by Harish Gupta, National Editor, Lokmat Group
A prime example is the "beef murder" case at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, 40 km from Delhi. It is alleged that a loudspeaker from a temple helped rustle up a group of Hindus who stormed into a house of a Muslim family and battered one of them to death on the "charge" that he had stocked beef in his fridge. The victim's son works for the Indian Air Force. After the barbaric incident, the first voice of warning that the nation expected to hear was that of the Prime Minister. But he kept silent. Instead, Tarun Vijay, a dyed-in-the-wool RSS leader who is now BJP Rajya Sabha member, wrote a newspaper Op-Ed to express his regret not for the heinous murder but because incidents like this could "derail" Modi's efforts. He said Muhammad Akhlaq, the victim, was killed "merely on suspicion" that he had stored beef at home. In Uttar Pradesh, cow-slaughter is banned but eating or storing it is not. So, what is the "suspicion" about? And, even if Akhlaq had violated the law, why should a lynch mob take the law into their own hands?
Union Minister of State for Culture and Tourism, Mahesh Sharma, who is also the area MP, described the incident as "accidental". Side by side, Sharma issued a veiled warning to his audience, notably the media, against giving it a "communal twist". Local BJP leadership tried their best to give the incident the appearance of an accident, like a truck hitting a car. One of them attributed it to the "rumour" that a cow was being killed, and that set "blood boiling" in the local populace.
Who constituted the Dadri mob? In the parlance of Delhi journalists who cover the BJP, they have for long been described as 'fringe elements'. Like the same fringe elements had raised such hue and cry against the late V. P. Singh's resolve to implement the Mandal Commission report in 1990 that BJP withdrew support from his government and it collapsed. It is a different matter that the same BJP is now championing the reservation policy. Again, in December 1992, it was the same fringe element of the VHP-Shiv Sena that ramped over the Babri shrine with crow-bar and pick axe, and with its demolition wrote a new chapter in the history of BJP. The BJP certainly has no control over other new fringe elements—like the Abhinav Bharati etc. This is in line with the observations of same front-benchers of the party who said late President Abdul Kalam was a good person "in spite of being a Muslim".
And now intolerance is casting its shadow on the general policy of the government. The refusal of Nepal to adopt a constitution that calls itself a Hindu nation has led to not only diplomatic freeze-off. It has pushed Nepal deeper into China's lap. There is hurry to push the same agenda while dealing with Pakistan too.
Modi's passiveness in the midst of so much flurry in his own party to make India unique is difficult to understand. Usually he keeps the fringe elements at his beck and call. As Gujarat chief minister, he banished Vishwa Hindu Parishad's Pravin Togadia. He also ensured his critic Sanjay Joshi goes into an oblivion. He unleashed municipal wreckers to demolish several temples in Ahmedabad that had encroached on public land. Early in his tenure as chief minister, he drove out of the state capital the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, advocating economic protectionism. In the 13 years that he ruled Gujarat, he was a picture of self-assertiveness, taking no order from anyone and refusing to bend before anybody, be it the core or the fringe.
Why has he got his mouth taped despite such provocation? Of course he can understand that, in the developed nations whose pat he values most, the idea of a theocratic India is not acceptable. It is unacceptable not only because it is an anachronism but also for the respect that post-Independence India has commanded worldwide for its tolerance of diversity. He intervened, though quite late, when Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti went berserk while campaigning in Delhi Assembly elections. But the damage had been done. He can also foresee these elements aggressively intruding on the citizens' kitchens and study rooms and poking nose into personal lives in the name of 'love jihad' or by catching couples in parks in gardens. Nor does he think it is his mission to win the battle that Prithviraj lost in the 12th century regardless of the ensuing thermo-nuclear holocaust. But then why does he look paralysed? Is he not even a small part as independent as PM as he was as CM of Gujarat? I am perplexed why he is allowing the situation to worsen ? Is he waiting for his moment to turn the tables ? Is he allowing these ideologues and elements to do whatever they like while he himself looks the other way ? Who will know better than Modi the political consequences of an electoral debacle in Bihar ? If that happens, he may make them take a walk? That will be cool.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a man of remarkable communication skills. He proved it time and again, his latest feat being in California last month where he impressed not merely a bunch of senators and bureaucrats but a galaxy of techno - czars. These are the people who drive the knowledge economy which is the backbone of global wealth and its growth in the 21st century. Ironically, however, it is Modi's silence on crucial national issues which is becoming more eloquent than his words on the world stage. Ominously, over time, such silence is being interpreted as acquiescence by some of his ardent supporters who have nothing to do with the Parivar. They voted for Modi's "Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas".
A prime example is the "beef murder" case at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, 40 km from Delhi. It is alleged that a loudspeaker from a temple helped rustle up a group of Hindus who stormed into a house of a Muslim family and battered one of them to death on the "charge" that he had stocked beef in his fridge. The victim's son works for the Indian Air Force. After the barbaric incident, the first voice of warning that the nation expected to hear was that of the Prime Minister. But he kept silent. Instead, Tarun Vijay, a dyed-in-the-wool RSS leader who is now BJP Rajya Sabha member, wrote a newspaper Op-Ed to express his regret not for the heinous murder but because incidents like this could "derail" Modi's efforts. He said Muhammad Akhlaq, the victim, was killed "merely on suspicion" that he had stored beef at home. In Uttar Pradesh, cow-slaughter is banned but eating or storing it is not. So, what is the "suspicion" about? And, even if Akhlaq had violated the law, why should a lynch mob take the law into their own hands?
Union Minister of State for Culture and Tourism, Mahesh Sharma, who is also the area MP, described the incident as "accidental". Side by side, Sharma issued a veiled warning to his audience, notably the media, against giving it a "communal twist". Local BJP leadership tried their best to give the incident the appearance of an accident, like a truck hitting a car. One of them attributed it to the "rumour" that a cow was being killed, and that set "blood boiling" in the local populace.
Who constituted the Dadri mob? In the parlance of Delhi journalists who cover the BJP, they have for long been described as 'fringe elements'. Like the same fringe elements had raised such hue and cry against the late V. P. Singh's resolve to implement the Mandal Commission report in 1990 that BJP withdrew support from his government and it collapsed. It is a different matter that the same BJP is now championing the reservation policy. Again, in December 1992, it was the same fringe element of the VHP-Shiv Sena that ramped over the Babri shrine with crow-bar and pick axe, and with its demolition wrote a new chapter in the history of BJP. The BJP certainly has no control over other new fringe elements—like the Abhinav Bharati etc. This is in line with the observations of same front-benchers of the party who said late President Abdul Kalam was a good person "in spite of being a Muslim".
And now intolerance is casting its shadow on the general policy of the government. The refusal of Nepal to adopt a constitution that calls itself a Hindu nation has led to not only diplomatic freeze-off. It has pushed Nepal deeper into China's lap. There is hurry to push the same agenda while dealing with Pakistan too.
Modi's passiveness in the midst of so much flurry in his own party to make India unique is difficult to understand. Usually he keeps the fringe elements at his beck and call. As Gujarat chief minister, he banished Vishwa Hindu Parishad's Pravin Togadia. He also ensured his critic Sanjay Joshi goes into an oblivion. He unleashed municipal wreckers to demolish several temples in Ahmedabad that had encroached on public land. Early in his tenure as chief minister, he drove out of the state capital the Swadeshi Jagran Manch, advocating economic protectionism. In the 13 years that he ruled Gujarat, he was a picture of self-assertiveness, taking no order from anyone and refusing to bend before anybody, be it the core or the fringe.
It is unacceptable not only because it is an anachronism but also
for
the respect that post-Independence India has commanded
worldwide for its
tolerance of diversity.
