Retired bureaucrats, educationists, and other intellectuals have often taken upon themselves the task of pricking the conscience of the nation every time there is controversy over the Hindu-Muslim relationship. But every time they make such an appeal, their impartiality gets questioned because they invariably end up supporting the narrative of Leftists, Islamists, and self-proclaimed Liberals.
A deeper analysis would show they are a part of the anti-BJP ecosystem. Remember the famous line from The Kashmir Files movie where the leading lady says: “They (the BJP-RSS) have come to power, but the system is still ours.”
Their latest salvo is the letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi written by more than 100 ex-bureaucrats on 26 April in the context of Hindu-Muslim clashes that happened during Ram Navami and Hanuman Jayanti in many Indian states including some BJP ruled states.
While expressing their concerns about the situation, they said: “…The threat we are facing is unprecedented and at stake is not just constitutional morality and conduct; it is that the unique syncretic social fabric, which is our greatest civilisational inheritance and which our Constitution is so meticulously designed to conserve, is likely to be torn apart. Your silence, in the face of this enormous societal threat, is deafening.”
They appealed to the PM to call for “an end to the politics of hate”. “We appeal to your conscience, taking heart from your promise of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas. It is our fond hope that in this year of ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav’, rising above partisan considerations, you will call for an end to the politics of hate that governments under your party’s control are so assiduously practising.”
This is not the first time that such an open letter has been written. This is not the first time that these self-proclaimed conscience keepers have raised alarms in the country about the unprecedented hate atmosphere. On 29 March, 60 intellectuals from Karnataka wrote a letter to Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on rising incidents of hate and communal politics in the state. This came in the context of the Hijab controversy.
Sometime back, in February this year, some students and faculty members of the Indian Institute of Management in Ahmedabad and Bengaluru wrote a letter to the PM on hate speech and attacks on minorities and said that his silence emboldened the voices of haters.
In July 2019, some film celebrities and other achievers wrote to the PM asserting that “atrocities against Muslims and Dalits have increased in India”. They alleged that the chant of “Jai Shri Ram” had become “a provocative war crime” helping the lynching against Muslims and Dalits”. During the first stint of PM Modi, the hate Modi brigade had gone berserk and ended up organising “award wapsi”. These have been interspersed with one or the other celebrity saying that India had become intolerant and not worth living.
All of these show that there is a pattern targeting the Modi government and maligning its image internationally. Some of those who have written these letters may not be aware of the real intention. They may not be aware of who started the campaign and how. If more than 100 bureaucrats attach their signatures, there must be someone working strongly behind this campaign.
Recall that during the anti-farm legislation agitation, had environmental activist Greta Thunberg not committed the blunder of inadvertently leaking out the toolkit, we would not have known that the social media campaign was organised to defame the government. One did not expect Hollywood actress and pop singer Rihanna to tweet on farmers’ agitation. But powerful lobbies can do anything. Yogendra Yadav has exposed himself by saying that they (agitation leaders) created the pitch but it was Akhilesh Yadav to bat well and defeat Yogi and the BJP in Uttar Pradesh.
These expressions of dissent have a pattern. They come invariably when the bad elements in the minority Muslim community get exposed, for example, the Hijab row in Karnataka, the pelting of stones on Ram Navami procession by some Muslims or the pelting of stones on the procession of Hanuman Jayanti in Delhi.
Also, these come after the failure of “the Azadi Brigade” to get requisite favourable orders from the Courts. For example, the Karnataka High Court refused to give a favourable verdict in the Hijab row. The Supreme Court refused to intervene or give a blanket stay on demolition in Delhi. The Court refused to stop bulldozers.
Something in the pattern of the deep state becomes active to remind the PM of his responsibility. This comes at a time when the world is beginning to recognise the success of the Indian government in dealing with crises one after the other. When a US representative comes to India, he or she must question the Human Rights record. Or, when the PM or other ministers go on foreign tours, such issues must be raised with them. Such letters become pieces of evidence to quote and the absence of such incidents are ignored.
The intentions of these people are not honest and definitely do not aim at bettering society. Otherwise, they would talk of the entire social and political fabric and not form a view based on certain incidents. It is not that Muslims in this country are living in fear. Despite some sporadic incidents, Muslims are happily celebrating Eid after one month of Roza during the month of Ramadan.
First of all, why should they expect the PM to speak on every such incident in the country? In that case, he would need to speak after every act of riot, killing, rape, lynching or any such act. What would be the duty of the state governments and judiciary? Law and order fall within the domain of the state and if any such incident happens, the state should address the issue. The PM commenting on such incidents would be construed as political. And then he would need to comment on ideology-based communal violence in Kerala and the targeting of Hindus in West Bengal.
The group of bureaucrats has said, “your silence, in the face of this enormous societal threat, is deafening.” They have also appealed to the PM to call for “an end to the politics of hate”. Is there one statement that can show that the PM has sided with any community? When cow vigilante groups were taking the law into their hands, the PM came on them in the strongest possible words.
It is good that the PM is not speaking since he would speak the truth and call the spade a spade. He is not under any influence to support anyone. But should he not ask who are the people daring to attack the Ram Navami procession in a country where more than 80 per cent of people belong to the Hindu belief system. Islamists may not like the sound of the temple bell or idols being worshipped but they can’t pelt stones at such processions.
Should these intellectuals not appeal to Islamists, Maulanas, and Muslim leaders not to provoke Hindus by challenging them as cowards or by saying that you withdraw police for 15 minutes and 25 crore Muslims would show what they do to 100 crore Hindus. Actions will always have consequences whether you like it or not. The communal vituperation during the 1940s led to the partition of the country. Muslims and Hindus are two nations and they can’t live together, was the argument of Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his followers who wanted Pakistan for Muslims. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru sadly conceded this and agreed to the partition.
The same narrative cannot be allowed in modern India. The ideological scars of the partition are too deep to be forgotten when the communal narrative is pushed forward. Crores of Hindus are subjected to the chant of Allah-O-Akbar that blares from lakhs of Masjids across the country on a daily basis. Why should Muslims have problems with temples blaring sounds of bells or hanuman chalisa or any bhajan? Have these so-called intellectuals ever appealed to Muslim clerics or leaders that the loudspeakers should follow the decibel limit legally permissible?
My friend from Canada told me that if someone violates the building plan sanctioned or encroaches even an inch outside his legal limit, the government demolishes the illegal construction. No notice is sent. I have seen the government removing street vendors on a daily basis. Should notices be given to them? If you encroach on what is not yours, you don’t deserve mercy. On the contrary, the state should recover the cost that is finally borne by taxpayers.
The bulldozers have been used in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and other BJP ruled states against mafias, dons, and illegal encroachers. Who are the people trying to defend them and why? It is a sad commentary on the country and its people that the state is being reprimanded for acting against violators of the law. The common people, including those from the Muslim community, are having the last laugh because these mafias don’t discriminate between communities. The bulldozers are the symbols of the state’s assertion against the goons and lawbreakers.
If the state has acted in an unfair manner, which is quite possible due to some overzealous officials, there is always a recourse against such actions. One can establish the bonafide and claim compensation and punishment against the guilty. We are a law-governed state. Why drag the PM’s name into it unless you have a design.
The way these intellectuals have taken a stand against the BJP and BJP ruled states, it seems they have yet not adjusted to the fact that people have given a massive mandate to the party under PM Modi. He does not discriminate between citizens and also does not believe in co-opting people to create a better image for himself. His actions speak for his policies. And he has come up facing barbs from a hostile media. He knows what to speak when. Those asking questions should first pass the litmus test of impartiality and patriotism to be meaningful and relevant.
The writer is the author of “Narendra Modi: the GameChanger”. A former journalist, he is a member of BJP’s media relations department and represents the party as spokesperson while participating in television debates. The views expressed are personal.