Few require reminding that whenever she was beleaguered, Indira Gandhi blamed the “foreign hand”. She found the cause of her ineptness in the acumen of others. This behaviour was displayed in two episodes — the first time in the early 1970s as her regime floundered after she failed to counter the Opposition’s challenge over a plethora of issues. Her paranoia about external forces resurfaced during her comeback innings in the 1980s. In the second episode, she blamed everything, from militancy in Punjab to rising communal incidents in the rest of the country, on the “foreign hand” once again.
The first time Mrs Gandhi countered the “external threat” by suspending fundamental rights, but on the second occasion she ran out of time. Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently conjured a similar plot against him and his government. He alleged that non-governmental organisations with foreign funding were plotting against his government because he “told a few NGOs to give us an account of the foreign funds that they spend here.”
These NGOs are not alone in the attempt to “finish him”. They are allies of Opposition parties and Mr Modi compared them to “black marketeers of urea, whose pilferage and diversion for use in chemical factories” has been halted by his government. Besieged governments always strike a self-righteous stance. Will
Mr Modi’s paranoia stop at this or will he follow the route Mrs Gandhi took in the 1970s?
Was Mr Modi’s claim a one-off statement or will it become a recurring theme and eventually demonstrate that Lal Krishna Advani’s fear of another Emergency was true? It is too early to hazard a guess but certain developments and the response of the Bharatiya Janata Party to some recent events do require a close look to assess if the political discourse is being altered by the party and how.
The past fortnight has been dominated by the unfolding events in Jawaharlal Nehru University and the shadow it has cast on politics and national debate. The BJP has responded to this by expanding the thrust of the party’s campaign from an avowedly majoritarian agenda to an ultra-nationalistic plank.
In one single stroke every adversary, ranging from liberals to social democrats to parliamentary Communists, ultra-Leftists and even terrorists, have been clubbed together as anti-national forces. It is unpatriotic if one questions the execution of Afzal Guru and argues that he was denied a fair trial. But it was not anti-national in January 1989 when many Opposition leaders — including Atal Behari Vajpayee — made a last-ditch attempt to save Kehar Singh from the gallows after he was condemned for allegedly conspiring to assassinate Mrs Gandhi.
Though leading journalists and scholars questioned the fairness of the trial then, no one accused them of being traitors. Does this not indicate convenient double-standards? Painting every person holding a different opinion of Afzal Guru’s involvement in the attack on Parliament as anti-national is blatantly against the spirit of democracy. Similarly, it is totally authoritarian to present only one view of nationalism as the correct one. No nation, except autocratic states or dictatorships, can have an “official” definition of nationalism and what constitutes the nation.
For the past nine decades, at least since the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh was formed, the organisation and its affiliates have propagated the principle of cultural nationalism which has been distinct from territorial nationalism advanced by a large number of critics of the Sangh Parivar.
There are other views of nationalism too and some political groups, while participating in every process of the state, juxtapose nationalism with internationalism that is presented as a more politically appropriate tenet. Yet, in its exuberant campaign — cleverly blended with slander — the Sangh Parivar is arguing that only its view of the nation and what constitutes a threat to Bharat Mata is the truism for the day.
The imagery of Bharat Mata is invoked despite the deity being a “cultural belief” and not a constitutional entity. Because the nation is projected as a goddess, she has to be perfect and cannot have any faults. Anyone arguing that a certain form of nationalism is narrow or non-inclusive is forthrightly condemned and not given the opportunity to present the viewpoint.
In theocracies, blasphemy is among the most abominable crimes. In democracies and even in non-theocratic autocratic states, sedition is the parallel. Yet official after official and leader after leader is presenting the two as being one and the same. In India ruled by the BJP, the nation is God — or Goddess.
Consequently, anyone questioning its basis or scrutinising decisions of the state that involve “security” of the nation is accused of committing an act of blasphemy. But, because this crime is non-existent in Indian penal laws, the accused are charged with sedition while a vicious campaign is launched against those who campaign for the release of those arrested.
Modern educational institutes are anathema to the Sangh Parivar because of the ingrained spirit of inquiry in these campuses. No academic study or research in democratic societies can be pursued within a narrow framework because there is nothing called the final truth. Institutions that have broken hierarchical structures between teacher and students democratise pedagogy.
Several educational institutions have come under attack in the National Democratic Alliance regime because they question the system of education that the Sangh Parivar believes in, under which there is only one purveyor of truth. Institutions like JNU, despite shortcomings, are not educational factories producing straightjacketed degree holders that a system believing in regimentation needs.
The attack on JNU is ferocious not because of the nature of programme on that controversial evening but because the university has for long been a metaphor for everything abhorred by the Sangh Parivar. The BJP has embarked on a dangerous trajectory in its attempt to expand the majoritarian plank into an ultra-nationalistic slogan. In the short run, this strategy will lead to further discord between the Treasury Benches and the Opposition. Peculiarly, this does not worry the leadership. When government is unconcerned about governance, fears about the course that the party may be contemplating for the future are genuine.
