot in

the Congress office, used it very adratly droitly to his advantage and

managed to convoy the sense that in India there are no glass ceilings

and India presents an opportunist society. It is a very good point, in

a sense it was as muches the failings of the -- in as much the

failings of the Congress that handed this election to Modi. He waged

fatastically brilliant campaign, he turned out to be a much better

public speaker than anybody thought, and had the ability to whip up large

crowds into a frenzy. As we have been hearing, Narendra Modi is one

of the India's most devisive politician, his involvement in the

2002 Gujarat riots has been especially controversial, one critic

is Anish Kapur, I asked him what is wrong with this Indian Prime

Minister Narendra Modi? India has dream add dream with a mass murder

as its main character, there is something wrong with that. So who am

I to say against supposedly democratic politics, but I think we

have to watch and see what happens next. The story isn't great. When

you say mass murder, what do you mean? I mean a mass murderer, there

is an on going trial, Modi claims to have a so called clean chit, he does

not. The trial is on going. Huge intimidation of witnesses, etc.

That's well documented, I'm not making it up. Modi has a certain

authoritarian ability, is that what we need? I grew up in Gandhi's

India, Neru's India, Kabir's India Krishna's India. One that spoke of

inclusive, gentle, nonviolent approach to all kind of issues. Here

we are on the edge of a sectarian, partisan violent approach, which is

completely different. But to call him a mass murderer, when he

actually hasn't been charged, is far fetched isn't it? I don't think so,

I feel this is the way it is. I'm not alone, by the way. There are

many, many who have said before me. Let's have a look at his economic

policy, because he did run his campaign on business and development

and really that shows that's what the Indian people want, the

aspiration of jobs, a better economy and stronger economy. His record in

Gujarat proves that. It has had a 10% growth, the rest of the country

has had a 5% growth? If so called growth is at the cost of Muslims, at

the cost of the poor, at the cost of women, at the cost of child

undernourishment. 50% of Indian children are undernourished on a

daily basis, etc. If that's the cost of 10% growth well then I don't want

it. You have just heard what was said there, do you think that

India's new Prime Minister has blood on his hands? Well, I'm infuriated

by what I heard said, I have a great respect for Mr Kapoor as an artist.

But as an artist who tries to dabble in politics I think he gets it all

wrong. Firstly, the use of the term "mass murderer", to me appears like

an indictment from a kangaroo court. Nobody, there is no on going trial,

nobody has accused Mr Modi, there is not even a first information report

on it. That is not true, Human Rights Watch released a report

saying that Modi's administration was complicit? In India we take our

judiciary far more seriously. I think what Anish is referring to the

wife of the Congress MP Jafrey, who was killed in the riots, what

happened to him lies at the centre of the charges against Modi in 2002.

Jafrey was in the colony, he was calling for help, he was calling the

police. He was an ex-MP and calling civil servants, police chiefs and

no-one was coming to help him. Now the report done by the SIT for the

Supreme Court, which cleared Modi of this, which is a controversial

report, none the less it is the report submitted to the Supreme

Court and commissioned by the Supreme Court. It says the police

were in camera the whole day. It is hard to believe he was not told this

man was calling. His wife charges that he called Modi and that Modi

laughed at him and expressed surprise that he was still alive.

How do you respond to that? Well, firstly I respond to it in the way

that there has been a full fledged investigation done on it. There is

nothing found to incriminate Mr Modi. The attempt was to have Mr

Modi charged as a part of a conspiracy to kill him. It did not

stand judicial scrutiny. To my mind therefore calling him a mass

murderer, on the strength of one allegation is offensive. You reject

these comments, but what about Modi's remarks about how he felt

about Muslims being killed. He compared it to a puppy being run

over? It was a colloquialism. It was a colloquialism to compare Muslims

being run over like a puppy? It was a colloquialism that was badly

translated and the person who interviewed Mr Modi from Reuters

wrote that she found nothing offensive about it and it had been

misconstrued. Do you buy that? One could buy it if it was a unique

instance of Modi being mistranslated. And you know this to

be true, that Mr Modi has not apologised for the riots. He said

that he if he apologised when he was guilty of mass murder he should be

put on trial and hung. He has made a whole variety of similar statments.

He told the New York Times, what does it matter, it is all in the

past, it is the future we should look to. Whether we like it or not,

it is the future we now have to deal with. He is in power, he has been

voted in which a very large number of Indians and I think the hope is

that he has left that Hindu nationalism. That is the hope that

many people have. Today Mr Modi said he would unite all Indians, given he

is so devisive, do you think he can do that? He's not devisive, certain

people have painted him to be devisive. He has always maintained

the campaign as economic development for all Indians. Just because he

does not mention particular sectarian appeals he does not divide

Indians into Hindus, Muslims and others. That is why you call him

devisive? I would say he's great unifier because he's trying to make

a composite citizenship. And development at the end of the day,

if you get development, if you get progress, if you get growth, it is

not merely for Hindus or a particular community. It is for

everybody. It is for all castes and communities. We will have to leave

it there, thank you both for joining us on Newsnight.

Here there is less than a week to go before local and European elections.

One party is dominating the coverage so far, UKIP, but they weren't the

only insurgents out there. The Green Party first made waves in European

elections 25 years ago, but their progress since has been some what

stop-start. After the 2010 general election some believed the party had

a golden opportunity, they had secured their first MP, they took

control of their first council the following year, and, with a centre

left vote fleeing the Liberal Democrats, a space seemed to have

opened up for a fourth party of the radical left. Things have turned out

rather differently. It is UKIP on the right rather than the Greens on

the left who have made their breakthrough. At the last local

elections UKIP gained 139 councillors, the Greens a mere five.

They are currently polling at around 4% in national opinion polls,

although the picture for the European elections looks a little

rowsier. -- rosier. With one poll putting the Greens ahead of the Lib

Dems. They are not afraid of making bold promises, a living wage, the

abolition of tuition fees and an end to fracking is part of the Green

message. The question is under their newish leader Natalie Benefit and

the centre vote uniting around the Labour Party, whether the Greens can

break out of the polling. I'm joined by Natalie Bennett, the leader of

the Green Party. When it comes to Europe are you closer to th European

mind set or UKIP? We very much want to remain in Europe, we also say yes

to a referendum, because we trust in democracy. That was not the

question, are you closer to the mind set or UKIP? I'm not sure about the

mind set, we are wanting to remain in the European Union, it provides a

foundation of standards, standards of rights, standards of consumer

rights, human rights and environmental standards. You only

have to look at the polls to see who is closer to the European mind set,

what people are thinking, what they are more connected with? If you look

at the last poll on whether or not people would vote to remain in

Europe in-out referendum it was a clear majority, 54%. These polls

speak for themselves, 26% for UKIP, Greens 10%? We have seen a lot of

dissatisfied voters on the right, understandably, people are fed up

with the three largest parties. And dissatisfied voters on the left as

well. Let's lock at Europe as a whole. Is it true though that if you

vote Greens you are voting for more regulation from Brussels? Very much

not. We very much support the principle of subsidiarity, written

into the Lisbon Treaty, local decisions should be made locally, we

want a reformed Europe, but we need 180 degrees different from David

Cameron, we want a Europe working for people not multinational

companies. We can't look at everything, but looking at your

policies, this call for a directive on minimum income, What what does

this mean? You should earn enough money to live on. How much are you

looking from? We are talking in terms of Britain, in London ?8. 80

an hour. Is this wage or guaranteed income? This is a wage we are

talking about. Is it conditional? We need to separate two things which I

think perhaps have got confused. Conditional or unconditional? He

want to make the minimum wage a living wage for people working. In

the long-term we are looking at a basic income which would be the idea

that everyone had sufficient money to live on. So the tax-payers will

have to fork out. Where is the incentive to work here? It is

interesting in Switzerland they will have a referendum on this, it is the

principle if you are a member of society you should have access to

resources to feed yourself, put a roof over your head. The fact that

Britain, the world's sixth richest country, last year one million

people depended on charity from food banks. If you vote for greens, you

have said pay for taxes? We are looking at your record in Brighton

where you wanted to impose an almost 5% tax, when you couldn't through

the referendum you pushed as much as you could which was 2%? I pick up

the word "impose", we wanted to pick up with the people of Brighton that

austerity had gone too far, and paying for the fraud of the bankers

was being laid far too much on the poor and disadvantaged, we wanted

that 5% council tax rise to pay for social care. What does success look

for yo We only need a swing of 1. 6% in the proportional representation

in the elections on Europe to treble our MEPs. Ahead of the Lib Dems? I'm

confident we will see the Lib Dem is tanking their vote. I'm up

confident we will see the Lib Dem is re-election in September it will be

up for the Green Party members to decide where

up for the Green Party members to They were meant to

up for the Green Party members to between friends, but do chief

executive of the Premier between friends, but do chief

Richard Scudamore's e-mails reveal how deeply entrenched sexism is in

football. He has apologised but is under pressure to resign. Should

private e-mails end a public career. After a season in which ten Premier

League managers have parted company with their clubs over on-the-field

matters, there are growing calls for the league's chief executive to

leave his post too. Richard Scudamore, dishing out medals to

champions Manchester City last weekend is in trouble over private

e-mails he sent on his work account. In the e-mails, which were leaked to

a newspaper by his former PA, he wrote:

team condemned Mr Scudamore's remarks. It is not just

made. And however jokey he was trying to be with that, it

made. And however jokey he was totally unacceptable in this day and

age. Mr Scudamore has apologised, but it is emerging he wrote to the

chairman of the Premier League clubs asking them if they found his

comments sexist. Until yesterday I thought he might be able to ride

comments sexist. Until yesterday I if he apologised properly. But now,

especially given the revelation about his e-mail to the chairman

especially given the revelation think his position is untenable. A

Premier League panel will decide next week whether to take action

against Mr Scudamore. If the final whistle has not already blown on his

career by then. I'm whistle has not already blown on his

the women's whistle has not already blown on his

footballer, and a member of Campaign Group Women in Football, and Claire

Fox from the Institute of Group Women in Football, and Claire

Shouldn't man who says these sorts of things and has the kind of

responsibility he has take responsibility for his words Claire?

He can take responsibility for his words but I think an important

principle is at stake here, which is I do think we should be able to

distinguish between what is said privately and

distinguish between what is said I think that even despite his gross,

distinguish between what is said crude, sexism, not the kind of guy I

will invite round to dinner some time soon, but nonetheless he said

these privately. If all of the things we all said privately in

e-mails or confidences we shared were made public, probably

us couldn't face the day. Not because we say things like that, but

because there has to be a place where you can speak off the record.

So that's what I want to defend, it is a very important point, I'm not

prepared to let this idiot's ill-spoken e-mails mean that we

sacrifice something which is going to affect all of us very seriously,

dangerously. Do you agree with Claire, these were just jokes

between friends, and they weren't for the public arena? I agree

partially in the idea that there should be a private sphere for

people to say what they feel like saying, however I think there needs

to be you know a differenciation between what is said privately and

publicly, this was a work e-mail that was exchanged and seen by a PA

working in her working capacity. So I think that's the case here. This

is something that Mr Scudamore said in his capacity as chief executive

of the Premier League and it was on a work e-mail. That is a technical

point, he wasn't intending it to be a public e-mail. It is not a

technical point, the e-mails are the property of the Premier League, they

were circulated between colleagues at the Premier League, they were

about, in particular, one female colleague at the Premier League, and

the person who viewed those e-mail, rather than being seen as the

perpetrator who should be punished for leaking those e-mails she was a

victim, she was instructed to access those e-mails as part of her daily

job, instead she was confronted with all this sexism and she was really

upset. If it came from a private e-mail should it get this attention?

It didn't come from a private e-mail. The point is this is a

person who in his professional capacity has publicly pledged, if it

had come from a private e-mail and -- If it had come from a private

e-mail would you have felt the same way? You can't argue about those

sorts of things. It was on a work e-mail and he has made extremely big

gestures about discrimination and equality, and that is the basis.

Isn't that fascinating, one of the things I have no interest in this

particular individual, one of the things is in the public sphere he

seems to have done huge amounts for women's football, which is the

professional basis on which I would want to hold him to account and for

the Premier League. That is the point, that publicly there is a

disparity. But there is a disparity between a lot of the way that I am

publicly and the way I am privately, as with us all. Now that it is out

and people are aware of his views. It is out because it has become de

rigueur that we take things to newspapers, we take private

information put into the public domain. I'm saying can we just stop

a moment and think of the consequences that every time we

write an e-mail that we consider to be going to mates, or off the

record, that it is going to be on the front page of the newspaper. We

will behave, it will be a tyranny, we would never, ever be frank. Do

you think we are taking political correctness too far? That is one of

those cliches I'm nervous of. What I do think is we have a situation

whereby we are frightened, we are talking on egg shell, even when we

are talking off the report, I don't think we are able to cultivate

ourselves as individuals or be honest, ever. If this was a race

e-mail would it be different? I don't think it would be,

discrimination is discrimination. Would he have been forced to, would

they have taken swift action against him? That is a speculative question,

but I think it is a concern for me that there is not different ranks of

discrimination, discrimination is discrimination, the argument whether

if it was a racist e-mail or anti-semetic, would it have been

dealt with more strongly, possibly yes. Any e-mail that comes out,

people should lose their jobs? You have to put everything into context,

I'm making a point about the private sphere and the distinction between

the public, I'm not here to say if it was about women it is not as

serious as race issue, that would be ludicrous. I think it portrays

attitudes I don't like, there is lots of people who have attitudes I

don't like that express them privately. That is the point I'm

making, if he stood up making a speech arguing this, fine, I do not

think at the moment we should drive him out of his job. That is not for

me to say. I think you know there are policies in place, the Premier

League are signed up. What do you think will happen to him? I think

there is policies in place that will lead to protocols and a decision

will be made. Again it is not for me to say. But I think obviously we are

disappointed in somebody in that capacity saying such sexist things.

Thank you very much all for joining us. That's all for this week. As

Downing Street ponders the best format for the election TV debates,

we leave you with the republican primaries in Idaho, where they are

less fussy about who takes part. David and Ed take note. Thank you so

much your closing remarks. I was living in Fat Jack's Cellar because

my wife had restraining orders out. I have 77 defendants. Fat Jack's

wife said get this lunatic out of my cellar. I think half of the

democrats are lunatics. My Bible says it will get worse and worse and

worse, I said do you mind putting that in writing, he said sure and he

put it in writing and I have the original at home. It is time to get

out, thank you for the time tonight, and thank you

for watching and we will see at the poll.

Good evening to you, in the last few days we have been advertising some

very warm weather heading for the weekend and the