Id at 7, Race Course Road

Despite being a hack for more than three decades, I am yet to be invited for any political iftar party. Thereby, no one can accuse me of holding a grouse against any leader for not marking an invite to me. Throughout his 13 years as the chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi never hosted one, breaking a tradition that his predecessor Keshubhai Patel followed. Mr Patel was initially in two minds about hosting iftar lest he invited the ire of Sangh Parivar hardliners. But Atal Behari Vajpayee prodded him to continue this tradition. Mr Vajpayee also hosted lavish iftar parties for six years at 7, Race Course Road.

Mr Modi, of course, found very a valid reason to jettison the practise in 2001 — the year he became chief minister. There was a sense of global animosity against Muslims in the post 9/11 world and everyone was discovering the virtues in Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilisations” theory. The month of Ramzan began weeks after the deadly terrorist attack on the Jammu and Kashmir state Assembly in Srinagar and Id-ul-Fitr was celebrated barely days after the attack on Indian Parliament. With anti-Islamism dominating global discourse, Mr Modi’s decision appeared insignificant. He never revived the tradition though several leaders in Gujarat, including the state Raj Bhavan, continued holding these parties — albeit as exclusively vegetarian affairs!

Before examining whether it is right or wrong to discontinue the practice of 7, RCR spreading a lavish fare, let us recall how iftar parties became a part of Delhi’s political culture. K.K. Katyal, one the finest reporters of the power corridors that this country has produced, attributed the emergence of the practice of hosting iftar parties to I.K. Gujral, least open to accusations of pursuing votebank politics. He had just become a minister in Indira Gandhi’s Cabinet in the early 1970s when he invited Cabinet colleague Mohammad Shafi Qureshi for dinner. The invitation was politely declined but with an explanation: Mr Qureshi was on fast as it was the month of Ramzan. The quick-witted Gujral was ready with a response —Mr Qureshi could come to his house and break the fast with an early dinner.

This was an invite which could not be declined and Gujral then invited a few others, but with a rider — they would have to partake in an early dinner. The next day Gujral narrated the incident to his boss who appeared amused but later thought that the idea was good. She soon organised a similar event but on a larger scale — she asked her officers to prepare a long list, with a significant number of Muslims.

However, iftar parties became annual features from 1978 after H.N. Bahuguna, then a minister in the Morarji Desai government, hosted one. He thought it would enable him to draw allies in feuds that had broken out within the Janata Party.

Thereafter, in the 1980s and 1990s, iftar parties became a rage and leaders checked with reporters about dates that had not been booked by political adversaries.

What was originally an austere and religious affair soon became a culinary showcase and occasion for displaying political popularity. The Bharatiya Janata Party often cited iftar parties as an instance of “appeasement politics” that other parties indulged in. Yet, its party leaders hosted such gatherings in the years the Vajpayee-led government was in power.

Should Mr Modi have continued with that tradition or has he taken the correct action? Does his decision not to host either an iftar or participate in Id Milan send any negative signal to the Muslims? Has he slighted the presidency by not attending the iftar party at the Rashtrapati Bhavan? And finally, has his decision further cemented support among Hindus who feel that Muslims were mollycoddled excessively?

Mr Modi’s decision not to host an iftar has to be seen in a backdrop of his consistent refusal to wear a skull cap. During his electoral campaign, Mr Modi made it clear that he would not don the skull cap because Gandhi, Nehru and Patel did not do so. He argued that a leader need not make such symbolic gestures to be accepted as a secular leader. But then,

Mr Modi’s action do not match those of the leaders he quoted — for instance, Gandhi’s marches in Noakhali following the carnage in 1946 and Mr Patel’s decision in 1948 to ban the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh because the situation warranted it.

Often, leaders wear skull caps and host iftar parties to adopt a more socially inclusive posture. Mr Modi also does so when he wears tribals hats or dons headgear of different communities in the Northeast.

Mr Modi may have a genuine personal problem with wearing a skull cap and if he says that his faith does not permit him to wear it, he can be excused.

But why not host either an iftar or join an Id Milan, instead of restricting himself to a terse tweet and press release on the occasion of Id?

Prior to the verdict of the polls, there were expectations that Mr Modi would make a grand gesture directed at Muslims in order to gain support from other parties. This became unnecessary after he secured a majority.

Mr Modi could still have signalled an alteration in his persona without inviting people to feast during Ramzan. He could have done so on numerous occasions — the killing of the techie in Pune and the force-feeding of a fasting Muslim in the capital’s Maharashtra Sadan being among the most prominent incidents when at least a verbal chiding from the Prime Minister was warranted. By continuing to be Prime Minister in Chief Minister-mode, Mr Modi is risking the stability of his regime.

Economic growth cannot happen when there is social strife. The verdict in 2014 has demonstrated to Muslims that they are electorally irrelevant because parliamentary majorities can be secured without their support.

To ensure that tinder-box situations in several parts of the country are doused — so that the government can concentrate on governance — minority anxiety and majority elation must be addressed simultaneously. It is for Mr Modi to decide how he wishes to do this — by hosting iftar parties and wearing skull caps, or by being proactive when his supporters attack minority rights. Magnanimity would do him no harm.

The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times