To consider Modi’s electoral victory
nationally as being a reward for the anti-Muslim violence in 2002 would be naïve.
It is noteworthy that Modi’s current electoral victory was owing to the ‘first past
the post’ system, given that Narendra Modi’s party, the BJP and its allies got only
about 38.5% of the vote-share (the votes in very many constituencies got divided
in favour of political parties in opposition to the BJP – to explain this in simplified
terms, imagine a hypothetical scenario with only ten voters in which three votes
go to one candidate and the seven others go to seven different candidates, leading
the candidate with just three out of ten votes to win), but even that vote-share
should not be seen only from a religious rightist eye-lens.
In the last two national elections
in 2004 and 2009, the BJP could not come to power, in spite of seemingly standing
very good chances, not in the least because of its hardline Hindu rightist image.
In 2004, the horrific riots against
Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 were fresh in Indian
public memory and definitely contributed to preventing the BJP from coming back
to power in the centre, in spite of its excellent performance in terms of economic
growth and road connectivity. In fact, what happened best exemplifies Indian pluralism – in Hindu-majority India, Congress party chief Sonia Gandhi, a Christian lady, gave the prime ministerial seat to Dr. Manmohan Singh, a Sikh gentleman, who swore his oath of allegiance in the presence of the then president Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, a Muslim gentleman, who is much loved in India as the architect of India’s nuclear missile programme.
Likewise, in 2009, the Indian populace
was very disgruntled with the party then in power, the Congress, over its inability
to check terrorism, given a series of terrorist attacks in 2008 by the Indian Mujahidin,
an Indian Muslim terror outfit backed by nefarious elements in Pakistan, in the
cities of Jaipur, Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Delhi, which was followed by the ghastly
26/11 Mumbai attacks by Pakistani terrorists (in which some Indian Muslims gave
logistic support), which could have evoked a strong Hindu rightist sentiment; nonetheless,
very many Hindus felt disgusted by BJP member Varun Gandhi’s alleged anti-Muslim
hate speech, which, by all means, was horribly vitriolic, and the BJP lost the elections
yet again, with the Congress party coming back to power. If antipathy to Muslims
was an important priority of the Hindu electorate nationally, which constitutes
the majority, then it was the most opportune moment for the BJP to come to power,
but that did not happen.
This time around, the BJP did seem
to have read the writing on the wall that anti-Muslim hate-mongering does not augur
well for national politics, for even a sizable number of Hindus find the same
highly objectionable, which is why Modi vocally adopted a tolerant approach to Muslims,
leading to his gaining more acceptability at a time
when many Indians, including those strongly committed to religious tolerance, were
very disgruntled with the Congress party for a variety of reasons, including a slowdown
in economic growth (spare a thought for the unemployed university graduate or even
the industrialist facing unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks sensing better prospects
under Modi and voting for him), inflation (spare a thought for the common man finding
it difficult to continue buying even the same quantity of foodstuffs), corruption,
rising rapes (an extremely brutal, fatal gang-rape took place in a bus in Delhi),
acting in a very authoritarian fashion with anti-corruption crusaders (for example,
arresting activist Anna Hazare and literally baiting peaceful protesters led by
one Baba Ramdev at Ramlila Maidan in New Delhi) and anti-rape protesters (some of
them were subjected to water cannons) and not being seen as tough against viewed-as-aggressive
neighbours like Pakistan and China, and to make matters worse for the Congress party,
the man regarded as their undeclared prime ministerial candidate, Rahul Gandhi,
gave an interview on the reputed Indian television channel Times Now [1], which,
to put it mildly, was rather unimpressive. To be fair, it has to be accepted that
Modi’s track record at industrial growth has actually been quite remarkable, and
while his economic development model in Gujarat may not have catered to the economically
weaker sections as much as it should, as many of his critics point out, the government
led by the Congress party too failed to protect the poor from food inflation (Modi
is also facing flak over this issue after having come to power, but that has no
bearing on people voting for him before he became prime minister). Modi’s adopting
a tolerant tenor in the context of religion, coupled with his excellent oratory
showcasing a seemingly tough and assertive personality, understandably won him a
huge fan following, also including some Muslims, even those from Gujarat.
Speaking of other alternatives, many
Indians saw a coalition of regional parties as potentially very unstable given the
past record, and a newly emerged political party, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), as
unlikely to get a requisite number of seats to form a national government, other
than being perceived as not being experienced enough (especially to handle defence
and foreign policy), and the AAP resigning from office from the provincial government
of Delhi in a short span of 49 days led it to be rejected by many of its erstwhile
supporters. The average Indian voter cannot be expected to only keep in mind
what happened twelve years ago, in 2002, and simply turn a blind eye to all ongoing
events in the tenure of the then ruling government (2009-2014). In an article fiercely
critical of Modi and the BJP, Indian academic Professor Aditya Nigam nonetheless
had this to say about the Congress party–
‘The Congress, ably supported by a
large section of secular, leftist intellectuals, has made secularism into a joke.
We are supposed to deposit ourselves, bound hand and foot, at the feet of the Congress,
never oppose their loot of the public exchequer, stay silent at the plunder of the
commons sanctioned by them, and simply sing bhajans [devotional songs] to them for
“protecting us from fascism”. … This cynical game of secularism is what has now
come to an end.’ (Nigam, 2014)
Fareed Zakaria, an American Muslim
intellectual of Indian origin, has broadly captured the essence of these elections,
referring to them as “encouraging” and amounting to making “remarkable progress”
in the following words-
‘The country has been mired in deadlock
and paralysis for years because of a weak coalition government, ineffectual leadership
and an obstructionist opposition. So people voted for a single party to take power
(the first time in 30 years) and gave the new prime minister, Narendra Modi, a mandate.
Modi campaigned brilliantly and effectively, and his message was unrelenting — development,
development, development. Despite his party’s roots in Hindu fundamentalism, he
chose to appeal to the country’s hunger for economic growth.’ (Zakaria, 2014)
And for all the talk of the BJP being
a fascist party (indeed, that some of its members have, from time to time, been
involved in hate-mongering is undeniable and ought to be condemned in the strongest
terms), the fact is that it has Muslims and Christians at senior positions, and
Muslims and Christians in BJP-ruled provinces, on the whole, lead normal lives just
like their counterparts in provinces governed by supposedly secular parties. In
fact, in some provinces like Madhya Pradesh and Goa,
the BJP has a strong mass base even among Muslims and Christians, for its good track
record at economic development in those particular provinces. The BJP has even been
a part of a coalition government governing the Christian-majority province of Nagaland,
where there is a strong secessionist movement against India, partly fuelled
by a Christian rightist sentiment [2]! On the other hand, the supposedly non-fascist
Congress party sometimes did act quite ruthlessly (in a somewhat fascist or at least
undemocratic fashion) against those peacefully protesting against corruption
and rapes.
So, what are the steps Modi took to
demonstrate his commitment to religious pluralism? Other than raising the slogan of 'sabka sath, sabka vikas' roughly translating into 'unity and development for all', he, in a speech in Delhi on 19th January
2014, concluded by saying that his “idea of India” entails the upholding of non-violence
as the highest virtue and the peaceful coexistence of all religions. [3] In an election
rally in the province
of Uttar Pradesh, he asserted
that secularism is an article of faith for him. [4] In a televised interview, Modi
clearly stated that he did not want to talk in terms of Hindus or Muslims but only wished to talk in terms of Indians.
[5] In an election rally in the city of Patna,
he appealed to Hindus and Muslims to fight poverty together rather than fight against
each other. [6] Modi even asserted that according to him, building toilets was actually
a more important priority for India
than building Hindu temples. During the campaign for the national elections in 2014, he touched the feet of a 104-year-old Muslim veteran of the Indian National Army (INA), a revolutionary army that fought to liberate India from British colonialism. Back in 2010, advertisements were published in newspapers
about how Muslims were prospering in the province of Gujarat
with Modi as chief minister, and even for these national elections, bearded, skull-capped
Muslims were showcased as supporting the BJP in their advertisements. He sat on
a fast for harmony between religious groupings in 2011. There has been no major
riot in Gujarat after 2002, and Modi visited in
hospital Muslim victims of a relatively minor one in Vadodara in 2006, even
warning rioters of legal punishment. That Modi had to take such steps to fulfill
his prime ministerial ambitions bears testimony to the importance of religious tolerance
in India.
Modi’s refusal to wear a skull cap on one occasion, though much hyped, does not
necessarily amount to religious intolerance; it is a personal choice and most Muslims
would also not be comfortable sporting symbols of other religions.
Also, though the Congress party has
appeased religious minorities, it doesn’t have a fully clean record when it comes
to anti-minority riots either, the most significant example being the anti-Sikh
riots in 1984 (sparked off by the murder of the then Indian prime minister Indira
Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards, who had joined a theofascist and secessionist insurgency),
in which some of its then prominent leaders are believed to have actually participated
(BJP workers actively protected Sikhs during those riots [7]). In fact, when supporters
of the Congress party cite the riots in Gujarat in 2002 to discredit the BJP, supporters
of the BJP retort by pointing to the anti-Sikh riots in 1984, though it is unfortunate
that often, “(i)n this scenario, 1984 and 2002 are no longer signs of human brutality
and loss, they have become useful weapons in one’s political arsenal” (Kaur, 2013).
On a different note, fortunately, hundreds of people have been convicted in connection
with the riots in 1984 [8] as well, though some prominent Congress leaders have
yet to be convicted. Even other than that, the Congress party is blamed for deliberately
not effectively checking the dreadful Hindu-Muslim riots in Bhagalpur
in 1989 and even in Gujarat back in 1969, in
which most of the casualties were Muslims.
Certainly, a Hindu rightist agenda
is not the primary plank on which the Modi-led BJP fought these elections in 2014.
Yes, there were a few inappropriate remarks against Muslims by BJP leaders like
Amit Shah and Giriraj Singh during the course of this campaign, but while the former
apologized for his remarks (while some would point out that he did so only after
being barred from campaigning by the Election Commission of India, even that tells
us that India’s constitutional bodies won’t allow the country to slip into fascism
easily) [9] , Modi condemned the remarks of the latter in no uncertain terms
[10].
In fact, interestingly, an ultra-rightist
Hindu leader, Pramod Muthalik, was expelled from the BJP owing to his hardline image.
Some excerpts from an editorial in one of India’s leading national dailies is
worth quoting in this context -
‘(S)uch divide-and-rule politics,
with cycles of resentment, bans and hate, are approaching the beginning of the end.
Given secular education and post-reforms opportunities, a huge number of young Indians
— over 65% under 35 years — have outgrown caste, creed and gender prejudices.’
‘This change made BJP cancel its deal
with Muthalik.’
‘Young Indians are rejecting majoritarian
bullying, ultra-conservatism and a narrow-minded view of the world.’ (The Times
of India,
2014)
A sensitive issue like constructing
a Hindu temple on a site disputed by Hindus and Muslims in the city of Ayodhya was put on the back-burner
by the BJP, and it stated that it sought to resolve the issue by constitutional
methods, which means having to accept the verdict of the judiciary.
Yes, Modi did talk of a uniform civil
code (uniform family law) cutting across religious lines, but that is a secular
demand. Secularism is about separating religion and state, and suggesting that just
as India
has a uniform criminal law, tort law and contract law, it ought to also have a uniform
family law cutting across religious lines in conformity with a modern understanding
of human rights, does not amount to being a Hindu rightist. India’s secular constitution
mentions having a uniform civil code as a directive under Article 44, and most developed
countries of the West have a uniform civil code, while allowing everyone to practise
his/her religion in the personal sphere. Some argue that the demand for a uniform
civil code is not borne out of genuine human rights concerns, but rather, as a metaphorical
stick to beat the Muslim minority with, given reservations over this legislative
proposal from a sizable section of that community, but whatever the motivations,
the demand is perfectly legitimate.
Likewise, the abrogation of Article
370 of the Indian constitution, which gives special privileges to the Muslim-majority
province of Jammu and Kashmir, though a contentious issue advanced by Modi,
cannot be said to basically be a Hindu rightist demand, given that Article 370 was
initially meant as a temporary measure, being titled ‘Temporary provisions with
respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir’ with ‘temporary’ in its name.
Nor did Modi talking of putting a
stop to the illegal immigration of Muslims from Bangladesh, but allowing the entry
of Bangladeshi Hindus, many of whom are genuine refugees suffering from Muslim
extremism, amount to being intolerant.
Scams involving Modi’s ministers in
Gujarat (two of them have been convicted in connection with a fake passport racket
and illegal limestone mining respectively, while another is being tried for a
fisheries scam running into millions of Indian rupees), a rise of rapes in the province
and several flaws in his development model in Gujarat were seldom properly highlighted
by the Congress party or most other parties opposing the BJP, nor his hypocrisy
in supporting a mass agitation for a strong anti-corruption ombudsman at the centre
but providing for the corresponding office in his province to be rather weak in
terms of legal powers (though corruption, rapes and a slowdown in economic growth,
as mentioned earlier in this article, were among the main reasons for resentment
against the Congress party among many Indians) and most of his political opponents
primarily only harped on the carnage in 2002, and Modi rebutted the charge just
by pointing to his acquittal. On the important issue of national security, the Congress
and other such parties failed to highlight two major instances of terrorist attacks
in Gujarat, one in the Akshardham temple in Gandhinagar in 2003, and the other
in Ahmedabad, even in hospitals, in 2008, or that India’s Comptroller and Auditor
General had slammed Modi for not taking enough steps with regard to coastal security
in Gujarat, even though the most dreaded terrorist attacks in Indian memory happen
to be the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, in which the Pakistani terrorists had come by
sea. Even in connection with the riots in Gujarat in 2002, Modi’s supporters, to
suggest Modi’s innocence, erroneously made it seem that Modi had been acquitted
by the Supreme Court of India though the acquittal came from a district court based
on the report of a Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, with the
matter still pending in appeal with the High Court of Gujarat, but Modi’s political
opponents hardly even seemed to seriously attempt to dispel this highly incorrect
notion. Nor did they highlight the undoubtedly divisive remarks passed by Modi in
the immediate aftermath of the riots in 2002, for which Modi was, on at least one
occasion, rapped by the then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee. [11]
[1] That interview of Rahul Gandhi’s (it is in the English language) can be accessed
here-<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB_eWW5ttaM&hd=1>.
[2] See, for reference, <http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/nagaland/terrorist_outfits/NSCN_IM.HTM>.
[3] That speech
of
Modi’s
(it is
in Hindi,
an Indian language)
can be accessed
here-<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGg4QW31w7k&hd=1>.
[4] That speech
(in
Hindi,
an
Indian language) can
be accessed
here-<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCpQzgyGG2U&hd=1>.
[5] That interview (in Hindi, an Indian
language) can be accessed here-<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvaL4gycvf8>.
[6] See, for reference, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Fight-poverty-not-each-other-Modi-to-Hindus-Muslims/articleshow/24786913.cms>.
[7] This fact was acknowledged and appreciated by the highly renowned late Sikh
journalist Khushwant Singh, who was otherwise extremely critical of the Hindu right.
To quote him (it may be noted that Vajpayee was a senior leader of the BJP, and
the RSS is a Hindu rightist organization)-
‘It was the Congress leaders who instigated
mobs in 1984 and got more than 3000 people killed. I must give due credit to
the RSS and the BJP for showing courage and protecting helpless Sikhs during those
difficult days. No less a person than Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself intervened at
a couple of places to help poor taxi drivers.’ (Singh, 2005)
[8]See, for reference, <http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/442-convicted-in-various-anti-sikh-riots-cases-delhi-police/article1-875466.aspx>.
[9] See, for reference, <http://www.ndtv.com/elections/article/election-2014/election-commission-allows-amit-shah-to-campaign-in-up-510169>.
[10] See, for reference, <http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/narendra-modi-giriraj-singh-pravin-togadia-petty-statements/1/356921.html>.
[11] See, for reference, <http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/PM-raps-Modi-for-remarks-on-Lyngdoh/articleshow/20086174.cms>
[12] This fact was acknowledged and appreciated by the highly renowned late Sikh
journalist Khushwant Singh, who was otherwise extremely critical of the Hindu right.
To quote him (it may be noted that Vajpayee was a senior leader of the BJP, and
the RSS is a Hindu rightist organization)-
‘It was the Congress leaders who instigated
mobs in 1984 and got more than 3000 people killed. I must give due credit to
the RSS and the BJP for showing courage and protecting helpless Sikhs during those
difficult days. No less a person than Atal Bihari Vajpayee himself intervened at
a couple of places to help poor taxi drivers.’ (Singh, 2005)
