This year marked four decades since the imposition of Emergency in India, which suspended constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights. Ironically, jail for Bharatiya Janata Party leaders was political purgatory, allowing them to overcome their lack of a prominent role in India’s freedom struggle. Leaders that crafted the rise of the BJP as a political force, like L.K. Advani and Atal Behari Vajpayee, understood the need to balance the core Hindutva beliefs of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh against the provisions of the Indian Constitution, which safeguarded fundamental rights that were not only universal, but in harmony with Indian values of respect for all religions and tolerance. The rise of Narendra Modi and his year and a half of governance, however, have revived questions about his commitment to the subtle balance between religion and law epitomised by Prime Minister Vajpayee, the first leader of the BJP to be Prime Minister.
A majoritarian approach to socio-religious issues has manifested itself in multiple forms ranging from attacks, including fatal ones, on writers/rationalists, activism against beef production and sale, “ghar wapsi” or religious reconversions, lynching by self-appointed guardians of these values and, basically, mainstreaming of intolerance. Abetment and verbal endorsement by some members of the Union Council of Ministers or elected BJP members of state legislatures or Parliament, and even more aggressive posturing by fringes of the Sangh Parivar, accompanied by first the silence of the Prime Minister and then an extremely delayed reaction, has generated an odious environment antithetical to rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
The question that arises is whether this will impact India’s image abroad or have diplomatic consequences. The last time India came under serious international scrutiny for endangering freedom of faith was after the destruction of the Babri Masjid in 1992. The late J.N. Dixit, former foreign secretary and national security adviser, recalled calling the then Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, while attending a Saarc meeting in Dhaka to convey that member nations were concerned about the situation. Prime Minister Rao retorted whether the foreign secretary was now going to advise on domestic policy. The immediate consequence was the prompt ransacking of temples in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Mobs overran the residence of the Indian consul-general in Karachi, leading to the shutting of the consulate, which remains closed to date. Mobs protested in Tehran, UAE, etc., outside Indian missions. The UAE did promptly deport some rowdy Pakistanis, including principals of Pakistani schools that shut in protest. However, it put India on the back-foot amongst the Islamic countries, from which it took months of determined diplomacy to recover. By the time the Godhra riots occurred two elements had changed. One, the Islamic world was reeling under the reaction of the US and its allies to the 9/11 attacks, including military intervention in Afghanistan. Two, India was now a nuclear-weapon state with a booming economy and growing proximity to the US. The reaction of the West focused mainly on the then Gujarat chief minister, Narendra Modi, rather than the Union government. He was denied a visa and put on their watch lists for undermining freedom of religion.
Prime Minister Modi must realise that while the US and other Western nations have chosen to ignore the past, focusing on his promise to be an agent of economic change and development, their concerns can re-surface. The New York Times on October 2, 2015 headlined an editorial “India’s Attack on Free Speech”. Eminent Indian authors returning awards have kept the issue alive. Additionally, since 2006, the reformed United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has been conducting a universal periodic review of the human rights record of all countries. The current and second four-year cycle ends in 2016. India, having undergone review in 2012, should be up for it again in 2016-17. As a constant member of the UNHRC, India needs to ensure that its record is not adversely noted.
Of course, the world has different rules for powerful nations. Chinese President Xi Jinping has just addressed both Houses of British Parliament, an honour so far reserved for leaders of democratic nations. In fact, the immediate previous leader to address both the Houses was Aung San Suu Kyi, the symbol of democratic hope in Myanmar. This is far removed from how China was treated after the Tiananmen Square carnage in 1989, with sanctions clamped and trade disrupted. The suppression of Islam in Xinjiang, including restrictions on hijab, Ramzan fasting, etc., and brutal cultural repression unleashed on the Tibetans are today generally ignored by the liberal banner carriers in the West or even Islamic nations.
Be that as it may, India must not become a Hindu version of Han China. The much touted China model, with economic success justifying socio-political conformism, requires naturally to be contested by an Indian model, as indeed it has been for many millennia. The 7th century Indian Buddhist monks enquired from their Chinese counterparts that if China was the Middle Kingdom with a heavenly mandate then why did Lord Gautam Buddha take birth in India and not China? India must perpetuate this tradition and be the citadel of liberal values that are integral to Indian culture and thought, thus becoming a counter-point to the Chinese value-system.
The Bihar election is an inflexion point for Prime Minister Modi to draw lessons for future governance. A defeat may teach him that he needs to align his politics with the mean that Mr Vajpayee instinctively espoused. A success may blind him to the need for course correction. It is becoming obvious, however, to most analysts that an open economy and a shut mind are ill suited to Indian conditions, because India is not China, nor needs to become one.
The writer is a former secretary in the external affairs ministry. He tweets at @ambkcsingh
