UP Polls: Opposition vying to be Hindutva's 'B' team

Earlier parties defended exclusivist politics on the grounds of pragmatism; there is now implicit acceptance of it being the 'correct' way

Almost four and half decades ago, we as gangling teenagers played an outlandish game whenever the numbers on the hockey field were insufficient to add up to two teams. We called it hockey singles, as opposed to the sport being a team game.

The first rule was that the playing field was just one half. It was a singles game, and instead of one side versus the other, everyone played against others. Tactical partnerships were struck, but each player played to win individually. Everyone shot into the same goal. There was no goalkeeper, and everyone did their bit to stop others from scoring goals. Standard hockey rules applied, just that there was an additional one.

No player could shoot into a goal when defending, and if the ball trickled past the posts from the stick of a boy defending a shot, it was awarded to the striker. It was a high-voltage game, and the winner was the one who scored the most goals. Others were ranked by goals scored. The three at the bottom treated others to a samosa each.

This not-in-any-book hockey game came to mind while watching Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia's latest self-aggrandising advertisement promoting the state government's 'Business Blasters' scheme.

In the ad, Sisodia asks a school teacher who advised the schoolboy, like others in the video, to study well and get a good job: "If all seek achhi si naukri, who will provide jobs," Sisodia questioned. Next, the deputy CM advises the boy: "Beta tum achhi si naukri dene waala banna" (son be a job provider).

This advertisement, and the state government's 'Business Blasters' scheme, reminded me of when Prime Minister Narendra Modi started waxing eloquently from 2015 on his mission to make India a nation of job-givers, not job-seekers. This was after the realisation that jobs he promised as part of the "Achhe Din" package were beyond his capacity to create.

The Pradhan Mantri MUDRA scheme, which started in April 2015, provided a sense that the Modi regime had acted. The government focus being on job-creators and not job-seekers refrain was taken to the post-pakoda realm in 2020 with Modi stating that the New Education Policy was formulated to make India a country of entrepreneurs and not employees.

The Delhi government's scheme launched in September mirrors these initiatives of the Centre and provides school students with "seed capital" to the tune of Rs 1000-2000 to encourage turning "simple ideas" into profit-making ventures.

This analysis is not intended to examine Modi's thrust, now replicated by Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Arvind Kejriwal and his government. It is not to assess if this initiative is aimed at absolving the government of the responsibility as a primary job provider, particularly when ceaselessly rising economic disparity is a harsh reality.

The Sisodia advertisement is close on the heels of Kejriwal's excessive use of the religion card during Diwali. This underscores how the party is increasingly playing our singles hockey on the same half of the political field.

After the trumpeted Ayodhya visit and darshan at the under-construction Ram temple, Kejriwal performed, at public expense, a lavish religious ceremony with himself and his spouse, his team and their wives as jajmans of the rituals.

Kejriwal's past assertions of being a Hanuman bhakt and expressions of nationalist fervour, including the "Deshbhakti curriculum" in schools, shows the man and his party in complete ideological sync with the Sangh Parivar.

After initially contesting against Modi in 2014, Kejriwal scrupulously stayed within the Hindutva's domain, most recently on the Centre's contentious legislative steps like CAA and Kashmir.

But why single out Kejriwal and the AAP for rolling out a new model of soft-Hindutva?

Elections in Uttar Pradesh are due, and every leader of any standing has been in either go-to-Ayodhya or at least other shrines 'on the list' mode - as Priyanka Vadra did in Varanasi. At the Kashi Vishwanath temple, she performed rituals, wore the tripund (lines drawn by sandal paste on forehead to indicate sacredness), tulsi, rudraksha and mauli (sacred red thread). Not content, she waved a sword at a rally, declared she was fasting and started her address with Durga Stuti and Jai Mata Di chants.

Public display of Hinduness is infectious. Like the mid-19th century's 'Gold Rush' in the United States' west, leaders of most hues turn up in Ayodhya and other revered temples in UP and other poll-bound states. In a turnaround from her anti-Manuvadi past, Mayawati's BSP despatched a Brahmin leader-led team to the temple-town and accused the BJP of poor progress with temple construction. Party meetings now start amid Hindu symbolism.

Akhilesh Yadav is no different – hopping from one temple to another, besides installing a massive idol of Lord Krishna at Saifai in Etawah. Everyone would recall Rahul Gandhi's self-declaration of being both janeudhari Brahmin and Shiva Bhakt. In March 2018, Sonia Gandhi expressed fear of the public perception of her party as pro-Muslim. Undisputedly, her son's temple visits were to reverse this evaluation.

Soft-Hindutva is not new to Indian politics. Rajiv Gandhi, in 1989, hoped to stave off defeat by launching his campaign from Ayodhya and permitted Vishva Hindu Parishad's shilanyas programme. Earlier, Indira Gandhi divided up Jammu and Kashmir into 'Muslim Valley' and 'Hindu Jammu' regions during the 1983 Assembly polls, ensuring the Congress's robust performance in the Jammu region. She also sought out Hindu temples during official and personal visits.

If one goes even further back, there is the disconcerting fact that the first Lok Sabha polls onwards, even the Congress put up Muslims as candidates from only those constituencies where they were present in large numbers. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was fielded from Rampur in Uttar Pradesh.

The difference between the past and present pursuit of exclusivist politics is two-fold. It was previously a pragmatic posture, whereas there is a tacit recognition now that this is perhaps the 'correct' way.

Two, earlier, whenever parties and leaders sidled up to Hindu sectarianism, they sported an embarrassed expression while replying to queries. The "aankhon ki sharam," or a certain sheepishness about such conduct, has gone missing.

What does this show about the state of the nation? The answer lies in the regularity with which Hinduness is flaunted without the need to offer any explanations.

Numerical strength is paramount in today's India. It required a special moment for Manmohan Singh to state in 2006 that "minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development. They must have the first claim on resources."

The former prime minister specified Muslims, but by "minorities", he meant all disempowered sections, including SC/STs, OBCs, women and children. Furthermore, his reference to "first claim on resources" alluded only to those he listed in his address to the National Development Council.

In today's India, no political leaders with power aspirations dare assert that religious minorities are first among equals. We have been, for long, losing the republic envisioned at its dawn. Now the pretence of the nation being what it was intended to be is also fading.

(The writer is an NCR-based author and journalist. His books include The RSS: Icons of the Indian Right and Narendra Modi: The Man, The Times. He tweets at @NilanjanUdwin)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.