Aakar Patel
A story under this headline was reported this month: ‘No Muslim name finds place in BJP’s Bengal list’. The story went on to provide readers with the numbers—that is to say, how many tickets were distributed and so on—but beyond that headline, there is not much to add. This does not surprise most of us, because the data since 2014 have taught us what the BJP wants. In the last three Lok Sabhas, the Bharatiya Janata Party has won 282, 303, and 260 seats, with no Muslims among them. It has over 100 MPs in the Rajya Sabha with no Muslim representation.
Also Read
A decade or so ago, it was reported that it had over a thousand MLAs across India, of whom only one was Muslim. There is no Muslim minister in the Union Cabinet—something we are seeing for the first time since 1947. Again, this does not surprise us because, if there is one thing to be appreciated about the BJP, it is its honesty.
The party, especially in its current form under the prime minister, is clear about the fact that it seeks the total exclusion of India’s largest minority, against whom it holds historical resentment. We need not go into the merits of this sentiment other than to acknowledge that this is how the party and many of its supporters feel. The issue to consider is something else: why, given how clear the BJP—and the prime minister in particular—are about pushing this exclusion, do we then hear slogans like ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vishwas’ and references to ‘Rs 140 crore Indians’? The party and its leader could just as well be honest and craft slogans that are as exclusionary as their behaviour, but they do not. Why? There are two ways to answer this, and the first is the less complicated one. The slogans are coined and regurgitated to assuage those who are anxious about such issues. They do not mean much because the reality of exclusion is evident in practice. This answer is not particularly satisfying, because it does not address why the BJP needs to do this at all, given the transparency of its practices. It also does not account for the fact that, in being full-throated and unapologetic about the exclusion and persecution of Muslims, the prime minister has won over many people who want this kind of behaviour and this kind of society.
The real reason the party and the prime minister are compelled into this contradiction is that their desire for total exclusion does not sit well with Indian society and culture. Who invokes phrases like ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ in their manifesto? It is not the Opposition or the intelligentsia— it is the BJP. The party draws on Indian wisdom when presenting its message, even while promoting something else. The constituency for the BJP’s more explicit agenda exists, of course, but it is smaller than its total voter base. It is for this reason that ‘development’ is, or at least was, such a large part of the party plank. The harsher elements must be concealed in formal declarations, especially when engaging with the wider world. Our poor diplomats have to juggle with this dilemma of acting brutishly at home while pretending to be liberal abroad.
On one of his visits to the US, Foreign Minister Jaishankar had an interview with Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor, Gen. H.R. McMaster. The general, who is familiar with India and has visited it, asked: ‘I wanted to ask you about how you see political developments in your own country. You are not a partisan person. You have served with great distinction across many administrations. There is concern, in the midst of the pandemic, about some of these Hindutva policies that could be undermining the secular nature of Indian democracy… Are India’s friends right to be concerned about some of these recent trends?’ Jaishankar avoided answering the question directly and instead spoke about ration distribution and cash transfers. He did not address the specific concerns regarding Hindutva policies that McMaster raised. What are these concerns? They include the introduction of religion into citizenship; new laws criminalising aspects of Muslim marriage and divorce; laws criminalising the possession of beef; the forced ghettoisation of Muslims in Gujarat; the use of shotguns on crowds only in one part of India — Kashmir — and the demonisation by the government of Muslims, including for spreading Covid. These are the issues that India’s friends were concerned about. Jaishankar responded without using the word ‘Hindutva’ once and without referring to the laws for which India has faced international criticism.
The reason he avoided the debate, of course, is that there is little defence. Obfuscation and evasion were the only ways to respond to the accusation—one that critics argue is valid—that India is harming itself and its people through such policies. This should offer some hope, even if it is just a sliver, to those who worry about our society—where it has arrived and where it is headed. If even those who promote division along religious lines find it uncomfortable to openly defend their positions when challenged, it suggests that this is not ultimately who we want to be, nor who we truly are.
Orissa POST – Odisha’s No.1 English Daily
