JOIN USThe downside of BJP's new 'tolerant' narrative
The action by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) against two of its leaders for insulting Islam and the statement by Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat urging his followers not to look for a "Shivling" under every mosque, at the outset seem welcome developments. There is, however, a need to deconstruct this new narrative.
The Modi government and the BJP's reaction to international pressure have inadvertently sent a signal to Indian Muslims that their religious interests can only be protected by Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, et al. The BJP, which had set out to create a greater Hindu brotherhood, seems to be giving birth to pan-Islamism.
The Indian Muslims have never looked towards the Islamic world to protect their interests. But now, they can see that the Modi government listens only to powerful Islamic countries and not to them. Imagine the long-term consequences of Indian Muslims coming to the conclusion that the safety and security of their religion and lives can only be assured by the Islamic countries.
The Indian Muslims do not consider Islamic Ummah to be a political concept. Nor are they part of any pan-Islamic movement. Their presence in millennial Islamic organisations like the Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been minimal. However, but for an occasional diplomatic rebuke, the Islamic countries also have, by and large, left Indian Muslims to their own fate. Many of the Islamic countries have chosen to hug Prime Minister Narendra Modi instead. However, now the wind seems to be changing direction. These westerlies will not only bring heavy diplomatic weather for India, but they could cloud the thinking of Indian Muslims by steering their thought processes beyond Indian geography.
The BJP has also managed to paint a target on its back because of hate speech against Islam. One only has to recall the shootout at the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in Paris, where its editor, four cartoonists and some others were shot dead by two Algerian Muslim brothers for insulting the Prophet. Nearer home, in Pakistan, one has seen what happens to those accused of blasphemy. India cannot provide the kind of protection Salman Rushdie was accorded in Britain. Within India, those who are seen as responsible for insulting Islam and its Prophet will need the kind of security that a state can provide only inside prisons.
Was the Rubicon then crossed inadvertently? It does not seem likely. Initially, there was no intention within the BJP to take any action against Nupur Sharma, its official spokesperson, for what she had said on prime-time television or what Naveen Jindal, its Delhi Media Cell Chief, had posted on social media. Their interventions were considered par for the course by the BJP leadership.
Even when action has been taken against the duo, many BJP insiders have been reported to be "disappointed" by the leadership's decision. Some of them are now demanding a Hindu Blasphemy Law or "Ninda Kanoon" to punish those who insult Hindu Gods. Others have called for a boycott of Qatar Airlines and targeted the nation for giving citizenship to M F Hussain when he was chased away from India. They are also bewildered because, up to now, they have seen hatred being rewarded within the party.
So, what has changed? Competitive communalism in the BJP has taken a qualitative leap after the party's electoral success in Uttar Pradesh. Hate speech and communalism paid rich dividends in UP, ensuring a second successive term for Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath. This prompted several BJP chief ministers to use bulldozers against the minority community's properties to establish their Hindutva credentials in the same way Adityanath had done to bolster his position. Indeed, the political competition which pitted Adityanath against Modi was based entirely on the former being a more radical representative of Hindu communalism.
The second strand of the new narrative is the sudden 'responsible' statement by RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat. He has essentially unfolded two strategies. One, advising Hindus not to create anarchy by agitating or launching movements all over the country to reclaim mosques as temples. And two, to use the courts and then accept the court's verdict about disputed sites. Bhagwat's statement followed American criticism of India for religious intolerance but came before the Islamic world's castigation.
Bhagwat knows that Hindutva anarchy (which he may or may not be able to control) would attract international opprobrium of the kind that led to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's red-flagging increasing attacks on minorities in India or which agitated the Muslim nations. Autonomous Hindutva, therefore, has to be controlled if the RSS agenda is to duck international scrutiny. The Gyanvapi Mosque and Mathura's Krishna Janmabhumi disputes are being raised through the lower courts. No mass movement that will attract global attention is therefore needed.
The RSS, as the fountainhead of Hindutva, is still pursuing its long-term strategy. The Modi government, on the other hand, needs the cover of Constitutionalism, inclusiveness and development. Its agenda is no different from that of the RSS. Those who think that the Islamic countries can force secularism and tolerance on the RSS-BJP dispensation have another think coming.
(Bharat Bhushan is a journalist based in Delhi)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.