16/05/2014 Newsnight


Who is the new Indian prime minister? William Dalrymple and Anish Kapoor tell us. The Green party pitch for power. The Premier League boss sexism row. With Yalda Hakim.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/05/2014. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Who is the new Indian prime minister? William Dalrymple and Anish Kapoor tell us. The Green party pitch for power. The Premier League boss sexism row. With Yalda Hakim.

Download Subtitles