Rise of Neo-Secular Modi: A challenge or opportunity for Secular India?

PM Narendra Modi seems to be content with his current image as the rock-star of Indian politics, someone who is getting increasing space and positive vibes from the international community. All this is good but ephemeral. 

Even as the major secular party is desperately trying to recover from its humiliating rout in the 2014 General Elections, and other quasi-secular outfits – RJD, JD(U), SP, BSP etcetera – remain more or less in a state of disarray, secularism’s survival apparently depends upon the genuineness of Modi’s emergence as a neo-secular. Soon after his victory, Modi, the Great Saffron Hope, had begun discovering virtues in Mahatma Gandhi’s secular-liberal precepts and practices. But how genuine is this transformation? Perhaps only time will tell. However, his political style is showing marked resemblance to another Gandhi. The manner in which he is being iconized and eulogized, the tactics used to banish opposition within the party and silence critics outside it, the signs of narcissism and imperiousness, somehow remind one of the Indira Gandhi era. 

Years before such terms as “neo-con” and “neo-liberals” came into vogue the Indian democracy witnessed this phenomenon, which remained unlabelled though. Indira Gandhi was responsible for dismissal of India’s first elected communist government in Kerala in 1959. EMS Namboodiripad, who was a founder of the Congress Socialist Party (1934) which was a wing of the Indian National Congress, and later emerged as a colossus among Indian politicians, headed that government. If we try to apply today’s political lexicon to Nehru’s political ideology – it should be ideally termed as soft-socialism or even neo-socialism. However, there would be equally powerful arguments in favour of the terms neo-con or soft-capitalism too, since he was as paranoid of the spread of Communism as the CIA used to be in those years.

But Indira’s position was less ambiguous. She never allowed ideology to become a constraint in her quest for unbridled power. Witness the manner in which she used unadulterated leftist rhetoric, backed with measures any communist regime would have been proud of – nationalization of banks, for instance, and marginalization of the so-called Syndicate in the process. Yet, it was during her regime one of the most powerful corporate behemoths – the Reliance group – came into existence and flourished. Moreover, even while mouthing socialist rhetoric, she began practicing soft Hindutva, ostensibly to counter the growing influence of the Sangh Parivar. True, the Bharatiya Jan Sangh, the precursor to today’s BJP, had not yet converted its growing popularity into Lok Sabha seats, but it was getting there. 

The Janata Party experiment and its rather early and unsurprising demise had several consequences for the Indian polity. Indira Gandhi returned triumphantly to power, giving rise to the general notion that the Nehru-Gandhi Dynasty, especially she, was irreplaceable at the top of the power pyramid of Indian politics. This also, somehow, legitimized albeit unofficially and subtly, the subversion of various constitutional institutions during the Emergency. The emboldened Indira Gandhi began indulging in a far more dangerous game of divide and rule in the country. Her single-minded and cynical pursuit of power resulted in violence in the Northeastern states of India, especially Assam (one is not talking of Nellie killings alone), and the rise of Khalistani Movement in its most virulent form. It is well known that Bhindranwale was a Congress stooge planted in the Golden Temple to not just embarrass the Shiromani Akali Dal but also to break the SAD’s hold on Sikhs, especially Jat Sikhs who dominated the Punjab political scene. Was it her megalomania that blinded her to the consequences of such political games? 

Today, her apologists argue that she was more a victim than perpetrator of that diabolic politics. But it cannot be denied that her decision to go in for elections in Assam in the midst of the AASU led agitation there, and her decision to give more than four million Bangladeshi immigrants the right to vote, provoked the horrendous Nellie bloodbath in February 1983. But, contrary to her calculations, it was not the Congress but the All Assam Students Union backed Asom Gana Parishad that became the eventual beneficiary of her political shenanigans. AGP’s Prafull Kumar Mahanta came to power in 1985, after an accord was signed by the AASU and the Rajiv Gandhi government.

Something similar happened in Punjab, but with far more dangerous consequences for the Indian polity. In the Congress bid to reduce the Akali Dal to a cipher in Punjab the duo of Sanjay Gandhi and Gyani Zail Singh used Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a Trojan horse in the Akali/SGPC citadel at the Akal Takht. The idea was to divide the Sikh, especially Jat Sikh, vote. The calculation was that Hindus and non-Jat Sikhs, especially the OBCs and Scheduled Castes among them, would continue to vote as a bloc for the Congress. By dividing the Jat Sikh vote, the Congress Party would remain dominant in Punjab. As we know, these calculations went awry. The resultant bloodbath and terrorism turned the hitherto minor player like the BJP into a major political force in the state, while the SAD reinforced its status as the most legitimate political voice of the Sikhs. Ironically, the Indian National Congress now faces the threat of becoming irrelevant to Punjab’s electoral politics.

Indira Gandhi was a powerful and charismatic leader. But she used her power and charisma for all the wrong purposes. The subverting of democratic precepts, practices and institutions, the doing away with healthy parliamentary practices and contaminating the polity with communal virus have taken a heavy toll.

Today, Narendra Modi has emerged as a powerful and charismatic leader. Nobody within the party as well as the government dares to question his decisions and actions. Sycophantic chants are becoming increasingly creative and strident. Once again, the Supreme Court is being targeted, as was done by Indira Gandhi, albeit in a different manner; this time, attempts are being made to change the system for appointing judges. Once again, there is a brazen and cynical attempt at parsing the polity. If Indira Gandhi indulged in minority-appeasing tactics while practicing soft Hindutva, Modi is playing to the Hindu majority gallery while seemingly reinventing himself as a neo-secular. In Modi’s neo-secular calculations, there is only a peripheral place for the minorities. Apart from declaring Mother Teresa and Shah Rukh Khan as strangers in the parliamentary lexicon, look at the manner in which assorted Maharajs and sadhvis are getting away with the most provocative and unlawful statements against the minorities outside the parliament. Apparently, Modi is or has been convinced that he has the wherewithal to control the political fallout of such divisive actions. Indira Gandhi thought so, too. And, we know what actually happened. We are still suffering the consequences.

Then there is the factor of misogyny, which threatens to undo whatever has been achieved in the field of woman's emancipation. Sadhus and Sadhvis are brazenly exhorting Hindu women to produce a specific number of children; they talk in terms of targeting women belonging to other communities for conversion and/or rape as “revenge”. Then, there is the familiar trivialization of a heinous crime like rape – damning the victim as the instigator. Contrast this with those poll-eve ad campaigns wherein women asserted that with the advent of Modi sarkar rapists and other misogynists would be dealt with severely, and betis and bahus would be safe. Now those ads have been discarded for good. There is enough evidence of the manifestation of medieval mindset among the current ruling circles to fear the return to those horrendous times when women were more or less slaves and child producing factories; we might well see the return of the dastardly Sati practice as a legitimate, nay honourable, Hindu tradition.

As for his economic policies, PM Modi’s talk of inclusiveness is not being taken at face value, given that his government has slashed budgetary allocations for healthcare and education, among other measures that were originally conceptualized by the UPA for empowerment of the poor. Most of his attention is focused on promoting the big corporate houses through big-ticket projects, which again are refusing to take off, at least for now. The election campaign promises for job creation, better governance and security for women have yet to materialize in any concrete manner. 

There is another disturbing trend that is manifesting itself rather strongly. The manner in which attempts are being made to discredit and dismiss AAP’s government in Delhi reminds one of the way governments in Kerala, Punjab, Assam and other states were dismissed by the Congress on different occasions, for most spurious reasons. If it is Delhi today, can other non-BJP ruled states be far behind? This is bad for democracy because it might boomerang upon the country in the most unforeseen manner; let us respect our democratic traditions and constitutional obligations for the sake of a healthy and vibrant India.

It was Indira Gandhi’s style to project her as a visionary statesperson abroad and resort to myopic petty politicking at home. PM Narendra Modi seems to be emulating her. He is content with his current image as the rock-star of Indian politics, someone who is getting increasing space and positive vibes from the international community. All this is good but ephemeral. He has an opportunity to do something enduring and positive for the country. Not that he has done nothing good. But that is really not enough. He must step back and take a good look at India’s political history. The rise of violence in the Northeast, the increasing alienation of minorities and rising disillusionment among the unemployed youth, not to mention the suicide-inducing distress among our farmers, are strong indicators that more needs to be done to usher in the much promised and hyped Achhe Din.