by Talha Abdul Rahman
In the
past few days, we have come across a number of people, extra-ordinary and
otherwise, expressing horror over the spectre of
Narendra Modi being elected eventually to become the Prime Minister in 2014.
Reasons for such profound expression of horror are dominantly on account of his
‘alleged’ involvement in proliferation of targeted killings of Muslims in 2002
Gujarat riots. Political agents, within the media and outside, have attempted
to explain that the concern is actually misplaced because, since 2002, he has
won over the confidence of Muslims which is evident from the fact that BJP has
won even from Muslim dominated areas (as if elections in India are conclusive
of people’s forgiveness), and in any event even the Muslims of Gujarat want to
“move on”.
Perhaps, they do want to move on. Not
because they have forgiven Narendra Modi but because they have realized that
most of them can no longer afford to sit back and 'crib' and must earn their
living by starting from scratch. Perhaps, they have made peace with living in
sub-human ghettos. Undeniably, litigating against the State (especially the
Chief Minister) can be debilitating especially if one is financially,
emotionally, socially and psychologically vulnerable. The merchant in Gujarati
Muslims has possibly prevailed upon them to apply ‘economic rationality’ to
rights and freedom under the Constitution. Perhaps, they have moved on.
While, the Muslims of Gujarat may have moved
on, We as citizens of India should reconsider whether We can
permit the rest of the India to move on. While Muslims may have a legitimate
fear of persecution should Narendra Modi becomes the Prime Minister, a real
possibility of similar persecution cannot be discounted even if any other
political party comes to power. The analysis of political leaderships that
prevailed at the Center and in the States in 1992 (Ayodhya) is itself sufficient to
dislodge any misapprehensions about the professed ability of a government to provide physical security to the country’s minority. It is practically a
“Hand-in-(Saffron) Glove” situation. In fact, some have even suggested that
recent ‘regret’ of remarks on ‘Saffron’ Terror despite their correctness
coupled with Afzal Guru’s hanging is a subtle attempt to send out a message
that the Government is more saffronised than even the deepest shade of saffron.
By using the word “saffronized” here, I
allude to an ideology and not to any religion. Therefore, the call actually is
to reconsider whether We can allow a
system of saffron principles that are incompatible with the Constitutional
values to take charge.
Dr. Ambedkar in his speech in the Constituent
Assembly on 4th November, 1948 had cautioned us that:
“… it is perfectly possible to pervert the Constitution,
without changing its form by merely changing the form of the administration and
to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. It
follows that it is only where people are saturated with Constitutional morality
such as the one described by Grote the historian that one can take the risk of
omitting from the Constitution details of administration and leaving it for the
Legislature to prescribe them. The question is, can we presume such a diffusion
of Constitutional morality? Constitutional morality is not a natural sentiment.
It has to be cultivated. We must realize that our people have yet to learn it.”
We certainly are yet to learn it.
While I do have reservations about a person accused of
genocide occupying the highest executive chair in the country, what concerns me
more is that the debate concerning Narendra Modi’s possible success (or
failure) in 2014 election has been reduced to being a debate about Muslims.
Narendra Modi has been projected as a “Muslim problem”; which he is
not. He, as a face of an ideology, is as much a problem of a Muslim
as he is of any other citizen. This is because the concerns that Muslims have
raised today are tomorrow’s reality. We can, for convenience, call the fear of
persecution amongst minority (and not just Muslims) as an “Early Warning Alarm”. This argument is best
summarized in the words of Martin Niemöller
“First
they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to
speak for me."
The choice between Narendra Modi or any other
person is being consciously constructed in a manner that it would
almost be deemed that only Muslims will not vote for Narendra Modi. Well, yes,
even George Bush told the world that in his war on terror, “You’re either with
us, or against us”. Thus, by implication, all non-Muslims are being obliged by
the rhetoric that Narendra Modi is a ‘Muslim problem’ to vote for him and his
ideology.
Consistently, the development scholars have
argued that development is not to be measured by economic indices alone.
Perhaps in the context of Gujarat and speculatively in the context of India,
one could apply the test of “Freedom from” and “Freedoms of”. The question that
then stares us is whether in India, where the Government is guided by fascist
and saffronized ideology, would the people have, for instance true freedom of
speech and expression, freedom from living in ghettos, freedom from not having
a religious-identity-neutral name, freedom from being discriminated on the ground
of religious identity, and the like.
Fortunately, unlike the 17th Century
India, today, we do have the legal right to choose between
Aurangzeb and Dara Shikoh; misfortune, however is that we know that Narendra
Modi is Aurangzeb* but India does not seem to have a Dara Shikoh we could vote
for.
(*with sincere apologies to Aurangzeb for the comparison, who despite
being intolerant to other religions was after all an honest man who survived
only on the money he earned by making caps and writing calligraphy)
