Dial down rhetoric

BJP must demand greater responsibility from its members

Recent remarks by officials in the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) have become serious international embarrassments for the Government of India. Nupur Sharma, then a national spokesperson of the BJP, and Naveen Kumar Jindal, the party’s Delhi media head, made statements on television and on Twitter, respectively, about the life of the Prophet Mohammad, which unsurprisingly set off a great deal of controversy. At first the party at the highest level appeared to be backing the two leaders. But subsequently, as the statements went viral online and led to concerns being expressed by friendly governments in Muslim-majority countries in West Asia, the party was forced to backtrack. The Indian ambassador to Qatar was summoned and had to issue a statement saying the statements were the “views of fringe elements” and did not reflect the views of the government.

As a consequence, the BJP was forced to suspend Ms Sharma and cancel Mr Jindal’s primary membership. The party itself issued an official letter saying that it “respects all religions” and was “strongly against any ideology which insults or demeans any sect or religion”. Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal have both said that they and their families are in physical danger as a result of their remarks going viral online, and it is the government’s duty to ensure that no harm comes to them. On this occasion, the government and the ruling party may have been forced into denial, retraction, and disciplinary action as a consequence of the closer geopolitical relationship between India and many West Asian countries. Qatar, for example, is a source of much-needed natural gas for India. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are close partners in counter-terrorism and intelligence sharing.

Yet this controversy has been a reminder of the dangers associated with overheated rhetoric about religion. Not only do India’s external relationships and its global status depend upon more responsible stewardship of the public square, but so does internal cohesion within the country. National security cannot but be undermined by the cycle of violence and reaction that can be set off by empowering the loudest and most irresponsible voices. If Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal were truly “fringe” voices, then it would be one matter. But the fact is that both were respected functionaries of the party, and Ms Sharma in particular had long been earmarked for a higher role. Nor is the spirit in which their remarks were uttered so foreign to the mainstream of the BJP — as can be judged not just from the party’s initial support but also from the widespread acclaim their remarks received online from those sympathetic to the BJP.

It is important for the leadership of the BJP, which also holds national power in India, to use this opportunity to recognise the dangers of providing a safe space for such dangerous rhetoric within its own ecosystem. There will always be rabble-rousers. But the ruling party, given its responsibilities, should not shelter them. In fact, it should push back against them in order to ensure broader stability within the country and a smooth functioning of diplomatic relations outside. This needs to go beyond one or two expulsions and suspensions; it should be made clear that the route to high power within the BJP does not pass through religiously inflected and dangerous rhetoric.