Prime Minister Narendra Modi is developing the habit of responding only to prodding of the presidential variety. The credit for securing the first response goes to American President Barack Obama. And now, after exhibiting eerie silence over the communal assault in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, Mr Modi — after President Pranab Mukherjee had shown the way — has eventually said that “there is no bigger guidance, there is no bigger message, no bigger direction” than the President’s words. Mr Mukherjee had cautioned the government against excessive use of the ordinance route.
Mr Modi paid no heed to the head of state at that time. There is no gainsaying that he will do so this time once the immediate crisis is tided over. This was probably the first time in India that the nation’s President made a political statement in the middle of a bitterly fought election. Mr Mukherjee has always played “safe”. Barring an odd occasion in his four-and-a-half decade long political career, he has never challenged dominant political forces of the time. He does not have A.P.J. Abdul Kalam’s flamboyance and has never displayed the intention to be the “political” head of state like K.R. Narayanan. Yet he declared unequivocally — and to the public — that the core values of diversity, tolerance and plurality of Indian civilisation cannot be allowed to be frittered away. Without batting an eyelid, Mr Mukherjee communicated his sentiment to the nation — that these principles enshrined in the Constitution are under threat.
The President’s remarks followed the Dadri lynching incident. The debate over Dadri may be undecided over whether the incident was triggered by remote control or not. But there was pre-determination in the calibrated endorsement of the incident in editorial columns and in public discourses by leaders of the government and the ruling party. These remarks were clearly made with foresight. Not just provocative utterances by the likes of Mahesh Sharma, Sanjeev Baliyan and Sangeet Som, but even Prime Minister’s silence was motivated.
Over the past few weeks, there have been several laboured efforts to present Mr Modi as being helpless to control the so-called fringe element within the Sangh Parivar. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh too claimed that the Dadri episode could have been the action of “fringe associations”. Initially, several leaders declared that Mr Modi cannot be expected to comment on every incident. Yet, eventually, he was forced by the President to condemn the action publicly.
The RSS has a long history of dissociating with its foot soldiers. Nathuram Godse was disowned by the RSS though he went through the organisation’s grind in his formative years. The tag of “fringe” was initially affixed on the western Uttar Pradesh duo of Mr Baliyan and Mr Som in 2013. It is argued that the challenge before Mr Modi is to steer clear of the extreme sections in his political fraternity. But the moot point is whether he wishes to make such a separation at all. Mr Modi, it is argued, knows that beyond a point the Hindutva brand of politics will be counterproductive to his development platform.
The hardliners, it is further contended, were accommodated for strategic reasons. Principal votaries of such reasoning claim that Mr Modi discarded the Hindu Hriday Samrat narrative in 2008. And that Mr Modi’s silence on occasions when he needed to speak decisively on communal issues has to be contextualised. It is not wrong to say that Mr Modi’s limitations on economic policy vis-à-vis the Sangh Parivar are more than on cultural issues. The RSS is still guided by moribund economic paradigm and believes in insulating the Indian economy. Mr Modi requires the steel frame of the RSS to win elections and mount political campaigns. Because of this he will neither be able to jettison the hard Hindutva line completely nor pursue reforms-oriented economic policies to the extent he wishes.
When he assumed power, the global perception of Mr Modi was of a rabble-rouser. Barring inviting Saarc leaders for his inaugural, Mr Modi did little to belie this assessment. Despite publicly displayed bonhomie with the President of the United States, Mr Obama communicated that to gain respect Mr Modi must fulfil his constitutional obligations. Yet, after ritualistic commitment that religious tolerance was a part of his government’s credo, Mr Modi faltered whenever necessity arose. Consequently, trapping India between hard-selling modernity in technology outside India, but bogged down by obscurantist ideas on the domestic front.
Mr Modi projects himself internationally as the first democratically elected Indian leader in three decades with an absolute majority. Whenever he gets an opportunity he stresses that he represents 1.25 billion people. But if Mr Modi wishes to project himself as a leader of the world’s largest democracy, he has to uphold values enshrined in the Indian Constitution. The world has heard Mr Mukherjee’s remark and has also taken note of what vice-president Hamid Ansari said a few days ago. It has also taken heed of Mr Modi’s words.
Democracy and tolerance have to become part of everyday philosophy. This will necessitate limiting every intolerant act and restraining every rant. Or else there will be no doubt that Mr Modi was never serious about his development speak and that the real agenda lies behind his silence.
The writer is the author of Narendra Modi: The Man, the Times
