Narendra Modi’s refusal to wear a skull cap or apologise for the 2002 violence, for which he is yet to be held guilty, is often interpreted by his critics as proof of his being anti-Muslim. But the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate has done well by not engaging in tokenism
One of the prominent faces missing from the lok Sabha campaign this year is that of Balasaheb Thackeray. The Shiv Sena supremo hogged the headlines for his satirical and often vituperative remarks against linguistic and religious minorities, Pakistan and, of course, his political opponents. Nevertheless, even sections of the minorities admired him for his forthrightness as against the double standards practised by secular politicians who sugarcoated their ill-will. “At least he is blunt and we know he is our adversary unlike those who stab us in the back,” was the common refrain among many Muslim intellectuals.
Coming to the present election, while one may disagree with the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi on several issues, the consistency he maintains on certain principled positions he has taken, stands out as an exception in these days of double-speak and blatant hypocrisy. Mr Modi has consistently regretted the 2002 post-Godhra violence in Gujarat, highlighted the efforts made by his administration to check the violence, yet has not rendered an apology for what he is convinced was no fault of his. Neither successive UPA Governments over the last 10 years nor the judiciary have been able to prove the charges of his involvement in the riots, which continue to remain in the realm of speculation and conspiracy theories.
And the moot question is: Given the vested interests involved for ‘secular’ parties, NGOs and Islamic organisations at the international and national levels, in terms of financial support and vote-bank politics, in projecting Mr Modi as the enemy of Muslims, even if the Gujarat Chief Minister renders an apology, will there be any buyersIJ It seems unlikely. Interestingly, no apologies are being sought for the other gruesome riots in the past — be it in Hashimpura, Maliana, Bhagalpur, Mumbai, Assam, Muzaffarnagar, or the scores of others before and after the 2002 violence.
Second, is tokenism more important than substanceIJ One has never seen Maulana Azad sporting a tilak, yet he was one of the most widely respected secular figures in the country. The same holds true for many prominent Muslim leaders who wore their traditional attire and sported their religious symbols and yet were never questioned for their secular credentials just because they did not sport a tilak. We have also seen many Muslims clerics and leaders, including Ministers in the Kerala Government, refusing to light even the traditional oil lamp while inaugurating public events. Yet the country’s intelligentsia has never targeted them or demanded an apology.
We have had Muslim students who have refused to sing the national song, asserting that it is against Islam. The song has been the inspiration for many freedom-fighters who went to the gallows with Vande Mataram on their lips. It is not a Hindu religious song. It is a song dedicated to Mother India, an expression of one’s love and loyalty to the country. ‘Hubul Watni’ (love for the country) is an integral part of Islam, yet there are people who have reservations singing the song. But no questions are asked. Students have even protested against the teaching of yoga in Government schools in Madhya Pradesh. Yet, yoga is practised across the world for health benefits and is recommended by doctors. It is a secular activity with no Hindu symbolism involved, unlike the chanting of the Saraswati vandana.
Ironically, the official airline of Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, is named after Garuda, the vehicle of lord Vishnu. Many currency notes bear the symbol of Ganesha, and Indonesians are unapologetic about playing the characters of Ramayan. Yet, our intelligentsia insists that only by a politician wearing an Islamic skull cap can the minorities be assured from him of safety and security. By that logic, Mr Modi should wear the cross to assure Christians of their safety and sport the five ‘K’s to convince the Sikhs. Can there be a more perverted logicIJ Much like patriotism, secularism too need not be worn on the sleeves just to prove a point.
On the issue of minorities, the BJP, in its poll manifesto, maintains that “it is unfortunate that even after several decades of Independence, a large section of the minority and especially Muslim community continues to be stymied in poverty.” It promises to make all communities equal partners in the country’s progress. Compare this to the outrageous statement of incumbent Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that minorities have the first right over the nation’s resources. Ironically, in our political discourse, this was certified as a commitment to secularism, and not rank communalism.
The BJP has also assured that the minority educational system and institutions will be strengthened and modernised and a national madarssa modernisation programme will be initiated. In a welcome move, the manifesto talks about setting up a permanent inter-faith consultative mechanism under religious leaders. It shows the party’s commitment to the preservation of the rich culture and heritage of minority communities alongside their social and economic empowerment.
It is also beyond comprehension as to how the BJP’s core agenda that includes Article 370, cow protection and Uniform Civil Code, and finds reflection in the manifesto, can be termed as communal. The only contentious issue is that of the Ram Mandir, where the party has talked about solving the matter within the constitutional framework.
This apart, both cow protection and the formulation of a Uniform Civil Code are part and parcel of the Constitution of India, under the Directive Principles of State Policy (Article 48). With regard to prohibition of cow slaughter, it reads, “The state shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.”
The Directive Principles also mandate the Government to endeavour to secure a Uniform Civil Code for all citizens. The BJP’s demand pertaining to Article 370 has more to do with the nation’s unity rather than any community per se. Inspite of all this, there is a deliberate attempt to portray the BJP’s core issues as part of a ‘Hindutva’ agenda. Though their inclusion has been criticised by secular-liberal critics, the fact remains that the BJP lost much of its sheen due to the dilution of these core issues (that gave the party a distinct identity vis-à-vis the Congress) in the past.
The BJP’s recent bid to reach out to Muslims through an Urdu website is also laudable, as the party has often been accused of not engaging with the minority community. As was evident from the long lines the Muzaffarnagar riot victims, living in relief camps, made to cast votes in their native villages, which they had not visited post-riots, there is an unfortunate yet apparent polarisation in this election. There is also a palpable tactical voting by the minority community to ensure the victory of any party or candidate which can defeat the BJP nominee, as is apparent from the withdrawal of the Janata Dal (United) nominee from the contest in Bihar’s Kishanganj constituency.
The BJP will do well if it sticks to its stated position of ‘justice for all and appeasement of none’ rather than make a fool of itself by resorting to gimmicks to garner the minority votes.
(The author is a senior journalist based in Delhi)