Chanakya's view:Threshold of hate

As I heard the hate speeches on TV of Giriraj Singh and Pravin Togadia, and the communal tirade of Ramdas Kadam of the Shiv Sena in the presence on stage of Narendra Modi, I could not but think that our worst fears of what a Modi-led Bharatiya Janata Party could mean for India were coming true. Governance and development may be the projected goals, but this carefully portrayed facade is visibly unpeeling in the heat of the elections.

On a television debate a few days ago I was appalled to hear Meenakshi Lekhi allude to the need for a demographic cap for Muslims. There was, at least to my mind, an unmistakable contempt in her denouncement, a sense of “I will say what I feel and I couldn’t care a damn what you think”. A similar sense of dread had seized me when on another debate on TV the BJP spokesman from Gujarat had casually dismissed any allegations about encounter killings by saying that this is part of our anti-terrorist policies: we will decide who is a terrorist, and will kill them in cold blood without any regard for due process of law.

The pronouncements of Amit Shah, the right hand of the BJP’s supreme leader, is a frightening trailer too of the venom that has now been introduced in our country’s political space.

Recent speeches of leaders of other parties have also been alarming. Azam Khan’s attempt to give a communal colour to our armed forces, and Imran Masood’s threat to chop political opponents into tiny pieces deserve equal condemnation. Action begets reaction, and reaction begets action again. It is a vicious cycle of hate and violence.

The tone and tenor of the discourse in this election brings out clearly that this is by far the most religiously polarised election in our democratic history. Why has this happened? Who has encouraged this to happen? What forces are seeking to reopen the national consensus on the Republic of India’s acceptance and celebration of the plural and secular reality of our country? And, most importantly, what can be the consequences of such a development?

It is important to always remember that what is at stake is not merely an election but the future of our country. Elections come and go; the principles that are relevant to the strong survival of our nation must remain our enduring bedrock. Elections should generate all the heat of competitive politics, and even some residual acrimony.

But, beyond the heat and the occasional acrimony, if the strategy of some parties is to corrode, for short-term political gain, the sacrosanct principles that define our nationhood, then the consequences can be very dangerous.

It is, of course, the unfortunate truth that all political parties have, in some measure or more, leveraged religious loyalties to consolidate their Machiavel-lian electoral arithmetic.

But, it is equally true, that no leader since 1947 has sought to come to power by working to institutionalise a permanent division among the people on the grounds of religion. The use of the religious card is condemnable; but the vision of an India divided on the basis of religion is lethal.

That the consequences of this election should not be lethal is a serious and legitimate concern. Division breeds hostility; and, hostility nurtures violence. It is not difficult to imagine what this means for a country like ours. People belonging to different faiths are scattered all across our nation. No one faith is concentrated only in one geographical area. If people of different religious faiths live in endemic suspicion and hostility, then the entire country will become a tinder box waiting to go up in flames. No one will be safe. There will be no governance, no development. We will revert to the frightening ethos of Partition, not the modern and progressive imperatives of the 21st century.

That is why Jawaharlal Nehru, in his very first letter to chief ministers in 1948, said that co-existence in our country is not just an option but a compulsion.

We need to ask why Giriraj Singh feels so emboldened today to declaim that all those who do not agree with Mr Modi can leave the country for Pakistan. He is not an ordinary figure but one of the BJP’s most prominent politicians in Bihar. He has also distinguished himself as being the most raucous supporter of Mr Modi. Does he, therefore, speak from the belief that what he says will endear him further to his leader? The leader too has not disappointed him. Mr Singh has not been asked to apologise or retract his statement; he has merely received a mild admonition.

A statesman, with the interests of India at heart, would have issued a stinging condemnation, demanded an apology and contemplated an expulsion. Similarly, Mr Togadia’s unmentionable hate speech against Muslims has not provoked outrage in those who lead the Sangh Parivar today. For them, his venomous outpouring is familiar, even perhaps understandable as part of a largely shared ideological framework.

Atal Behari Vajpayee’s historic contribution was to try and broad base the appeal of the BJP and to moderate the hardline fanatical and fundamentalist fringe within the larger Sangh Parivar. Today, that fringe appears to have become the mainstream. Its fanatics feel they have a leader who will be far more forgiving of their venom and violence, and their illiterate rants and moral policing.

What does it mean for our country if their perception is right? And what does it mean for each one of us? Governance and development are laudable goals but they are in no way incompatible with civilised behaviour and respect for other people’s views or faith. The votaries of good governance need not show this degree of intolerance to any dissenting voice. They do not need to ask their supporters to spit at those of another religion. We are a young Republic, but an ancient civilisation. Let us not tarnish the reputation of both.

Author-diplomat Pavan K. Varma’s latest book is Chanakya’s New Manifesto: To Resolve the Crisis Within India.