“It’s the call of the hour that we renounce the path of violence and take the path of brotherhood.”
No, that’s neither former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru after the dreadful violence during the Partition, nor Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who has been struggling to protect the flickers of love and harmony amidst the frightening darkness of hate and violence. The pearls of wisdom came from the incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is seen as a divisive political figure across the world. Modi started his tenure as the prime minister with an appeal for a 10-year moratorium on politics of hate and discrimination but ended up delivering the most rancorous and distressing decade of communal discord in India’s history. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-Bharatiya Janata Party claims of drastic reduction in incidents of rioting may have statistical validity but the attack on minorities reached an ominous crescendo, pushing the minorities, particularly Muslims, into an abyss of fear and hopelessness.
Should the nation expect from Modi an honest introspection and a sincere apology because the call for moratorium on divisive politics actually ensured the blossoming of the hate project? Has he failed on this front? Is he a weak prime minister whose words carry no weight among his followers? Is the image of a robust Prime Minister who can deliver anything he wants is fake? Who will answer these questions?
Addressing the nation on August 15, 2014 from the ramparts of the Red Fort, in his first address as the prime minister, Modi said, “Brothers and sisters, for one reason or the other, we have had communal tensions for ages. This led to the division of the country. Even after Independence, we have had to face the poison of casteism and communalism. How long these evils will continue? Whom does it benefit? We have had enough of fights, many have been killed. Mitron, look behind and you will find that nobody has benefited from it. Except casting a slur on Mother India, we have done nothing. Therefore, I appeal to all those people that whether it is the poison of casteism, communalism, regionalism, discrimination on social and economic basis, all these are obstacles in our way forward. Let’s resolve for once in our hearts; let’s put a moratorium on all such activities for 10 years, we shall march ahead to a society which will be free from all such tensions. And you will see that how much strength we get from peace, unity, goodwill and brotherhood. Let’s experiment it for once. My dear countrymen, believe in my words, I do assure you. Shun all the sins committed so far, give up that way, follow the way of goodwill and brotherhood, and let’s resolve to take the country forward. I believe we can do that.”
Though the section of intelligentsia that knows Modi in and out took his words with deep suspicion, the exalted sentiment came as a healing touch for the masses that feared evil days, at least in terms of religious majoritarianism, because his supporters had already started attacking secularism as a state principle. Though a 10-year moratorium of hate and violence is a bizarre concept – because such politics is never desirable and should be abandoned forever, Modi’s supporters portrayed it as his good intent, manifested boldly through the “sabka saath” slogan. Modi had, after all, been known for his questionable role in 2002 riots that prompted then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to nudge him to “observe rajdharma.” Though what happened in 2002 is not the subject matter here, how gruesome the incidents were can be gauged from the famous remark by Nobel laureate Amartya Sen at that time: “The Gujarat butchery is more than a communal slaughter; it reflects a diabolic beastliness that communal sectarians have planted well into India’s body politic.”
The worth of the moratorium call was exposed soon when a new, ghastly expression was inserted into India’s political lexicon – lynching. The morbid incident that shook the country and brought infamy upon Indians happened in September 2015 when a 52-year-old Mohammed Akhlaq was dragged out of his house and killed on the suspicion of keeping beef at his home. Had the prime minister acted firmly, sending out an unambiguous message to the bigots that such illegal activities won’t be tolerated, lynching wouldn’t have become a national sport. Though Modi spoke vaguely against vigilantism on some occasions, vigilante groups were legitimised by BJP state governments, leading to reports of lynching and assault of Muslims almost becoming routine. Dog-whistle politics continued as important leaders subtly or crudely spoke against Muslims, encouraging the intolerant groups to take law into their hands. The political discourse changed dramatically and even the opposition leaders appeared reluctant to speak about secularism, contemptuously described as “sickularism” by Sangh parivar protagonists.
Also read: Mistrust Towards Muslims Is Fuelling BJP’s Prospects in Uttar Pradesh
While the prime minister himself kept the embers burning by occasionally talking about ‘samshan-kabristan’ and arguing that trouble-makers can be recognised by their clothes, leaders like Yogi Adityanath publicly used the ‘Ali-Bajrangbali’ narrative to constantly refurbish their credentials as the custodians of Hindu interest. Union home minister Amit Shah, who went so far as to publicly admit that the BJP taught Muslims a lesson in Gujarat in 2002, repeatedly used “Alia-Malia-Jamalia” rhetoric but not once declared that incendiary slogans like “Jab Mulle kate jayenge, Ram-Ram chillayenge” will not be tolerated. Several groups kept giving open calls for boycott and harassment of Muslims, reducing Modi’s moratorium call to a bad joke.
How can anybody forget a BJP minister describing in the Rajya Sabha the nature of political contest as a “Ramzade versus Haramzade” fight. Many BJP leaders, including Union ministers, kept the pot boiling over the last 10 years. The same script has reached the climax now with the prime minister leading the campaign to create communal polarisation.
While Modi harped on one murder which had a Muslim angle – of tailor Kanhaiyalal who was beheaded by two Muslims in Udaipur – in the Rajasthan election, he adopted more brazen ways in the parliamentary election, resorting to the illogic of Congress ‘snatching’ Hindu’s properties, even mangalsutra, to give it to Muslims. Why should anybody object to his ministerial colleague Anurag Thakur, who shot to national fame with his ‘goli maro’ slogan, repeating the same charge, that the Congress will snatch people’s assets and give it to Muslims. The prime minister has created a new template of politics by acting like the head priest – conducting religious functions in temples, from Ayodhya to Ujjain and Varanasi. He even installed “sengol” in the new Parliament building in a ceremony conducted by priests, burying the principle of separation between religion and state. This new template stands on the debris of a secular state. Little wonder, BJP leaders and ministers fall at the feet of a dubious baba who is campaigning for Hindu rashtra and the opposition parties are screaming about the plan to change the Constitution.
The BJP says there is no discrimination in the Modi regime, best manifested by the government’s schemes that cover people of all castes and religions. But it is undeniable that the RSS-BJP has used both religion and nationalism to maximise anxieties among the minorities and deepen suspicions about them in the minds of the majority community. In the ongoing campaign, BJP candidates have been found saying “Hindus who are not for Modi are not Hindus.” The next step was a direct reference to Muslims, which Modi did himself. Not only by referring to the old Sanghi metaphor of people who “produce more children”, but by directly saying that Hindu’s wealth will be snatched to be distributed among Muslims. Forget the moratorium. Modi doesn’t need any debate on communalism. Modi needs a mirror.
