The Latin phrase quod erat demonstrandum (Q.E.D., meaning that which had to be demonstrated) normally comes at the end of a theorem. We will however begin with it. Without any doubt, Bharatiya Janata Party president Rajnath Singh did say sorry. But he did not seek pardon for “that thing”. He deliberately kept it ambiguous because Mr Singh was taking on a matter which is strictly not his business and in a way exceeded his brief. There is only one person from whom large sections of India have been waiting for a regret note. But Narendra Modi has not relented because he does not wish to jeopardise the support of his core constituency.
For well over two and a half years, sections of Indians waited with bated breath for
Mr Modi to say something that can be deduced to be an apology for the conduct of the Gujarat administration at his command in 2002. The anticipation for such an initiative began in September 2011, when Mr Modi embarked on the Sadbhavana Yatra, virtually scuttling senior party leader Lal Krishna Advani’s Jan Chetna Yatra. That programme emphatically indicated that Gandhinagar was a transit camp, and the final destination was 7 Race Course Road.
Thereafter, many Indians faced disappointment on several occasions because the elusive apology was not forthcoming. Hopeful admirers initially hoped for Mr Modi to use the S-word after the state Assembly polls, in December 2012. When that did not happen, they thought that such a placatory statement would be made once he seized control of the party. But even then Mr Modi did not say anything remotely indicating a change of heart. Potential supporters then hoped for the balm to be applied following his appointment as the chief of the campaign committee or after his formal anointment as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. Still, nothing.
Eventually, a tepid blog piece was written in December 2013 which focused on his sense of hurt for being accused of complicity in the riots. There was not one word about Muslims’ anguish at being targeted and subjected to the goriest forms of violence.
The moot question therefore is not when Mr Modi will express regret. As far as his stormtroopers are concerned, this has already been done, during the Reuters interview last year. He said everyone feels sadness within even if a “puppy” comes in front of a moving car. The blog piece was simply a reiteration of his sense of what was required of him. Market forces were already clamouring for his final elevation and the most respected leader among them, N.R. Narayan Murthy, argued that
Mr Modi be allowed to express a “sense of contrition” and move on.
There is no political necessity for Mr Modi to say sorry. It is also not prudent for him to express regret in any manner that goes against the grain of his slogan of “equality for all, appeasement of none”.
Among the principal causes for not backtracking is that Mr Modi will not risk the support of his core constituency in the runup to the polls.
The word moderation is non existent in Mr Modi’s current political dictionary. It may have been a necessity if he had to forge an all-encompassing alliance in 1999 or 2004, when the BJP had more than a dozen pre poll electoral partners. But with ekla chalo re being the only option before him (barring the homecoming of the likes of Ram Vilas Paswan and Gordhan Zadapia), he has to maximise his chances in the core constituency and this can be done by deepening prejudice. Between now and the polls, those who get on board will do so on an “as is where is basis” — they’ll endorse Mr Modi’s present stance.
This gives him an opportunity to alternate between those primary issues that made him what he is — a hard-nosed, prejudice promoting leader — and the “Development Man” image he’s gradually built since 2004. If he had so called “secular” allies, he would not have been able to say what he did in Assam — “Assam lies next to Bangladesh, and Gujarat lies near to Pakistan. Today, Assam is disturbed due to Bangladeshi immigrants, but the whole of Pakistan is disturbed because of me”.
In contrast to this, while addressing the business elite in Delhi, he focused on his economic vision. The twin personalities co exist, though it is not very difficult to make out which one is the real Narendra Modi. One persona surfaces instinctively, while the other is carefully chiselled and showcased.
The tactic may be altered if a decisive mandate eludes him and the BJP hovers at 180 seats — the highest the party ever secured with Atal Behari Vajpayee at its helm.
In such a situation, he would need allies besides those that are already with him. That is the time, if it comes, for which the “apology” is being held back for. A visit to a dargah may be too much to expect from Mr Modi. He is also unlikely to concede that his regime was complicit in the 2002 riots. But he will have to make more than a cosmetic gesture or two. If the situation warrants, there is no knowing the extent of word play. He will need to provide a fig leaf to those who may need excuses to join a BJP government led by Mr Modi.
It is the prospect of a mandate that falls below the 180-mark that has led Mr Rajnath Singh to suo motu reopen a debate which was settled for the moment. He is aware that if the BJP does not secure a decisive mandate, yet is in a position to explore government formation, Mr Modi will not be a suitable bonding agent for the coalition.
Positioning himself for being picked up as a possible Prime Minister in that circumstance has already started and
Mr Singh has ensured his presence at the starting line with his mafinama.
Mr Singh’s statement is a two-pronged strategy: on the one hand it takes him closer to being considered as Vajpayee-II while simultaneously ensuring the pot of 2002 and Mr Modi’s role in it is kept simmering. This should not be off-putting for Mr Modi because the polarisation agenda stays firm without the accusation that he revived it. But Mr Modi does not like missives fired by others. He does not like others to pick up his cudgels. But the unease that exists between these two leaders epitomises Mr Modi’s equations within his political fraternity.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times
