Modi’s soft rebuke to bigots

It was only after President Pranab Mukherjee stressed the core civilisational values of tolerance, diversity and plurality as being intrinsic to the survival of India, did PM Narendra Modi come out with a statement whether the people wanted to “fight each other or fight poverty. ”

However, he made no reference to the Dadri killing, nor did he caution his party colleagues who have been defending the killing, if not exactly justifying it, using a combination of clever language-use, innuendoes and even threats.

While politicians squabble and the governance gets more oppressive than effective, leaning one way or the other, sections of intellectual class have risen in an unprecedented protest against intolerance and organised violence.

Twenty-five writers so far have returned the Sahitya Akademi awards, and other literary honours. They come from different regions and religions and write in different languages

When framers of the Constitution determined the role of the presidency, they neither intended nor anticipated the need to make it the guardian of country’s pluralism and its inclusive ethos.

Yet, like higher judiciary, the presidency, too, has had to perform this role. The judiciary minces no words, while the presidency, conscious of being part of a system that is essentially parliamentary, has gracefully understated it, hoping the message would be heeded.

President Pranab Mukherjee did precisely that, in a speech and in an interview to a Jordanian newspaper before his West Asia visit.

The context of what he said was the killing by a lynch mob in Dadri, 50 kilometer away from the national capital, of Mohammed Akhlaq, a Muslim blacksmith, on suspicion that he had slaughtered a cow, was storing beef and was planning to cook it. No evidence was found.

The President said India’s “core civilisational values” of tolerance, celebrating diversity and plurality are intrinsic to its survival.

He evocatively pointed out that these principles form the bedrock not only of the “marvel of our democracy but also of India’s ancient culture which has survived for centuries while others perished.”

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seized the President’s message to counsel calm asking, amidst his Bihar polls campaign, whether the people wanted to “fight each other or fight poverty.” Well said, and the media, desperately waiting for a full week for Modi to speak, lapped it up, even welcomed it.

But what did Modi say, and why he took so long? Indeed, he made no reference to the Dadri killing, nor did he caution his party colleagues who have been defending the killing, if not exactly justifying it, using a combination of clever language-use, innuendoes and even threats.

Was Modi unaware that his culture minister and local MP Mahesh Sharma had said the killing was “an accident” and that it was caused by ‘excitement’ and that the BJP leaders, including lawmakers, had pointed “hurt sentiments” to justifying mob violence.

Save one oblique reference, hiding behind the president, Modi continued with his electoral broadside, even as his party leaders like Sushil Modi queer the pitch further. Sushil asked Bihar electorate to decide between those who eat beef and those who do not.

There is no indication that with Bihar polls hogging his attention – that is, when he is not on a foreign visit – Modi has done anything to shut the communal motor-mouths of his party.

The same day as the PM spoke in Bihar, his party MLAs in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly assaulted and collectively beat up an independent legislator Engineer Rashid inside the House, for hosting a beef party.

The Modi government was stung by criticism from US President Barack Obama, a week after being feted as the chief guest at the Republic Day in January, when a Delhi church was vandalised. Is the government awaiting a similar rebuke from some foreign quarter?

Modi, it would seem, brings out the best and worst in people. He talks one language when abroad and on social media. His rhetoric is invigorating to his listeners.

But at home, he is either giving slogans or engages in pious generalities, like sabka saath, sabka vikas - without getting into the specifics.

When it comes to targeting of minorities by the Sangh Parivar, of which he remains an inherent part, except once when he addressed his parliamentary party last year, he has not disapproved of its bigots for their fanaticism.

He harps on the development agenda, which gives his genteel supporters a fig leaf with which to cover the bigots’ actions. Modi reassures his political base with this tight-rope walk.

The mob violence took place in Uttar Pradesh, ruled by Samajwadi Party that professes secularism and protection for the religious minorities whose vote had earned it its current mandate.

But the father-son duo at the helm has failed to anticipate the mischief, yet again, after last year’s Muzaffarnagar carnage.The state government has stopped governing and the failure is phenomenal.

Compounding this, its minister Azam Khan has appealed to the United Nations against the union government. Khan has thus expressed lack of confidence in his own party’s government.

He has added to the “bad name” that, as per finance minister Arun Jaitley. The country has earned with Akhlaq’s killing.With all powers at disposal – and the responsibility – to control law and order in UP, it took Mulayam Singh Yadav over a week to meekly accuse “three persons from a specific party” being behind the Dadri killing.

Mulayam's own home district of Mainpuri witnessed mob fury over same rumour of cow slaughter. He faces a big challenge from the very forces whom he courts off and on.

The main opposition Congress has done little beyond Rahul Gandhi posting some pious words on social media. Apparently, the BJP wants to conquer UP with the emotive issue of cow.

Most of the incidents are engineered by floating rumours and then crowd seeks to dispense instant justice. A legal argument is being put forth that it was a crowd at Dadri and Mainpuri and therefore none is responsible. Same argument was extended when Babri Masjid structure was demolished. Dangerous times confront us.

While the political class as a whole has failed, it was left to the Indian Air Force to shift the family to a safe place since Akhlaq’s younger son Mohammed Sartaj is a Corporal on its force.

And while politicians squabble and the governance gets more oppressive than effective, leaning one way or the other, sections of intellectual class have risen in an unprecedented protest against intolerance and organized violence.

Twenty-five of them have returned the Sahitya Akademi awards, and other literary honours. They come from different regions and religions and write in different languages.

Novelist Nayantara Sahgal, a niece of first premier Jawaharlal Nehru began it. Ashok Vajpayi and Uday Prakash write in Hindi. Sarah Joseph from Kerala writes in Malayalam. Rahman Abbas who writes in Urdu is from Maharashtra. Writers from Punjab and Delhi have joined in.

Led by novelist Shashi Deshpande, writers from Karnataka, that has a better record of intellectual tolerance, have returned awards, belatedly though, to protest the assassination of educationist M M Kalburgi, known to espouse rational views that angered the conservatives.

Two other rationalists, Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansere have been murdered in Mahaashtra. None is convicted yet. Ironically, but happily, uniting these educated is the murder of Akhlaq, an unlettered man. So, there is hope.

By:Mahendra Ved