Taliban – that’s the reference point of Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath in this election campaign. The saffron-clad Yogi warns the people against the Congress-led opposition’s plan to impose Islamic Sharia law, repeatedly asking them, “Will you accept Talibani rule in India?”
While some people would like to dismiss this ahistorical analysis of Congress politics as one of the most delightful ironies of this election campaign, others could see a method in the scare-mongering tendency of top Bharatiya Janata Party leaders (BJP). The underlying message of such rhetoric is the inevitable dominance of Muslim fundamentalists under any non-BJP dispensation. While Yogi himself has been talking about the Congress manifesto indicating a sinister plan to snatch women’s jewellery and other assets, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has also been harping on the threat of “mangalsutra” and buffaloes being taken away to be distributed among Muslims. Apart from the morbid designs to create irrational fears among the vulnerable masses and harness their insecurities for political consolidation, this discourse should alert us to the perils of misuse of religion in politics.
While cautioning us against the Talibani rule, Yogi is not exhorting the people to embrace secular ethos. Rather, he goads people towards a political model which looks like a softer version of the Taliban regime. He uses Hindutva metaphors and offers an alternative based on religious majoritarianism, not constitutionalism. The comparison he makes leaves no scope for ambiguity about his politics. Addressing a public meeting in Mughalsarai, Yogi, said, “Prime Minister Narendra Modi is an ardent Ram devotee, he has installed Ram lalla in a divine and grand temple in Ayodhya after 500 years of struggle. At the same time, ‘anti-Ram’ Samajwadi Party and Congress say that if they come to power, they will implement personal laws. This means they want to impose Taliban-like rule.” Yogi’s far more vitriolic speeches – describing the political contest as a battle between “Ali and Bajrangbali” and “80 versus 20”, apart from frequent references to Pakistan and Muslim criminals who were eliminated – show he has no problem with the Talibani model that is based on religious bigotry, but he prefers Hindu dominance to replace Islamic fundamentalism.
What’s Talibani rule? Greater hegemony, illiberal control and brutal repression. Talibani rule means lesser space for pluralist culture, personal liberties and religious freedom. It means a strictly defined and regulated social and political order which allows merciless repression of women, persecution of opponents and critics, and crackdown on art forms, food habits and other personal choices like love and marriage. The emphasis is on the government’s powers, not people’s rights. Talibani rules means rule through a doctrine of force, not governance through accommodation and consensus.
What is the ‘Yogi model’ of governance? Has the space for dissent, protest and to organise political resistance increased or decreased?
People have been jailed and beaten up for protesting against a controversial law. Eminent personalities were shamed by the government which installed hoardings carrying their photographs for protesting against citizenship amendment law. It was like a rogue’s gallery created by the government. What has happened in the name of love jihad? Even a walk in the park has become frightening for interfaith couples. A Muslim boy dreads going to a movie or a restaurant with a Hindu girl. Is that the constitutional mandate? Isn’t that a Talibani trait? Was such an atmosphere of fear, that is normal in Afghanistan, prevalent during Congress or SP government in Uttar Pradesh? Isn’t lynching of somebody on suspicion of keeping beef, reflective of Talibani culture? Aren’t vigilantism and moral policing attributes of Talibani philosophy? Can Yogi produce any evidence of opposition-ruled states pursuing such a regressive agenda?
The basis of this falsehood of the plan to impose Talibani rule is the Congress manifesto. The essence of the Congress manifesto is justice – social, political and economic. It talks of economic empowerment, social justice and political representation. There is no mention of redistribution of wealth or inheritance tax and the party promises to address the concerns of inequality through welfare measures and affirmative action. Politics and philosophy aren’t nascent subjects whose basic contours are yet to be defined. The world has settled basic issues. In ethical politics, equality, justice and fraternity are non-negotiable. People’s rights are sacred and minority rights are an integral part of that principle. The Congress has kept fraternity and justice as the central theme of its discourse. It is talking about the threat to the Constitution; raising questions about freedom of expression, institutional autonomy, misuse of agencies, selective targeting of opponents and social harmony. Does that reflect a Talibani agenda?
On the other hand, top BJP leaders interpret diversity as a problem and uniformity as a virtue. That’s how the Taliban thinks. The BJP has portrayed any concern for minorities as appeasement. How many times have Modi and Yogi stressed the importance of equality, solidarity and harmony in their public communication? When did they express concern over the systematic and routine oppression and humiliation of Muslims? Is expecting empathy and compassion for the vulnerable sections of society a crime in India? Isn’t hate towards minorities a Talibani trait? Should any concern for minority rights be twisted and used to create social tension?
Why was former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement, on the desirability of preference given to minorities in distribution of national resources, misrepresented to portray the Congress as pro-Muslim? What is more problematic – appeasement or toxic communalism?
The way the BJP involved itself in the construction and inauguration of Ram temple is unprecedented; will the prime minister or the UP chief minister show similar involvement in any religious event of the minority community? Haven’t they institutionalised bias? Yogi government has been showering flowers on devotees (kanwariyas) marching to Haridwar every year and lighting up lakhs of diyas (earthen lamps) in Ayodhya on Diwali. This is religious majoritarianism that the Taliban believes in. India opted for a secular Constitution; stalwarts of the freedom movement didn’t want Indian nationhood to resemble a Pakistani state or a Taliban regime. They wanted the Indian state to work through persuasion and law, through consensus and compromise, not through ‘bulldozer-justice’.
Live-in partners will now have to register themselves with the police in BJP-ruled Uttarakhand. This control on personal lives is a typical Talibani template. Shops selling non-vegetarian foods are closed in Uttar Pradesh during Hindu festivals. While lots of Hindus want to eat non-vegetarian food round the year, there is also a question of livelihood of Muslim vendors involved. What if Muslims want similar privileges for themselves? Has the Indian state shelved notions of equality that is guaranteed by the Constitution? Hindu bigots often ask Muslims to prove their loyalty by chanting Bharat Mata ki Jai or Jai Shri Ram. What if Indians are harassed this way in foreign countries? We need to debate this: What is more precious – Gandhian tolerance or Talibani intolerance?
Modi and Yogi need to seriously introspect what the Talibani model of governance really is. Why should a girl falling in love be afraid of the government? Why should a man be frightened of eating something of his choice, something which is exported by the friends of this regime? Why should citizens be punished for wearing something they like? Why should Muslims not be allowed to offer prayers at places where Hindus can merrily do so? Why should a writer be fearful of expressing his views? Why should a citizen be dumped in jail for participating in protests? The answers to these questions lie in the firm conviction that Talibani rule is unacceptable in a democratic set-up. The BJP should answer these questions honestly instead of creating false alarms.
Taliban banned alcohol and pork. It even banned music and films. Surely, these restrictions would remind Adityanath of similar bans imposed in the last decade under the BJP’s auspice? Governments are not elected to control people’s lives. Governments are not mandated to regulate citizens’ political consciousness. Ministers are not masters. That’s the message to politicians operating in a democracy.
