This may be Narendra Modi’s government, but India may be on its way to becoming Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s republic. The signs point that way. The government is either helpless, or is a silent accomplice — silent because it still wishes to be seen as upholding the panoply of democracy. Not doing so could be risky at this stage when the RSS, its progenitor, still enjoys only limited influence in the country, and is by no means ready for a takeover (although its firmans ring loud and menacing).
That day could come if things go badly for India, strategically speaking. We are far from there, though. One reason is we are way too big for the RSS, or any totalitarian thought — and also way too diverse, especially in the mainland of Hindu terrain that the RSS has been trying for 90 years to homogenise. “RSS republic” is, of course, not the same as Hindu Republic, although the Hindutva mother-body seeks to glamorise itself as the torch-bearer of Hindu society and falsely presents itself as the renewer of Hinduism, its mojadidi. Witness its shrill and deeply divisive “ghar wapsi” or re-conversion pitch aimed at converting, foremost, the petty bourgeois and poor class Hindu (its presumed votebank) to its cause.
The supporting noise from senior Bharatiya Janata Party leaders in positions of power is revealing. It points to close coordination with an unelected outfit — which is transformed into an extra-constitutional authority when the BJP assumes power with a majority of its own in Parliament. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has tactically avoided lending his voice to the re-conversion cacophony. Hence his deafening silence in Parliament. He has perforce to be mindful of his constitutional status when his cohorts are running a campaign that is repugnant to the Constitution.
The notion of a republic associated with any religion is dubious, for a republic is, by definition, founded on non-sectarian principles that embrace the equality of citizens, irrespective of faith or hierarchies. But the idea of a Hindu republic is doubly confounding. Unlike the so-called Islamic republics, which are governed by the basic laws of Islam (and less of a republic), there can be no basic laws of Hinduism governing a Hindu republic. These simply don’t exist. A Hindu view of state has not been propounded. The RSS is not about to propound one. It simply can’t. In fact, it is not a body of Hindus in any religious sense. It is a deep-going political outfit. It is, of course, a serious player.
The RSS seeks to ride to power and retain it for the long term by continuing to mobilise citizens in the name of the religion of the majority and presenting the minorities as the hostile “other”. (Witness, for instance, the “Ramzada-haramzada” dichotomy emphasised by a Union minister.) Confrontations with the past are set up; the imagined victims of history sought to be consoled as part of the ploy.
But since this alone won’t do in the democratic jostle at elections, the saffron leadership plays on secular slogans and the mistakes of non-sectarian political parties. Its mantra at present is “development”, although in the six months in which its representatives have adorned top office, there are few steps taken in that direction, if “development” is understood to be the use of national resources for the betterment of the lives of the people, particularly those most in need.
In fact, the opposite has been observed. A fat cat like Adani, a known bag carrier of Mr Modi since his days as chief minister, has been given a loan of one billion US dollars or about Rs 6,000 crore by the SBI to invest in Australia. Did he first try the private banks — in India or Australia? Has any other industrialist received such a fat purse from any public bank in a single transaction?
More, was due diligence done by SBI in advancing the loan? Probably not, since the magnitudes are awesome. So, did the government weigh in at the highest level? Probably yes. This is as clear-cut a definition of crony capitalism as one might expect. Therefore, just to clarify matters, should there be an investigation by appropriate authorities under Supreme Court guidance? Indubitably yes. We can’t have such staggering sums vanishing into one man’s pocket and wait for non-performing assets (NPAs, or loans not returned) to pile up.
If this is what the trope of “development” and “good governance” can be reduced to under the tallest men of the BJP guided by the RSS, then God help us. By the same token of good governance, this year Gandhi Jayanti (October 2) was shoved into the background by the PM’s “Swachh Bharat Abhiyan” (the cleaning up of streets by preening politicians) calculatedly inaugurated on the same day, Indira Gandhi’s death anniversary on October 31 sent to the dustbin in favour of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s birth anniversary the same day, the Christmas day nearly sent packing (but for a media outcry) in favour of holding an essay-writing and declamation contest in schools, and the old Planning Commission disbanded though another body or bodies will be doing similar things.
That’s RSS’, and by association the BJP’s, distillation of the idea of development and good governance. But what’s their view of parliamentary democracy that our Constitution decrees? How do they propose to manage state power — in a democratic way to further the institutions of democracy, or concentrate power in the hands of a chief who will advance the agenda of the RSS, a quasi-secret body?
We need look no farther than the conduct of government by Mr Modi and his relationship to Parliament. Mr Modi clearly looks down upon Parliament. He hardly ever sets foot in its chambers to engage on policy issues with the Opposition. He shuns discussions on matters agitating the public sphere even in his public appearances. Two-way interactions with the media — where questions are asked — are history. Mr Modi’s ministers have been frightened into submission. The bureaucracy reports to work on time, but is kept busy looking over its shoulder. We have arrived at the most graphic case of the leader at the top as the issuer of instruction and the great thriver on state propaganda — the one leader syndrome at its most succinct.
