Like countless Indians, I have begun living in perpetual fear of being declared anti-national. To be bestowed with such honorific, one needn’t have committed or participated in activities similar to heroic actions of freedom fighters, or indulged in the sort of violence that terrorists and other radical groups have resorted to in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir, the north-eastern states or in the districts falling in the so-called Red Corridor. One can be said to have committed a seditious act by publicly declaring that the government must talk to people who are most likely to have the power to plead with Kashmiri people, especially the youth, that provocative stone-throwing and other forms of violent protests do not help anyone’s cause. Someone can be labelled anti-national for arguing that thousands of people who chant the mantra of azadi are not doing so after being briefed by infiltrators from across the border; they are acting of their own volition for reasons that the State must understand if it is not to lose the people of the region.
Groups like Amnesty International India have already been charged with sedition for mounting a campaign against atrocities committed by the security forces and providing a platform to people who have suffered human losses in two and a half decades. Actress-turned-politician Ramya or Divya Spandana, who is also a former member of the Lok Sabha, stand accused of sedition for declaring that Pakistan is not anything like “hell” as claimed by Manohar Parrikar. It is a different matter that no one accuses Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Rajnath Singh of betraying India’s cause by visiting that country. Indeed, there are countless people who can be declared as treacherous because they think that protesting is their democratic right. Why, it is also possible that by the time someone finishes reading this column, s/he may deem it offensive and provocative, written with the aim of inciting people. Intolerance for any viewpoint different from the government’s has never been as virulent as it is now.
Since early this year, specially after the incident in Jawaharlal Nehru University, it has been argued that anti-national forces abuse freedom of expression and in its name weaken the foundations of the Indian nation. Leaders and activists of the Bharatiya Janata Party struck an ultra-nationalistic chord, and because this resonated with a section of people loudly, the democratic space and right to dissent is endangered. From a theoretical viewpoint, the argument is valid because democratic rights shouldn’t be misused to subvert the nation. The problem with the Sangh Parivar is that it misuses a valid premise to argue that any opinion at variance with its perspective harms the Indian cause. The matter of what actually transpired in JNU is sub-judice, but in recent months people opposing AFSPA, or environmental activists have been dubbed sympathisers of terrorists and human rights groups. Campaigners against human rights violations in the name of combating terrorism are painted active partners in anti-India programmes.
While in the name of curbing anti-nationalism all forms of democratic protest is being branded anti-democratic. Protesters like gau rakshaks have been either getting patronage or law-enforcing agencies have turned a blind eye to their vigilantism. Mr Modi belatedly disapproved of a section of gau rakshaks but did not call for an end to such activity. Instead, he created two categories of gau rakshaks, on the model of the good Taliban and bad Taliban. Self-styled law enforcers are more damaging than alleged anti-nationals but while the former are praised, the latter are pilloried. Peculiarly, the government has been speaking in two voices on crucial issues since it assumed office. Mr Modi’s silences are legendary but even when he found his voice, the words chosen were weak and had little impact. When he spoke about the Dadri lynching last year, he said the incident saddened him while he needed to be angry. When he spoke on gau rakshaks a few weeks ago, he passed the buck to states but didn’t issue diktat for governments run by his party.
The latest instance of the government’s forked tongue is the divergence between Arun Jaitley and Mr Modi’s comments on the situation in Kashmir. While Mr Jaitley played to the gallery accusing every protester and their sympathisers as Pakistani agents, Mr Modi took a conciliatory stance. But for his position to gain currency, the Prime Minister has to ensure that viewpoints other than his party’s are not summarily dubbed anti-national. This, however, is unlikely because a day after the meeting with Opposition leaders from Jammu and Kashmir, he spoke in a different vein to party leaders, shared the stage with Mr Jaitley and went back to the ultra-nationalistic pitch of the party. Clearly, Mr Modi as Prime Minister has an approach different from that of Mr Modi as the party’s electoral mascot. Dissent has a long tradition in India and people pride on being contrarians.
Because the BJP constantly accuses other parties of appeasing religious minorities and for its claims of Hindutva being the basis of Indian nationalism, there is need to remind its leaders that Hinduism is a pluralistic religion and the culture of protest has been its integral part. The Bhakti Movement, which has given India great sages and poets, including Guru Nanak and Kabir, emerged only after challenging religious orthodoxy of the time. Social reform movements in the 19th and 20th centuries also challenged Hindu obscurantism. I wonder how Raja Rammohun Roy would have been looked through today’s dominant prism. Would he also have been dubbed anti-national because his actions enabled early colonialists to portray India — and Hindu society — in a poor light. Or for that matter, would Sangh Parivar icon V.D. Savarkar have been allowed to lead protests to allow dalits the right to enter temples because it showed Hindu society in a poor light in Ratnagiri, where he was interned in the 1920s? India is seeing the emergence of coercive nationalism and only one view of the nation is deemed patriotic. Visions of the nation at variance with the Sangh Parivar’s is being condemned. India faces a grave threat to its plurality because the government’s ultra-nationalist jargon is seamlessly integrated with its stance on minority issues. Clearly, efforts are on to replace one view of the nation with another, and with coercion.
