Headlines
Modi's modernity vs saffron orthodoxy
Historian Ayesha Jalal has writen in her latest book, "The Struggle for
Pakistan", that "at the root of Pakistan's national identity crisis has
been the unresolved debate on how to square the state's self-proclaimed
Islamic identity with the obligations of a modern nation-state".
The
same problem has begun to affect the reputation of the Narendra Modi
government in view of its inability to square its 'sabka saath, sabka
vikas' (development for all) agenda, which obviously includes the
minorities, with the tunnel vision of the Bharatiya Janata Party's (BJP)
affiliates with their aggressive pro-Hindu outlook.
But it isn't
only the affiliates who are at fault. Even the BJP itself does not
appear to be able to square the "obligations of a modern nation-state"
with the predilections of the party's orthodox elements which pander
either to the supposed dietary choices of Hindus or prefer to live in a
closed world by restricting access to the Internet or stopping a
dissenting activist from leaving the country.
As the ban on the
sale and consumption of beef in Maharashtra and Haryana shows, the
customary latitude provided by a modern country to its citizens about
what to eat is being circumscribed.
As of now, the restrictions
remain confined to the two states run by the BJP. But the possibility
that the central government may extend the fads of the BJP and its
mentor, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), to the whole country is
very much there.
That the task will be difficult in a
multicultural milieu is evident from the holding of a beef-eating
festival in Kerala, run by a coalition led by the Congress, immediately
after the Maharashtra ban.
There are also signs that not everyone
in the BJP approves of the ban. Goa Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar
has said that regardless of what the centre does, the ban will not be
enforced in his state because beef is a part of the cuisine of the
minorities who constitute nearly 40 percent of the state's population.
If
Modi is really the "avatar of modernity and progress", as the Congress
MP Shashi Tharoor once called him, he has to guard against the
preferences of those in the party and the saffron brotherhood who are
not as broadminded as the Goa chief minister.
However, at least
some in the saffron establishment are not only laying down what cannot
be eaten but also what cannot be seen. As the blanking out of the
documentary on Delhi's December 16, 2012, rape victim on the Internet
shows, the government is only one step away in this respect from
repressive regimes like China and Iran.
What is more, the
censoring was justified on the grounds that the documentary was a
Western conspiracy to defame India. The paranoia was reminiscent of the
"foreign hand" theory which Indira Gandhi floated every time she was
under pressure because of some unsavoury revelation about her party and
government.
The same attitude of fear and suspicion led to the
deplaning of a Greenpeace activist who was on her way to Britain to
depose about human rights violations.
Just as the norms of
pluralism were highlighted by Kerala's beef-eating festival and the Goa
chief minister's dissenting note, it was the judiciary which stepped in
to lift the ban on the activist travelling abroad.
But such
rebuffs bring no credit to the Modi government. As an "avatar of
modernity and progress", the prime minister should be one step ahead of
such reminders about personal liberties.
Even if the prime
minister has succeeded in silencing some of the hotheads who were
targeting Muslims with their campaigns of 'ghar wapsi' (return to the
Hindu faith) and 'love jehad' warning against Muslim boys marrying Hindu
girls, there are still areas of governance where Modi's intervention is
needed.
Otherwise, the bullet trains and smart cities will
become mere showpieces in common with the familiar adage of trains
running on time in fascistic countries if minorities live under a pall
of fear and lifestyle choices of non-saffron Hindus are under threat.
There
is little doubt that compared to the BJP's Jana Sangh past, it is now a
far more moderate party than it ever was. Barring a few like the two
MPs, Yogi Adityanath and Sakshi Maharaj, who have now apparently been
told to cool their heels, the party almost always speaks the language of
restraint and communal harmony.
It goes without saying that Modi
is personally responsible for this seminal change. There is no one else
in the party either with his dominant personality or his will to bring
the organization in line with his emphasis on economic growth who could
have achieved this feat -- not even Atal Bihari Vajpayee although he
tried to steer the party away from militant religious nationalism by his
gentle approach to the issues of the day ranging from the Ayodhya
temple to Kashmiri separatism.
Modi, in contrast, is more forthright - he wants a moratorium on sectarianism - and far from gentle in his articulation.
But
his job is still half-done, for saffron subsidiaries like the Vishwa
Hindu Parishad and mavericks like Subramanian Swamy are still beyond
control. So are the vandals who continue to target the churches.
(Amulya Ganguli is a political analyst. The views expressed are personal. He can be reached at [email protected])