The Sangh Parivar has never had it so good. Even as Narendra Modi and his cabinet insist, as the Great and Powerful Oz did, that we "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain," they feed the flame, pump the bellows and crank the wheels of ideology to shape and power the socio-political agenda for the current government. Perhaps now that the distractions offered in the end pages of our national dailies, heralding the "thrill of victory and agony of defeat" half a world away is at an end, we might pull back the drapes on recent events at home. Some may remember the last time that the BJP held power at the centre, they had debated 'ammendments' to the Constitution. The primary target of this exercise was ofcourse the niggling adjective 'Secular' used to define our nation in "The Preamble." However, the fact that the party then enjoyed a shaky majority through rather unreliable coalitions ensured that any real attempt towards this was effectively quelled. Things are different now. With the overwhelming majority that the BJP enjoys at the Centre, they have decided to act with impunity.
The "Gujarat Model" was chanted as a mantra to sell the idea of Modi as Prime Minister promising an opportunity for the entire nation to partake of its largese. The phrase itself however has a far from cheerful genesis. It became a part of the BJP/Hindutva rhetoric in the aftermath of the communally charged Godhra Riots when the State government of Gujarat, with the willing participation of local business establishments, scrambled to divert attention from its inaction (dare we say commplicity?) in the ensuing violence. The BJP PR apparatus worked overtime to ensure that public attention focused primarily on the economic progress that the state supposedly experienced under the Modi administration. Whether the latter was the result of the much lauded Gujarati enterprise or the sea-change in the Indian government's attitude towards private enterprise that began in the mid-1980s is a disussion best left to socio-economists. There are so many parameters to consider and Modi claiming sole credit for a "prosperous" Gujarat is akin to Ronald Reagan claiming sole credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain in the 1980s.
However, the fact remains that the worst act of communal violence since the anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of the Indira Gandhi assassination occurred under "Namo's" watch. While the BJP posits itself as "not Congress", they have no qualms in drawing lessons from a hypothetical Congress Guide to Governance when it suits them. The BJP and their apologists would prefer to consider the 1984 massacres as precedent and provide credence to Rajiv Gandhi's proclamation that "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes," rather than condemn it. After all, it allows them the leeway to indulge in the same. This is perhaps why subsequent BJP governments did little to provide justice to the victims of the 1984 riots.
The state administration's stand was that they were incapable of action during the early stages of rioteering. This then begs the question---If the primary role of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens, did they not fail in fulfilling this role? The fact that the state government had tacit support at the Centre ensured that no one called for the dissolution of the state assembly, or that "President's Rule" be imposed, or that the CRPF be mobilised. The Gujarat government was permitted to sit back and watch the chaos unfold and even lauded for it.
We may, as the BJP would have us, dismiss the number of testimonies from victims, witnesses and even insiders (such as that of the now (conveniently?) deceased Haren Pandya) as hearsay. However, this should not absolve the Modi government of responsibility for the near genocidal nature of the events of March 2002. A responsibilty that stems from inaction. Perhaps this is what the Gujarat Model actually is. After all economic enterprise thrives under limited government interference (until that is, enterprise gives way to greed). The same philosophy seems to have dictated the Gujarat government's strategy in March 2002 and may currently be a major factor in the current Modi government.
This can be seen in the sudden spurt of Sangh Parivar activity in many parts of rural India. The VHP has already begun overt grassroots ativism towards saffronisation by insisting on a ban of non-Hindu (or to use their words, "outsider") missionary activity in 50 villages in Bastar accompanied by threats of violent agitation if the district administration does not translate their demands into law. The exclusionary rhetoric has already resulted in the harrassment and social excommunication of local Christians. Despite this move violating rights and priveleges enshrined in the constitution, the centre's strategy, from past experience, would be to ignore this as a local affair allowing "concerned Indians" to uphold "culture and tradition" through the strategic deployment of flaming torches and pitchforks. This is only one among a number of reported incidents of the revival of reactionary activism that has followed the recent poll success of the BJP. Conforming to the Gujarat Model, the centre has decided on a policy of non-intervention that can only result in a suppression of dissent at the least or violent oppression of "the others" at the other extreme.
At the other end, the centre itself is involved in a game of chess by locating insiders at the helm in key departments and ministries based on ideological adherence rather than any real qualification. While the elevation of Amit Shah, a key accused in an extrajudicial assassination and various other illegalities, as BJP President can be considered an internal matter, it serves to illustrate that while the BJP in Government may raise a plaster facade of inclusiveness and incorruptability, the party itself will walk the hardline Hindutva path where the ends justify the means. The vision of India chalked out in the BJP Manifesto will ultimately be filtered through saffron tinted glasses according to "the paradigm drawn from the civilizational consciousness of India" that is not just Hindu, but also patriarchal and upper caste. There is enough and more written on the shenanigans over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and ofcourse one cannot miss the massive beuraucratic culls in various states.
The appointment of Y. S. Rao as Chair of the Indian Council of Historical research is another case in point. An academic who interprets Mythology as History (using such gems of circular logic as "If Rama was not born in Ayodhya, where else was he born?") has been appointed to Chair the Indian Council of Historical Research by the HRD Ministry headed by a former serial actress who barely made it out of school. These appointments may have been dictated by the need for the BJP to undermine these institutions. Afterall, a rewriting of history has been a prime factor in its agenda since the very begining. Handing control of the key institution responsible for allocating resources for education in the country to an obvious puppet who will blindly follow party lines is an authoritarian wet dream and paves the way for moulding young minds in accordance with their own ideology.
One can definitely expect more interventions of this nature as the current government moves towards inevitable saffronisation and we might need to keep our eyes peeled. After all what kind of progress do we expect from a government that sets aside INR 200 crores for a Sardar Patel statue in Gujarat, but INR 150 crores for women's development across India? The priorities seem obvious.
The "Gujarat Model" was chanted as a mantra to sell the idea of Modi as Prime Minister promising an opportunity for the entire nation to partake of its largese. The phrase itself however has a far from cheerful genesis. It became a part of the BJP/Hindutva rhetoric in the aftermath of the communally charged Godhra Riots when the State government of Gujarat, with the willing participation of local business establishments, scrambled to divert attention from its inaction (dare we say commplicity?) in the ensuing violence. The BJP PR apparatus worked overtime to ensure that public attention focused primarily on the economic progress that the state supposedly experienced under the Modi administration. Whether the latter was the result of the much lauded Gujarati enterprise or the sea-change in the Indian government's attitude towards private enterprise that began in the mid-1980s is a disussion best left to socio-economists. There are so many parameters to consider and Modi claiming sole credit for a "prosperous" Gujarat is akin to Ronald Reagan claiming sole credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain in the 1980s.
However, the fact remains that the worst act of communal violence since the anti-Sikh riots in the aftermath of the Indira Gandhi assassination occurred under "Namo's" watch. While the BJP posits itself as "not Congress", they have no qualms in drawing lessons from a hypothetical Congress Guide to Governance when it suits them. The BJP and their apologists would prefer to consider the 1984 massacres as precedent and provide credence to Rajiv Gandhi's proclamation that "when a big tree falls, the earth shakes," rather than condemn it. After all, it allows them the leeway to indulge in the same. This is perhaps why subsequent BJP governments did little to provide justice to the victims of the 1984 riots.
The state administration's stand was that they were incapable of action during the early stages of rioteering. This then begs the question---If the primary role of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens, did they not fail in fulfilling this role? The fact that the state government had tacit support at the Centre ensured that no one called for the dissolution of the state assembly, or that "President's Rule" be imposed, or that the CRPF be mobilised. The Gujarat government was permitted to sit back and watch the chaos unfold and even lauded for it.
We may, as the BJP would have us, dismiss the number of testimonies from victims, witnesses and even insiders (such as that of the now (conveniently?) deceased Haren Pandya) as hearsay. However, this should not absolve the Modi government of responsibility for the near genocidal nature of the events of March 2002. A responsibilty that stems from inaction. Perhaps this is what the Gujarat Model actually is. After all economic enterprise thrives under limited government interference (until that is, enterprise gives way to greed). The same philosophy seems to have dictated the Gujarat government's strategy in March 2002 and may currently be a major factor in the current Modi government.
This can be seen in the sudden spurt of Sangh Parivar activity in many parts of rural India. The VHP has already begun overt grassroots ativism towards saffronisation by insisting on a ban of non-Hindu (or to use their words, "outsider") missionary activity in 50 villages in Bastar accompanied by threats of violent agitation if the district administration does not translate their demands into law. The exclusionary rhetoric has already resulted in the harrassment and social excommunication of local Christians. Despite this move violating rights and priveleges enshrined in the constitution, the centre's strategy, from past experience, would be to ignore this as a local affair allowing "concerned Indians" to uphold "culture and tradition" through the strategic deployment of flaming torches and pitchforks. This is only one among a number of reported incidents of the revival of reactionary activism that has followed the recent poll success of the BJP. Conforming to the Gujarat Model, the centre has decided on a policy of non-intervention that can only result in a suppression of dissent at the least or violent oppression of "the others" at the other extreme.
At the other end, the centre itself is involved in a game of chess by locating insiders at the helm in key departments and ministries based on ideological adherence rather than any real qualification. While the elevation of Amit Shah, a key accused in an extrajudicial assassination and various other illegalities, as BJP President can be considered an internal matter, it serves to illustrate that while the BJP in Government may raise a plaster facade of inclusiveness and incorruptability, the party itself will walk the hardline Hindutva path where the ends justify the means. The vision of India chalked out in the BJP Manifesto will ultimately be filtered through saffron tinted glasses according to "the paradigm drawn from the civilizational consciousness of India" that is not just Hindu, but also patriarchal and upper caste. There is enough and more written on the shenanigans over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and ofcourse one cannot miss the massive beuraucratic culls in various states.
The appointment of Y. S. Rao as Chair of the Indian Council of Historical research is another case in point. An academic who interprets Mythology as History (using such gems of circular logic as "If Rama was not born in Ayodhya, where else was he born?") has been appointed to Chair the Indian Council of Historical Research by the HRD Ministry headed by a former serial actress who barely made it out of school. These appointments may have been dictated by the need for the BJP to undermine these institutions. Afterall, a rewriting of history has been a prime factor in its agenda since the very begining. Handing control of the key institution responsible for allocating resources for education in the country to an obvious puppet who will blindly follow party lines is an authoritarian wet dream and paves the way for moulding young minds in accordance with their own ideology.
One can definitely expect more interventions of this nature as the current government moves towards inevitable saffronisation and we might need to keep our eyes peeled. After all what kind of progress do we expect from a government that sets aside INR 200 crores for a Sardar Patel statue in Gujarat, but INR 150 crores for women's development across India? The priorities seem obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment