By courting the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid, Sonia Gandhi has pulled the last plug for her son Rahul Gandhi and the Indian National Congress. This will consolidate the support base behind Narendra Modi. It comes at a time when there is not much scope for a national debate ahead of the general elections in India and little chance for the Congress leaders to clarify their position.
It's an irony that those progressive minds who don't fail in tongue-lashing Narendra Modi are in stoic silence after Sonia Gandhi's flirtations with what is being termed as 'minority appeasement' and 'pseudo-secularism'. My understanding is that this double-standard of the so called secular forces is one of the reasons behind the rise of 'aggressive Hindutwa' in India.
A critical look at the track record of the Congress, will demonstrate that the way Sonia Gandhi has conducted herself is no different from what Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi did. While Mrs Gandhi was known for courting the Shahi Imam ahead of every polls (she was also known to have courted the RSS during the Emergency and in 1977), Rajiv had the dubious distinction of surrendering to 'institutional Islam' in the Shah Banu Case.
In fact, this emanates from Nehru's understanding of secularism, which is characterised by Western thinking. Nehru can be critiqued for his linear thinking and symbolism on secularism, development and many other socio-political strands. One could argue that Nehru was influenced by some sort of a moral compulsion to protect the minority but in the process overlooked the sentiments and ethos of the majority. India being a much more complex and diverse society the principle of secularism which worked in the West probably resulted in widespread resentment among a large section of Nehru's countrymen.
The whole saga reminds me of a situation that I came across just after my arrival in London in 1999. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance was in power then during its 13-month stint in government and Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress was very much part of the coalition. During a private conversation in Bush House, a former BBC colleague from Bangladesh, who is a very well-respected writer, asked me how come Ms Banerjee and the Trinamool Congress allied with the BJP.
I tried to explain that to fight the 'mighty' Marxists in Bengal Ms Banerjee needed both physical, financial and moral support from a bigger player in national politics and since the Congress, Ms Banerjee's parent party, was allegedly hand in glove with the CPI-M, she had very little option but to ally with the BJP.
Obviously, my former colleague was not convinced and tried to impress upon me that after all the 'BJP was communal' and it was 'unethical' on the part of Ms Banerjee to share a coalition and the ministry with them. I tried to underline the fact that real politic in India was much more complex than the conventional divide between 'secularism' and 'communalism' and a much closer look at the regional balance of power, caste equations need to be looked into before jumping into any inference. I also argued that although apparently with secular credentials, the Congress was also blamed for playing the religious card for short-term political gains. Even the self-styled epitome of secular politics in India, the Left, especially the CPI-M, who overlooked the caste and religious realities in favour of a class-based analysis of the Indian society, were not free from such allegations.
With due respect to his secular credentials and the depth of knowledge, I could see that my former colleague was clearly out of touch with the changed ground reality in India. And this is not unusual for someone who is from Bangladesh and has spent a good part of his life in London. But even the conventional wisdom of scholars and journalists in India suffers from such myopic thinking and inconsistencies in their assessment of secularism and plurality.
If Narendra Modi and the BJP is to be blamed for their divisive politics, the same applies to the Congress. The Congress leadership, especially under Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi, resorted to the divide and rule tactics not only to rule the country but also to manage their own party, especially the regional satraps. Recall how chief ministers were para-trooped from Delhi in the middle of nights only to be elected by the legislative parties without caring for inner-party democracy. And let's not forget if Nehru is credited with practicing democratic pluralism in India, it was threatened by none other than his daughter Mrs Gandhi and grandson Sanjay Gandhi during Emergency.
Obviously, Nehru can't be blamed for the deeds of his daughter and grandson(s) but he was very proud of his Western upbringing and thinking based on European modernity. This personal pride often derided the traditional thinking that prevailed in India. And it was not only Nehru but majority of Indian elites suffered from such derision, be it academics, social and political thinkers, journalists or politicians. For most of them enlightening ordinary Indians was an act of charity that hardly differed from the way the Europeans looked at the natives in colonies.
The transformation of Indian society, especially in the Hindi heartland, can hardly be gauged by sitting in the metropolises or in Lutyens' Delhi. A trip to any semi-urban or rural area would show how the thinking and actions of the masses have been influenced by 'political Hindutwa', and this is irrespective of the fact whether the BJP was the dominant political force there during that period of time. Identifying the Hindu way of life as practiced by a large section of the Indian population with the BJP or the RSS would be an oversimplification of the collective thinking that is prevalent in India. Acknowledging the transformation of the Indian mindset would augur well for the minorities. After all it has been proved time and again that the state has limited power to protect the minorities and their safety can possibly be ensured not by conflict but by respecting and reconciling with the mindset of the majority, thereby entrusting upon them the responsibility of upholding pluralism and tolerance.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
