Chink in Modi’s armour

Ironically, when Modi is actually in land of Gandhi, his lips remain sealed on burning of Dalits, lynching of Muslims

No firecrackers were set off in Lahore or Karachi at the BJP’s resounding defeat in the state assembly polls in . Pakistanis, instead, readily acknowledged the ability of the Indian electorate to bounce back and show the door to the politics of extremism and divisiveness that is straining India’s social fabric. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, since assumption of office, has been travelling to world capitals at a breakneck pace with a plethora of MoUs awaiting him everywhere. Back home, India has been reeling under a growing wave of extremism and violence fomented by BJP cadres themselves as well as the party’s faith-based affiliates. Minorities and liberal Hindus have been the obvious targets. The latest developments on this front are the controversies related to Bollywood icons Shah Rukh Khan and Aamir Khan. This unfortunate state of affairs has been marked with reticence on the part of Modi and his close associates.



The whole scenario reminds one of General Ziaul Haq’s Pakistan. The late general, with his obsequious smile and hearty handshake, had also been a favourite in Western capitals. He turned Pakistan into a conduit for the inflow of jihadists across the western borders. His legacy of jihad brought in extremism and a culture of weapons to Pakistan, which in the long run, pulverised society. Pakistan still continues to brave the aftershocks of terrorism and extremism.

During his visits abroad, Prime Minister Modi charmed the British audience with his eloquence. “We in the land of Gandhi do not accept anything to do with intolerance,” he said. Ironically, when he is actually in the land of Gandhi, his lips are sealed on the burning of Dalits, lynching of Muslims and harassment of liberal sections of Indian society. Modi, while defending his position before the British press, had a valid point when he said that everything that went wrong in India was not his government’s doing. But that does not absolve him of his prime responsibility. His government has failed to come up with a strong counter-narrative to stem the tide let loose by extremist organisations and his coalition partners. The situation has been further inflamed by the BJP’s senior leadership with references to dogs being made time and again to describe the suffering of the victims.



The loss in Bihar is a serious setback for the BJP. The election campaign in the state was spearheaded by party chief Amit Shah and the prime minister himself. Issues pertaining to caste, creed, reservation quotas, and above all, the Pakistan factor, were all pressed into the campaign, but every ploy backfired. The electorate in Bihar has made a distinct choice. The politics of inclusion outweighed the politics of divisiveness. The BJP saw low-caste Hindus and the Muslim factor determining the results of the polls. On the contrary, it was the inclusive election strategy of Nitish Kumar and Lalu Prasad Yadav that caught the imagination of the average voter. While Kumar built his campaign on the basis of his record, Hindu vigilantism outside the state sent adverse signals, undercutting Modi’s agenda of “Sub ka saath, sub ka vikas”. Under Kumar, Bihar saw visible improvement in the law and order situation. Physical and social indicators improved distinctly. What Modi derisively called “Beemaru Bihar” was now a state on the move. The rate of growth remained at 10 per cent, fairly above the national average.

The BJP, since coming to power, has made little effort to rein in divisive elements within its ranks. Reared in the ethos of the RSS, this did not seem to be a priority of the leadership. This frame of mind had not deterred the party in moving ahead in Gujarat, hence the smugness on its part. However, the extrapolation of this model on a larger canvas was always fraught with danger in view of the completely different dynamics that are present at the national level.



Sub-continental history underlines that civilisation flourished in this land-mass during periods of exemplary tolerance, encouraged by the rulers. Whether it was Ashoka or Akbar, they left deep imprints on societal co-existence. Ashoka, after the war of Kalinga, was a transformed soul, and turned into a pacifist. Akbar was resolute in promoting inter-faith harmony and providing equal opportunities to all. On a spiritual plank, Buddha, Mahavir and Guru Nanak, all believed in the virtues of tolerance and sharing.

The BJP’s hardcore affiliates have been averse to Abrahamic religions of Islam and Christianity. This hostility finds its expression in the Ghar Wapsi movement aimed at reconverting Muslims and Christians to Hinduism. At the same time, the party espouses an ambitious agenda of economic reform. Before the 2014 general elections, it called for a business and investment-friendly framework in India. Infrastructure development, foreign investment, public-private partnerships, all require conducive land acquisition processes, for which the party moved an amended draft bill. The Land Acquisition Amendment Bill is now pending in the upper house of the Indian parliament. It aims to remove a “consent clause” present in the law that obligates the acquiring agency to seek approval of 70 per cent of landowners before acquiring a piece of land for a public-private partnership venture. In case of land required by a private entity, this ceiling is enhanced to 80 per cent. The opposition has termed the amendment ‘anti-farmer’ and is stiffly resisting it. The clause was originally meant to safeguard the interests of landowners, which the BJP wishes to remove. So long as the consent clause is on the statute, industrial corridors, housing, defence and joint ventures through foreign investment will continue to remain a pipe-dream for the BJP’s economic agenda.



Elections will be held in some key states, like West Bengal and UP, within the next two years. In case the incumbents or any new alliance manages to keep the BJP at bay, the party’s dream of acquiring a majority in the upper house of parliament will remain elusive. The Congress’s strategy of playing the second fiddle to grand alliances in state elections has worked quite neatly and it may continue with it to regain lost ground. This may impede the pace of the BJP’s implementation of its economic agenda. Opposition groups may rally around Nitish Kumar to form a new arrangement of power-sharing. While his detractors may feel that this cannot happen as Kumar’s appeal at the national level will be limited, it must not be forgotten that Modi himself rose to national prominence after flourishing at the regional level.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 1^st,  2015.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.