T N Ninan: Rhetoric and reality

Mr Modi has not admonished members of his team who have stepped out of line with the promptness or conviction that he has moved on other issues

Addressing the US Congress, Narendra Modi said this past week that “Our founders created a modern nation with freedom, democracy, and equality as the essence of its soul. And, in doing so, they ensured that we continued to celebrate our age old diversity. Today, … anchored in equal respect for all faiths, and in the melody of hundreds of its languages and dialects, India lives as one; India grows as one; India celebrates as one.” He also referred to Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence, and to freedom from fear in the country.

Around the time that he spoke these words, his colleague in the Bharatiya Janata Party, Sadhvi Prachi, was calling for a “Muslim-mukt Bharat” (an India without Muslims). BJP acolytes in Dadri, near Delhi, were demanding criminal action against the family of a man who was lynched a few weeks ago for the possession of what may have been beef or mutton (neither is a crime in the state), even as demands were raised for freeing those accused of the killing. And in a neighbouring state, a police officer who stopped members of the Sangh Parivar from vigilante action against suspected cattle traders had to be transferred, in order to restore peace in the town.

Everyone is now familiar with similar or comparable situations and statements over the past couple of years. None of it has hurt Mr Modi, whose popularity remains as high as ever — in part because he is seen to be working hard with his focus on delivery, in part because he is a powerful communicator, and in part because (let’s face it) mobilisation around majoritarian sentiment works to his political advantage. But the issue is not just majoritarianism, or Muslims; what has been unleashed is a larger illiberalism that should be considered a much broader threat to the spirit of the republic — not least because of the repeated threat of violence. Violence was explicit in what happened to reporters in a Delhi court, and implicit in many statements that have been issued, like the declaration by a fifth-term party MP (Yogi Adityanath) that those who “oppose” yoga should be drowned.

When the chairman of the film certification board declares himself to be a “Modi-bhakt” (Mr Modi’s devotee), even as he takes censorship to absurd lengths, what suffers is the independence of an institution, and artistic freedom. When a newly-anointed party MP mounts a relentless attack on a widely-respected Reserve Bank governor, questioning (inevitably) his patriotism, accusing him of hatching devious plots and what not, the level of public debate is taken to a new low. When text books abolish mention of the country’s first, longest-serving and possibly greatest prime minister in an account of the country’s history, we are into a new phase of thought control.

Mr Modi is innocent of all these statements and actions. But when, in the face of offensive statements and actions by people from his corner of the ring, he explains away his silence or inaction on the ground that it is for others to take action, and that a prime minister cannot respond to everyone and everything, he is being disingenuous. He can decisively influence, and therefore be held responsible for, the tonal quality of public life, and for not letting mob action frustrate the law; but he has not admonished members of his team who have stepped out of line with the promptness or conviction that he has moved on other issues.

This is not to impose on his political beliefs. It is perfectly all right that his worldview will be different from the Congress tradition that has been the dominant strain in national politics till recently. But when his cohorts seek to subvert the Constitution and violate its core values, including liberalism, it is the Constitution that must prevail, and be made to prevail. After all, Mr Modi has taken an oath to abide by and protect what he terms India’s “Holy Book”, and it is the spirit of the Constitution that he celebrated when addressing US law-makers.