BJP vs Parivar

Over the past fortnight, the Narendra Modi government has attempted to send out strong and unmistakable signals to disown any involvement in some of the more adventurous and, consequently, controversial social engineering initiatives of impatient Hindu nationalists. From Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah and home minister Rajnath Singh to lesser functionaries, there has been a clear repudiation of any suggestion that the “ghar wapsi” or homecoming project of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other bodies has official political sanction. While it is also true that the government’s opponents are unwilling to accept these disclaimers at face value, the fact that the Prime Minister has moved to ensure that his larger development agenda is not derailed cannot be overlooked.

In particular, the Modi government appears to be concerned over three developments. First, there is the inclination of some backbenchers and even junior ministers to shoot their mouths off and create needless controversies. No government can control individual indiscretions completely — and in this matter the Modi government isn’t the only administration that faces periodic embarrassment. However, Mr Modi seems to have made it clear that stepping out of line in future will invite the wrath of the leadership.

Secondly, the government has reasons to be worried over a growing nexus between the media, the Opposition and some fringe outfits, many of which are beyond the control of the wider Sangh Parivar. All three seem to be feeding on each other. The media has made it its business to search out obscure figures, usually representing organisations that are no more than letterhead bodies. These individuals are encouraged to say or do something peculiar because that ensures sensationalist media coverage — recall that it takes only a tiny group, maybe even 20 people, to trigger a controversy. The media coverage in turn prompts Opposition parties, looking anxiously for issue to beat the government with, to either create bedlam in Parliament or issue statements hinting at the government’s dark, hidden agenda. A manufactured controversy — like the one involving the proposed installation of Nathuram Godse’s busts in multiple locations — is subsequently repeated by the foreign media and opinion writers and comes to acquire a life of its own. This in turn promotes the idea of a Modi government as a potentially malevolent force.

As of now the government hasn’t come up with any effective means to control this epidemic of “Hindu” posturing. The reason has often to do with the collateral agenda of some media houses, miffed at their own diminished clout in shaping decisions of the Modi government. There are some disturbing indications that the unrelenting desire of at least one large media organisation to stoke communal passions is almost entirely linked to a demand for exceptional business advantages.

Finally, there is a twilight zone that exists between what a section of the parivar aspires to and what the government believes constitute its main priorities. Over the past month, for example, there has been a spirited debate involving different elements of the rainbow coalition that supported Mr Modi during the election campaign over the meaning of the 2014 verdict. One section, not very influential in society but important in the intellectual hierarchy of Hindu nationalism — a force that includes the BJP, Sangh Parivar affiliates and a range of autonomous initiatives — believes, for example, that 2014 was the turning point when the Hindus of India voted as Hindu for a radical assertion of self-identity. By this logic, Mr Modi won the election because Hindus wanted to reverse the reckless secularist denigration of Hindu society. For this group, the main items of the national agenda aren’t either the creation of a national market through the Goods and Services Tax or the “Make in India” initiative. To them, Mr Modi must focus on outstanding grievances of Hindus, notably statutory checks on the activities of foreign-funded Christian missionaries, the possible enactment of an anti-conversion law and the exemption of Hindu endowments from the purview of the Right to Education Act as has been given to minority institutions. Other issues such as the rectification of history textbooks and the compulsory teaching of Sanskrit at all levels flow from this larger “Hindu” mission.

As opposed to this body, there are equally important individuals, both in the BJP and outside, that feel that Mr Modi was primarily elected to lead India into a zone of economic prosperity, perhaps by replicating what he did as chief minister of Gujarat for 13 years. They are guided by Mr Modi’s assurance in his Independence Day speech last year to have a 10-year moratorium on contentious issues, especially those that have a bearing on the touchy subject of religious identity. They would rather the Prime Minister and his government focus all their energies to secure the economic regeneration of India. Social engineering, it is felt, should strictly be a consequence of India’s overall modernisation.

It is not that the Hindu Right and the pro-development forces are mutually exclusive. There is considerable overlap between the two. Even within the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, there are those who would rather the social engineering project is confined to moulding the values of individuals rather than social collectives. But whatever the strategic weightage of the two groups in politics, Mr Modi is anxious that they co-exist in broad harmony so as to avert the type of conflict that was visible in the latter part of the 1998-2004 National Democratic Alliance government.

However, a non-confrontational relationship can only happen if there is complete clarity on red lines. In the economic sphere, for example, Mr Modi has signalled a big no-no to complete privatisation and a strengthening of certain state-run institutions. On the welfare front, the government has attached importance to efficiency and delivery of existing schemes, without scrapping any. Unfortunately, there have been no corresponding red lines drawn in the attempts to reorder social organisation. Consequently, the responses to a project such as “ghar wapsi”, has been confused and incoherent.

Maybe the new pressures on the system caused by the new political churning were unanticipated. But now that the challenges have emerged, the Prime Minister cannot delay in hammering out a settlement between the BJP and other Sangh Parivar affiliates. This won’t resolve the irritations likely to be created by the uber-Hindu brigade but at least the type of problem that surfaced earlier this winter may not be repeated.

The writer is a senior journalist