By R. Rajagopal
Scarlett O’Hara: Where shall I go? What shall I do?
Rhett Butler: Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
You don’t quote from Gone With the Wind when you ponder the future of the republic. But pleading guilty to even cursory familiarity with Kautilya’sArthashastra is fraught with peril when Amit Shah is anointed as the modern-day Chanakya to NarendraModi, which presumably makes Modi the reincarnation of Chandragupta Maurya.
Fiction, therefore, is the best bet when carpet-bombed with that inescapable question if you dare make eye contact with another of the species: who do you think will win the elections?
Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.
I don’t give a damn because the very fact that such a question is being asked is reason enough for me not to give a damn.
After all that unfolded in the past five years, if we are still asking who will win, surely the country has lost. On the other hand, purely as speculation, let us assume that Modi does not ‘win’ — by which I merely mean the theoretical possibility of the BharatiyaJanata Party not winning 272 seats on its own.
Then what’s your beef, dude?
Will the next government, whoever heads it, have what it takes, or, rather, will we allow it to do what needs to be done to set this country back on the righteous path, even if it is as cratered as it always had been? I deliberately used the theme of the faithful, ‘righteous’, not the more contemporary ‘right’.
‘Righteous’ because that is something that can never be taken away from us by anyone else unless we decide to shed it ourselves.
Are we righteous anymore?
Not if we no longer balk at the incontestable reason mouthed (not whispered any longer) in our drawing rooms as to why Modi deserves another term: their neck is finally under our feet (payer tola) and five more years are needed to tighten the foothold so that any sign of defiance can be literally trampled to dust. You don’t need to read Arthashastra to figure whose neck it is.
Not if we no longer look out of the train window to hide our discomfiture if someone in the compartment makes some insensitive statement about another religion, oblivious to (or maybe too aware of) the presence of other communities in the same seat.
Not when we re-check the son’s or daughter’s lunch box, just to ensure that the impetuous and carefree kid — as the young should always be — has not poured leftover beef curry over rice and rushed to college, unaware that an unpinned grenade is ticking inside what was once a shared repository of aroma and tastes over which cultural barriers were crossed and lifelong relationships built?
We have grown used to such everyday affairs and we have allowed ourselves to be beguiled into believing that this is what the ‘people want’. If this is what the people want, why should I give a damn who wins the elections?
It takes immense courage and single-minded focus to un-straighten and un-narrow our path because it has become the new normal. I am not questioning the sincerity or the courage of conviction of Rahul Gandhi or Mayawati or Mamata Banerjee, said to be prime minister probables if the BJP loses. I am merely wondering whether we will allow them to change us.
We have camouflaged this dirty underbelly with a flourishing myth-making industry. We allow ourselves to be mesmerized by a prime minister who never tires of peddling his ‘humble’ origins, pitching it as an excuse to dodge unpalatable questions and conceal inconvenient information.
It took another Indian with humble roots to call the bluff and tell it as it is. With no malice and certainly with no rancour — in themselves rare phenomena.
In possibly one of the most insightful interviews in recent memory that was remarkable for the clarity it offered, Manmohan Singh, apparently the unheard prime minister who preceded Modi, grabbed the bull by its horns when Sunetra Choudhury of The Hindustan Times asked him about the “modest beginnings” of both Singh and Modi.
Singh, who had once said he did not want the country to take pity on his humble background, replied: “…One must not wear his humbleness as a tool for self-aggrandizement. Progress of the country and policies of the successive governments in last 70 years have played a definite role in creation of opportunities and empowerment. They played a role in making me what I am today, and they played their part in Mr.Modi’s life too…
“We must ask whether our humble backgrounds enabled us to leave behind a legacy of compassion and cohesiveness as opposed to division and diversion. This is the real and the only test.”
Asked about the BJP’s slogan “Hard work versus Harvard” (the thinking behind which is often used to deride as ‘elitist’ any questions about specific facts and figures), Singh made a priceless reply: “Does the BJP feel that people who go to Harvard or IITs or IIMs or other institutions of excellence, in India or abroad, do not work hard?… Education is an enabler for people from the most humble backgrounds to achieve pioneering positions in every sphere of life.
“Many public figures have risen from very humble backgrounds on account of their distinguished academic record. Can anybody undermine the contribution of SavitribaiPhule, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, Dr Rajendra Prasad, LalBahadurShastri, Homi Jahangir Bhabha, Dr HargobindKhurana, Dr K.R. Narayanan, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam and a galaxy of men and women that have led India in different walks of life and continue to do so? They did not brag about their hardships or their humble backgrounds….”
But you don’t need someone as accomplished as Manmohan Singh to point out how hollow Modi sounds when he proclaims from the pulpit how he has protected the national interest by bombing Pakistan territory.
Right in the middle of the election, the same protector virtually capitulated before America which told New Delhi not to import oil from Iran. Here’s the mighty republic willing to forego its sovereignty, abandon extremely favourable trading terms and turn its back on an old friend who had stood with us through thick and thin — all because a bully snorted and ordered us to fall in line.
Imagine if any other government in India had outsourced to America the right to choose our trading partners! The champions of national manhood would probably have choked on their own froth of outrage and indignation.
There is another elephant in the room: the economy. How on earth are we going to achieve the double-digit growth that was once considered mandatory for combating poverty in this country? We are not even sure of the reliability of our economic data now. Worse, will we allow any government to take any tough decision that may be required if we are to adopt a rights-based approach to empower the poor?
On the flip side, the bar has been lowered so low that hope flickers in the cliché that things can get only better.
Nothing less than a landslide against Modi can redeem us as a nation and pull us out of the rut of neutrality, if not nonchalance, and clothe the next government with the resolve that is needed for the daunting — and righteous — task ahead.
Anything short of such an outcome will set us on a path that is certain to remind us, when we gaze at the rear-view mirror, of James Bond’s retort in Casino Royale: “Do I look like I give a damn?”
Not in the Mahatma’s name
The recent uproar over the glorification of Mahatma Gandhi’s assassin, NathuramGodse, by the BharatiyaJanata Party’s Bhopal candidate Pragya Singh Thakur has forced her party to tick her off. It should be a solace for us that there is at least one non-negotiable in Indian politics, that the political cost of the celebration of the murder of the Mahatma is formidably high! But now we would be told to let the matter rest as she has been chided even by her mentors.
Let us look at the implication of this approach, that Ms. Thakur, sans this statement, should be acceptable to us as a potential representative in Parliament. She continues to be the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, as she claimed Prime Minister NarendraModi had said of her. Our satisfaction over the condemnation of Ms. Thakur makes us forget that she is being audaciously presented as the most fitting answer to secular politics, which holds that a person accused of attacks on Muslims cannot be a people’s representative in India.
The idea that a Hindu can never indulge in a terror act is, in fact, another way of saying that terror acts are always committed by non-Hindus. Or, by Pakistan, which for BJP leaders is a proxy for Muslims. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, while talking about the Samjhauta Express blast case acquittals, claimed that it was unimaginable to accept that Hindus could be involved in such acts, and that he believed that in all such crimes there was the hand of Pakistan. A crime has been committed, and since the Hindu suspects cannot (being Hindus) do it, it can only be Muslims even if they are not caught — this is the underlying assumption.
It is this theory which is being thrown at us by the BJP by presenting Ms. Thakur as its choice for the electorate of Bhopal. It has another sinister aspect. She was selected knowing well that she could not be a choice for Muslims. Her selection is therefore a message to Muslims that by not voting for her, they disregard the sentiments of Hindus, thus showing intolerance towards the majority.
By supporting her, the ‘symbol of Hinduism’, they have a chance to endear themselves to the Hindus. If they don’t, they would always be a suspect.
This argument is not new. Many pundits, while accepting that Mr.Modi was a divisive figure, urged Indians to choose him as he was the best bet for the economic development of India. So, can Muslims be so sectarian as to think only about themselves while the greater national interest is at stake?
The swift and determined move by the BJP to reject her statement on Godse is a clever ploy to make this issue irrelevant while judging her. It is as if we are asked to judge Godse, setting aside the act of murder of Gandhi by him. There are ‘respectable’ people who feel that Godse spoilt his case by murdering the Mahatma. They regret this folly as they believe that there was strong merit in his ideological stance. According to them, he rightly opposed the Muslim appeasement of Gandhi, his anger at the dangerous friendliness of Gandhi towards Pakistan is correct, and his impatience with the unwise and impractical pacifism of Gandhi is to be understood if we want to make India strong.
We are asked to understand that there was a reason Godse was forced to kill Gandhi. We are asked to not treat him as a simple criminal. He was driven by high ideas. To make him a man of ideas, he is constantly humanised. We have seen over the years people talking about his childhood, his education, his editorship. Gandhi must have done something really horrible to provoke a thoughtful human being to turn into an assassin. If anything, they imply, he was a just assassin!
So, we are asked to move away from the trivia, that is the act of the murder, to the substantive, the issues raised by Nathuram in his ‘brave defence’ in the court, which had moved people to tears even then.
The RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS), unlike the Islamic State and the Maoists, understands it well that an individual and identifiable act of violence makes it abhorrent and repulsive for the masses, whereas anonymous acts of violence are always more palatable. It was therefore important for Savarkar to distance himself from his disciple, Godse, to remain respectable. For the RSS it was necessary to disown Godse to be able to keep working on the majoritarian ideas he shared with or had learnt from Savarkar and the RSS. No known RSS hand soils his hands with blood; yet it is the politics of the RSS, not at all different from Godse’s, which makes blood flow.
Gandhi had said again and again that it would be better for him to die if India were to become inhospitable to Muslims. He was talking to those who were objecting to the recitation from the Koran at his prayer meetings. Death he could accept but not the narrowing of his heart! Neither bowing to threats or force! In the same invocation, he said, if you ask me to recite the Gita at gun point, I would refuse to obey you.
Gandhi told his audience, your heart is also large. Don’t constrict it. It is this challenge which needs to be accepted. It requires immense bravery of intelligence and humanity to be able to hear Gandhi. This intelligence would tell us that the distancing from the murder of the Mahatma by the co-travellers of Godse is in fact a strategy to enlarge the space for majoritarian ideas and draw more and more Hindus towards them, thus making Gandhi irrelevant while keeping his facade decorated.
Why I want Pragya Thakur to win
By Saba Naqvi
Regardless of whether NarendraModi remains Prime Minister or not I want terror accused Pragya Thakur to win from Bhopal. The esteemed leadership of India’s pre-eminent political party chose a terror accused as a candidate and they must endure her tenure as MP.
Pragya may be a poisonous vendor of hate and violence but she is not a hypocrite. Ever since she spoke her mind on describing NathuramGodse, the individual who shot MK Gandhi to death, as a patriot, the BJP national leadership has claimed to be disturbed. The Prime Minister spoke up after her statement, saying, he would never forgive her for what she had said and the party stated that it had initiated disciplinary action against her.
But by the time the party took this position, many members of the BJP had come up with twisted arguments somehow justifying Pragya’s validation of the assassin of a figure many revere as a Mahatma or Great Soul. Party members exposed their own problematic ideological heritage that included non-participation in the freedom movement led by Gandhi. Some of them could not help but reveal their own natural impulse to drop the veneer of falsehood and come clean on how they do indeed believe that Godse was a patriot despite having killed Gandhi.
The Godse remark in just two days exposed the ideological underbelly of the ruling party that does indeed have members who believe that Gandhi was a villain who loved Muslims and Pakistan. That’s why Godse, by his own account in a famous trial, shot him. A must-read for those who wish to engage with this debate is the book titled “The Men Who Killed Gandhi” by ManoharMalgonkar.
Seventy-one years after that crime on January 30, 1948, we have come to the point where a candidate contesting in an election for Parliament embraces the Godse world view. What’s more, a member of Modi’s council of ministers, AnantkumarHegde, endorsed her position. The MP from Karnataka had earlier kicked up a storm when he had said that “we are here to change the Constitution”. Yes, the same Constitution he took an oath to protect.
Hegde’s also received a show-cause notice to explain his position and on May 17 BJP president Amit Shah said the party’s disciplinary committee would submit a report on the matter in 10 days, after the election verdict, that is. There was more: the BJP media cell chief in Madhya Pradesh, the state from where Pragya is contesting, was brazen enough to say that Gandhi was the father of the nation of Pakistan. The BJP suspended him.
So how do we read the ideological contortions ever since Pragya uttered the “Godse is a patriot” words? One could say that the BJP is trying to occupy the space of both extreme and moderate in a national ideological pendulum that has shifted right-wards. It’s not a bad ploy—the ideological family plays to the more core beliefs, that are to be revealed step by step, and just in case some voters find them unpalatable, there are the “reasonable” elements as well.
And, voila! Modi becomes a moderate who is being stern with the fringe! That is a useful projection at a time when there is the possibility of needing some allies post-23 May. The BJP has made this ideological journey before, of being all things to all men. Earlier, former Prime Minister AtalBihari Vajpayee was offered up as the moderate to LK Advani, the architect of the Ram temple movement, who brought the BJP to national prominence. Today Modi today is the moderate who is speaking up against the hardliners, who are called “fringe” by those who believe it’s all part of a great national purpose.
It’s not. The “fringe” has been mainstream for some years now. Much before Pragya was presented to the nation as a candidate for parliament, the BJP leadership chose an unabashed Muslim-hating monk of a religious order to be the chief minister of India’s most populous state. All these debates about ‘moderate’ and ‘hardliner’ are a farce designed to make the BJP constituency feel better about themselves. It’s part of the good cop/ bad cop tactic.
To conclude, therefore, I want a terror accused to win, just so that we can, as a nation, get a reality check on where we have landed up. And just in case someone wants to ask me about whether I am afraid, here is my reply: I am so certain about the courage of my convictions, that there is no fear, although I do feel some shame for those who have tied themselves into knots over something about which there should have been no ambiguity. Bring on Pragya and let’s see what happens next.
The ‘unpeople’ of India
By Abdul Khaliq
Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims.
I fear for our future as a secular, multicultural country that once celebrated a richness of culture and tradition. Till not long ago we affirmed our common humanity even as we celebrated our differences. Our nation represented diversity, kindness, compassion and a revulsion of extremist views. But, over time, our collective souls have been deadened by violence, deepening communal and caste divides and the most perverse thinking. The cosmopolitan spirit has been throttled by hyper nationalism, populism and a deep distrust of the liberal values of tolerance and inclusion. A creeping majoritarianism is spreading across the land.
In this overheated, protracted election season, Muslims are up against it, caught between a rock and a hard place. Theirs is an Orwellian world where they are the “unpeople”— a term coined by George Orwell in his scary masterpiece 1984, to define those whose names and existence had been erased because they had incurred “Big Brother’s” ire. Muslims now have to live with the bleak truth that the most powerful political party and its ideological parent, with tentacles spread across the country, are pathologically hostile to Muslims. What makes their plight infinitely worse, is the fact that even the major allegedly secular party has consigned Muslims to social invisibility. Can one trust a party that is afraid to even allude to the Muslims’ problems, let alone address them?
When the PM evoked the 1984 mass slaughter of Sikhs and quoted Rajiv Gandhi’s infamous justification about the inevitable effect of the falling of a big tree, why did the Congress president not hit back by recalling the 2002 Gujarat riots and Modi’s Newtonian observation justifying the killing of hundreds of Muslims as a reaction to an action? He refrained, not for any ethical reason, but simply for fear of being seen as empathetic to Muslims and their problems and of equating the two tragedies. Caught between the flagrant hostility of the right-wing and the fraudulent concern of the secular front, Muslims are India’s outcasts.
In today’s India, where all issues across the political spectrum are seen through the lens of identity politics, Muslims are vilified for their custom, dress and tradition. They are physically attacked for the food they eat, discriminated against in employment, housing, and even civic amenities, and, they are routinely victimised by law-enforcement authorities simply for being Muslim. Social media is awash with the most hateful, stereotypical portrayal of Muslims as terrorist sympathisers, baby producing factories and worse. Although India has been the home of Islam and its adherents for much more than a millennium, Muslims today are constantly pilloried about their loyalty to the nation.
All assessments about Muslims are universalised, in black and white and deeply problematic. In a conversation with two CRPF sub-inspectors who have recently returned from Kashmir (I did not reveal that I was Muslim), I was told that “these Muslims are a nuisance as even their women throw stones at us.” Please note that the stone-throwing by the disgruntled Kashmiris is perceived as a common trait of Muslims — all 190 million of them. Their other complaints were that Muslims support Pakistan and insist on eating only halal meat. When I asked how the civil unrest in Kashmir could be resolved, I got an answer that stunned me: “Make sure that the police force in Kashmir is recruited only from the Shia community and they will teach these Sunnis a lesson!” How well have the British taught us the art of “divide and rule” and of polarising communities! The conversation filled me with anguish at the gratuitous distrust and hatred for Muslims. The animosity runs deep and is expressed by ordinary citizens in a matter-of-fact tone that is unnerving.
I recall clearly the sense of cautious optimism among Muslims when NarendraModi assumed power in 2014. His swearing-in was a strikingly symbolic moment, epitomised by the presence of the Pakistani PM that signalled hope of rapprochement with Pakistan (Indian Muslims know through experience that their well-being is linked to this crucial relationship). The PM represented a more decisive polity that promised an equitable social order expressed most eloquently in the Socratic slogan, “Sabkasaathsabkavikas”. This slogan encapsulated this nation’s foremost mission of fostering social solidarity based on the principle that every human being matters. Minorities felt reassured by the PM’s emphatic assertion in 2015 that “my government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” He repeatedly made appeals to preserve our core values of diversity, tolerance and plurality, calling on Hindus and Muslims to work together to fight poverty instead of fighting one another. His stunning embrace of Nawaz Sharif on Christmas Day 2015 filled everyone with hope.
On the ground, however, India began witnessing a deepening cultural mutation as vigilante squads terrorised and lynched Muslims in the name of protecting the cow, launched “gharwapsi” campaigns that have all but ended the freedom to choose one’s faith and used “love jihad” to stifle any kind of solidarity between the two communities. Minorities began to believe that the present dispensation’s aim is to convert India into the Hindu Rashtra of Hindutva where Muslims and Christians would live as second-class citizens. The current election rhetoric has only exacerbated those fears. The BJP LokSabha candidate for Barabanki boasted that “NarendraModi has made attempts to break the morale of Muslims. Vote for Modi if you want to destroy the breed of Muslims.”
We are on the cusp of having a new government at the Centre. Opinion polls and the most reliable — the bookies — predict victory for the NDA, but with a reduced majority. Ironically, the return of Modi as PM is the best hope for peace within the country and the neighbourhood. Imran Khan was right when he said that only Modi could help resolve Kashmir. He is the only leader with the power to rein in the lunatics whose purpose in life is to polarise communities and engage in eternal war with Pakistan. In any case, the new government’s first task would be to combat the overpowering atmosphere of distrust and hate bedevilling society which constitutes the foremost threat to the nation, more so than terrorism. The creation of a truly secular society free of prejudice and discrimination must be the prime mission.