Rajindar Sachar
A Muslim girl uses a sewing machine in her house in the Muslim dominated Juhapura area in Ahmedabad on 1 March 2014. Juhapura houses a large section of the 2002 riot affected population. REUTERS
he public, disgusted with the performance of the decade-old Congress-led UPA government ensured that it was decimated. But the Bharatiya Janata Party must not over exult by assuming that the majority has endorsed its policies. It should be politically honest to admit that it is the corporate-created image of Narendra Modi that has scored. The delusional image of development being unleashed by Modi with corporate backing has made the young join the Modi club, temporarily. This strengthens the demand to prohibit the corporate funding of elections. Modi is a deeply religious man as was obvious from his Ganga puja. No one can take any exception to his personal beliefs or actions. But he is now the Prime Minister of a country where 20% of the population are non Hindus, out of which 80% (nearly 18 crore) are Muslims. Modi has been proclaiming that he intends to function evenly and without any discrimination either in favour of Hindus or against Muslims and other minorities.
Can Modi, in his hour of unimaginative triumph, pay a similar visit to the Ajmer Sharif dargah and offer a chadar there to reassure Muslims that they need not fear him? This revered place has been for centuries a sanctuary for men and women of all faiths as an assertion that all religions stand on an equal pedestal.
As for Modi's development model, it is similar to the Congress' and will result in a deep conflict between the neo liberal strategy of development and decentralised development as envisaged by the 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments. For instance, people will resist the UPA-sponsored, Japanese-financed development plans for Amritsar-Kolkata and Delhi-Mumbai corridors, which will displace millions of small landholders and the poor. Modi is likely to pursue this because it fits with his development plan. The Socialist Party (India) and other human rights activists will collide with this policy, a conflict which is acceptable and natural in any democratic nation.
But Modi's biggest challenge will be avoiding divisive conflict in society. This will depend on how he acts towards the minorities, especially the Muslims. This is because under our Constitution no religion can claim superiority of status against any other religion.
In any country it is imperative to win the faith and confidence of the minorities in the impartial functioning of the state. This is accepted wisdom, and was expressed succinctly by Lord Acton: "A state which is incompetent to satisfy different races condemns itself; a state which labours to neutralise, to absorb or to expel them is destitute of the chief basis of self-government." We need only to substitute "minorities" with "races" to apply the test to India.
Inclusive development alone is the path to prosperity. Everyone needs to accept irrevocably that minorities, Muslims and Christians are not outsiders. They are an integral part of India. This was emphasised by Swami Vivekananda (whom even Modi will accept as one of the greatest Indians ever) thus: "He also told Hindus not to talk of the superiority of one religion over another. Even toleration of other faiths was not right; it smacked of blasphemy." In his letter to a Muslim friend in 1898, he again emphasized, "For our own motherland a junction of the two great systems Hinduism and Islam — Vedanta brain and Islam body — is the only hope ... the future perfect India."
Modi often purports to show his neutrality by proclaiming that he does not recognise any special rights for minorities: he treats all people as Indians. This apparently impartial approach is similar to the taunt by French author Anatole France, who ironically commented on the neglect of the poor by the French state thus: "Law in its majesty gives equal rights to the rich and poor to sleep under the bridges."
To say that the minorities — who are far behind in the race for development compared to others — should not be given special treatment is not only injustice but violates the report that the UN Human Rights Council, Forum on Minority issued on 14-15 December 2010, saying, "Consequently, the right of minorities to participate effectively in economic life must be fully taken into account by governments seeking to promote equality at every level. Governments should gather and regularly publicizedisaggregated data to measure and monitor the effective participation of minorities in economic life." Thus it is a mischievous propaganda to say that targeted programme for minorities is not legal or Constitutional.
Modi rightly reveres Gandhiji. Surely, he will remember what he said in 1921 and March 1947: "I would say that Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of mother India — just as the trouble in one eye affects the other too, similarly the whole of India suffer when either Hindus or Muslims suffer."
Modi will pay obeisance to the memory of Gandhi if in his inaugural speech as Prime Minister he declares that Government of India's 15-Point Minority Programme will continue as before and that he is open to meeting minority leaders so as to make the programme even more effective. This declaration will act as a balm and relieve the tension in the country especially amongst Muslims, and thus enable Modi to attend to other urgent problems. Modi alone can decide whether he wants to be remembered as a statesman or a partisan, because this victory has given him an unparalleled position amongst his colleagues.
The situation poses a threat to democracy as pointed out by Dr Ambedkar: "There is nothing wrong in being grateful to great men who have rendered lifelong service to the country. But there are limits to gratefulness — for in India unlike in any other country in the world, Bhakti in religion may be a road to the salvation of the soul. But, in politics, Bhakti or hero-worship is a sure road to degradation and to eventual dictatorship." We must never forget this warning by the architect of our Constitution.
