Prime Minister Narendra Modi delighted headline writers — this time on a positive note — with his speech in Rajya Sabha on Tuesday, December 1. Among other assertions, he said there is no need for anyone to prove patriotism; that any incident of atrocity is a blot on all in the country and referred to India being kept integrated by the mantra of ekta. Mr Modi ticked off the tu-tu main-main or tit-for-tat approach in political discourse between ruling party and Opposition and made an impassioned appeal for reasoned debate.
Most importantly, he declared — despite one of his principal aides fulminating in recent months against the “tyranny of the unelected” — that he gave more importance to Rajya Sabha because there “cannot be any discussion where there are no elders”. These points, besides providing striking headlines also gave badly needed assurance that India was not veering off the constitutional path. This discussion on intolerance in Parliament was necessitated because it mired public discourse in recent months. In that backdrop, Mr Modi’s word stood in contrast to what rabble rousers in his stable have preached.
Yet pouring over these headlines, an emotion of unfathomable sadness is inescapable. As sympathetic commentators made the umpteenth attempt to unearth the statesman in Mr Modi, there was no escaping the irony that the Prime Minister is being eulogised for discovering attributes and behaviour that should by now have been his as a norm and not exception. After all, if Prime Ministers are not expected to act like statesmen, who should act like one? The neighbourhood toughie?
There is need for the Prime Minister — and more so his admirers — to examine the necessity to discover such attributes in him. India is not a nation that emerged through a series of coups. It grew out of a national movement, inspirational for large sections of humanity. Leaders of the nation must act like democratic charioteers and not be seen as encouraging violators of ethical norms and laws of the land.
Lavishing praise on Mr Modi for being what he should be is as farcical as anyone lavishing praise on a writer or journalist for writing straight, grammatically correct and evocative, ethical texts. Sugata Bose, who should be seen more as a historian and less as member of Parliament representing Trinamul Congress, said in his speech during the debate that “intolerance is a mere euphemism for a wave of unreason, injustice and inhumanity.” In the short period that the word dominated public discourse, “intolerance” became a moniker for belligerence exhibited by votaries of Hindutva. While critics of the regime pointed to instances of physical and verbal violence, its defendants cited the tradition of tolerance in the Indian tradition.
Let us recall the global and national reaction after the mandate that Mr Modi secured. There was apprehension about the kind of politics that would be pursued by the government. Such misgivings were not due to any intolerance — as is repeatedly argued by his party leaders — towards Mr Modi, but because of the non-inclusive nature of his politics and failure of the Gujarat government to diligently pursue cases against those accused on violence in 2002. In the days that followed, Mr Modi allayed fears by inviting leaders of Saarc countries to his inaugural and embarked on a series of visits abroad where conscious efforts were made — and with success. Yet, Mr Modi simultaneously courted the hardline Hindutva constituency and an acknowledged hardliner, Yogi Adityanath, was given charge of bypolls in Uttar Pradesh.
Several other Bharatiya Janata Party leaders — including a Central minister — continued making provocative statements. The ghar wapsi campaign and the reinforcement to the “love jihad” thrust in western Uttar Pradesh gave the impression that the latent sense of Hindu euphoria at the May 2014 verdict was transforming into public aggression against minorities. The attack on the young techie in Pune, Mohsin Sheikh, was the first sign that several groups were emboldened and taking law into their own hands and becoming enforcers of social mores. Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in Dadri because Mr Modi chose silence over action in the first instance. It is not enough to say government is committed to religious freedom and will not permit discrimination on either religious or caste lines. The moot point is what the government proposes to if there are any such violations.
In February, Mr Modi made an impactful statement spelling out the government’s determination to prevent any religious group from inciting hatred against other communities. The statement was made in the wake of President of United States, Barack Obama’s not so polite reminder that Mr Modi needed to uphold his constitutional obligations. That declaration and what Mr Modi asserted in Parliament earlier this week, reiterates his oath taken when he assumed office and committed to upholding “sovereignty and integrity of India… in accordance with the Constitution and the law, without fear or favour, affection or ill-will.” By that time Mr Obama served the reminder, it was already nine months since the word “fringe” had become a part of the contemporary political lexicon. But as the surround-sound effects that accompanied the Bihar polls demonstrated, what was considered an extreme section of the Sangh Parivar was essentially its mainstream view.
There is a view that Mr Modi cannot be held responsible for the personal opinion of every member of his party. This view also contends that because Mr Modi has been parroting since the middle of the Bihar campaign that tolerance is the core value of Indian culture, his intention should not be doubted. Yet there is no denying that Mr Modi’s silence would have drawn further criticism after President Pranab Mukherjee pointed out that the core values of diversity, tolerance and plurality of Indian civilisation must be kept in mind.
Mr Modi’s reassurances to Parliament are welcome but not enough. This will not be the last time when hard-nosed supporters vitiate the discourse. How the government responds to such provocations is what will determine the Prime Minister’s commitment to the constitutional path.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times and Sikhs: The Untold Agony of 1984
