Since Prime Minister Narendra Modi runs what is manifestly a one-man government, it is all the more intriguing that he is totally reluctant publicly to reprimand or even deplore any of his followers — ministers, MPs and supporters belonging to any of the numerous outfits in the sprawling Sangh Parivar — no matter how horrendous their wrongdoing. The murky story began with minister of state Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s declaration that supporter of the Bharatiya Janata Party were “Ramzadas” (children of Ram) and all others “Haramzadas” (b******s). During the inevitable uproar over this in Parliament, Mr Modi conveniently stayed away. A senior Cabinet minister informed the House that at a closed-door meeting of their party the Prime Minister had “disapproved” of the sadhvi’s utterance.
Thereafter she offered an apology of sorts. This, according to BJP leaders, was the “end of the matter”. But Opposition parties in both Houses refused to accept this diktat. The Rajya Sabha, where the government is in a minority, was disrupted for several days. Barely had this crisis been sorted out by a “consensus statement” read out by vice-president Hamid Ansari, who also presides over the Upper House of Parliament, when exploded a far bigger row that is nowhere near resolution, if only because the issue — conversion from one religion to another — is far more serious and emotive.
The issue arose because, on December 8, in a shantytown close to Agra, Uttar Pradesh, activists of Dharma Jagran Samiti and the Bajrang Dal, led by Nand Kishore Balmiki, held a ceremony that symbolised the “re-conversion” of the Muslims of the area into the Hindu fold. Significantly, the “re-conversional ritual” was described as “ghar wapsi” or homecoming. The problem, however, was that those supposedly brought back to Hinduism complained that the entire stratagem was gone through by promising them (the poorest of the poor) BPL (below poverty level) cards, and Aadhaar cards precious to the Muslims concerned because they were immigrants, most probably from Bangladesh. Two factors greatly intensified the already massive row over conversions that followed.
The first was that those supposedly “brought home” continued to observe all Muslim rituals. Second, Hindutva leaders much senior to the sponsors of the Agra episode announced that 400 Christians and 100 Muslims would be “re-converted” on Christmas (sorry, Good Governance) Day in Aligarh. This project has since been “cancelled” but the Hindutva diehards are proclaiming most vehemently that it has only been “postponed.” No wonder religious tension in the region has worsened because Mr Balmiki was arrested on December 16 for converting citizens by allurement, and more arrests are expected.
Naturally, the Opposition in both the Houses of Parliament demanded a thorough debate on the issue but it could not take place because Mr Modi, arguably the most articulate person and most powerful orator among Indian politicians, opted once again for coy silence on a crucial issue. The BJP’s position, as explained by the parliamentary affairs minister, Venkaiah Naidu, is that the BJP welcomes a debate on the subject but sees no need for the Prime Minister’s intervention in it.
He argues that the government functions collectively, and the Union home minister would reply to the debate because the subject is handled by his ministry. The most emphatic part of Mr Naidu’s speech was that his party was ready to pass an anti-conversion law right away. But would the “so-called secularist parties” support it? As expected, almost all Opposition parties are opposed to such a law.
They cited eminent jurists who underscore that the relevant Article 25 of the Constitution, the existing laws of the country and the Supreme Court’s rulings on the subject had already ensured that conversions by force, fraud or allurement were illegal and punishable. At the same time, some supporters of the BJP are pointing out that at the time of Meenakshipuram conversions in 1982 that led to violence Indira Gandhi had advised the states to enact laws against such activities. Several states did and these have all been upheld by the apex court.
All this was overshadowed, however, on Saturday by a speech by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh chief, Mohan Bhagwat, in Kolkata on the golden jubilee of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. He declared that “ghar wapsi” will continue because “we will bring back our own”, adding that India was a “Hindu rashtra”, which is a brazen negation of the Constitution that defines India as a “sovereign, secular and democratic state”.
Mr Bhagwat argued that those who had gone out of Hinduism “did not go voluntarily. They were “looted (sic.), or tempted into leaving… Now the thief has been caught and the world knows my belongings are with the thief. I will retrieve my belongings. This is no big deal… You will witness the change as Hindus rise.”
In this context the reason for Mr Modi’s eloquent silence on critically important issues having powerful repercussions should be crystal clear. He knows that he cannot overrule or defy the RSS and the VHP. In Gujarat he had managed to keep both at bay. But that was a small area and it had taken him a lot of time to do so.
On an all-India scale things are different. Indeed, it is noteworthy that while Mr Bhagwat was stoking the row over conversions in Kolkata, VHP leaders in Gujarat were organising “ghar wapsi” of 100 Christians. Two days before Mr Bhagwat’s policy statement, the head of the Dharma Jagriti Samiti in the most populous state of Uttar Pradesh, had announced: “Our target is to make India a Hindu Rashtra by 2021. The Muslims and Christians have no right to stay here. So they would either be converted to Hinduism or forced to run away from here.” Such an outlook and approach are dangerously divisive; if persisted in, they cannot but destroy both democracy and national unity. In the consequent anarchy, it would be meaningless to talk of development and good governance.
