52
“Brothers and sisters, for one reason or the other, we have had communal tensions for ages,” declaimed Mr Narendra Modi, the starched tail of his loud saffron turban fluttering in the strong wind. “Friends, look behind and you will find that nobody has benefited from it. Except casting a slur on Mother India, we have done nothing.”
The prime minister’s maiden Independence Day speech might easily have been a plea by a threatened Christian missionary working courageously in Orissa or Gujarat, and not the least, in Uttar Pradesh. A vulnerable Muslim woman or Dalit daughter whose house is surrounded by arsonists, killers, rapists, would instinctively cling to Mr Modi’s words for desperate solace if not for palpable help.
Jawaharlal Nehru, reference to whose name was studiously blanked out from Mr Modi’s maiden fulminations from the 17th-century Red Fort, in which he had praise for Gandhi and Patel, Vivekanand and Jai Prakash Narayan — would have cheerfully approved of India’s newest prime minister’s worthy sentiments.
Mr Modi then set a tautological condition to achieve the peace he so desired. “I appeal to all those people that whether it is the poison of casteism, communalism, regionalism, discrimination on social and economic basis, all these are obstacles in our way forward. Let’s resolve for once in our hearts, let’s put a moratorium on all such activities for 10 years, we shall march ahead to a society which will be free from all such tensions.” In a nutshell what the prime minister said was this: put an end to violence to attain peace.
Is Narendra Modi, known hitherto for his macho pugnacity, offering to turn over a new leaf?
The question is, was the prime minister, known hitherto for his macho pugnacity, offering to turn over a new leaf as perhaps Emperor Ashok did after the massacre of Kalinga, when he embraced Buddhism to renounce violence forever? After all, something did happen during Mr Modi’s previous avatar as chief minister of Gujarat, which prompted him to grudgingly regret it. To use his own quaint expression, a puppy came under the wheels of his car, words he used to explain the blood and gore of 2002. He did say he felt bad for the puppy, didn’t he?
Short of such an implication, or words in a similar vein, the prime minister’s call could be prone to misunderstanding for a variety of reasons, not the least because of the opposite things he has said in the past.
In any case, what did Mr Modi imply by asking for a 10-year moratorium on violence? The all-pervasive parochial forms of violence that keep the country perennially on its toes are real. How do we put an end to the menace, why for a short period, and to what avail? If the prime minister believes there can be no economic progress without social harmony, his call should strike a chord with Indians of all communal stripes.
The coming days will hopefully reveal how best the country, chiefly the involved communities, could comply with the prime minister’s vision of peace. If it is doable — there’s no harm in hoping — why shun violence for this or that number of days? When Gandhiji broke his fast after a major Hindu-Muslim bloodbath in Bengal, he was promised lasting peace by both sides, not a sunset-to-dawn truce. Be that as it may, where do we begin with the Independence Day gambit?
It could be a coincidence, but barely two months after Prime Minister Modi was sworn in, the Gujarat high court last month granted bail to Maya Kodnani, former minister and ‘kingpin’ of the 2002 Naroda Patia massacre case in which 97 people were killed. She had pleaded for bail on grounds of her sickness and possible delay in trial. While ordering her release, a bench of Justice V.M. Sahai and Justice R.P. Dholaria suspended her 28-year-long sentence imposed by the special SIT court in August 2012, according to a report in the Times of India. Kodnani was among 32 convicts in the case seeking bail before the high court.
Earlier, on July 8, the Gujarat high court ordered the release of Babu Bajrangi, a key convict in the Naroda Patia killings, “temporarily for treatment of eye disease”. Now, the Gujarat model of targeting Muslims and Christians seems to have unfolded in Uttar Pradesh.
Last month, a Hindu mob attacked the Nazarene Church at Sehkari Nagar, Bulandshahar. Christian activists described it as a direct consequence of the recent and rapid communalisation of Uttar Pradesh and other parts of the country. According to the complaints of pastors and other members of the church who are victims, a group of Bajrang Dal activists attacked the church on July 16, 2014 when a function was going on inside the premises. A man identified as the area coordinator of Bajrang Dal, allegedly led the attackers. The gang ransacked the church, beat up the pastor, Rev. R.C. Paul, broke the cross and church furniture, Christian groups say.
A report in The Hindu was just as disconcerting. A senior Hindutva leader told the paper that from Aug 23 to Sept 15, there would be rallies in all districts against conversions. The flare-up is related to the reported forced conversion of a Hindu girl in a Muslim madressah.
“On Dec 23, the martyrdom day of Swami Shraddhanand (the leader of the 19th-century Shuddhi movement) we will convert Muslims to Hinduism in at least 50 locations in west UP,” he said. “On Dec 25, the day when Christians convert people to their religion, this year, we will do the reverse — by converting them back to Hinduism. In two-three years, the rural hinterland will be free of Christians.”
If anyone does, it is Mr Modi who has the wherewithal to put India’s communal genie back in the bottle. Will he be willing to risk his political career?
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.
Published in Dawn, August 19th, 2014
