Pratap Bhanu Mehta - Power and insecurity // Mitali Saran's Response To Pratap Bhanu Mehta's Assessment Of Modi
NB: An important and thought-provoking article. There is nothing so shameful as the spectacle of the elected leader of a constitutional democracy indulging in gutter-level rhetoric, whether the country in question is the USA, Turkey or India. Narendra Modi has indulged in communal propaganda many times - in 2002 he attacked Chief Election Commissioner J.M. Lyngdoh by referring to him being a Christian. During the state elections that year he repeatedly brought in the Pakistani President's name and referred to him as Mian Musharraf. This behaviour did not end with his becoming PM. In 2015 the Election Commission reprimanded the BJP for its inflammatory posters in the Bihar elections. Modi had taken great pains campaigning in that election.
Now Mr Modi has suggested that India's former Prime Minister, along with senior retired diplomats and Army officers attended a dinner whose purpose was to hatch a conspiracy in league with Pakistan against his party in the Gujarat elections. Really, Mr Modi? As India's most powerful executive official, it is not merely in your power, but it is your duty to register an FIR against Manmohan Singh and others for the crime of high treason. Why aren't you doing it? Or do you just shoot your mouth as and when you please and say whatever comes to mind?
It is clear that the RSS/BJP has little else to say other than stoke up wounds along communal fault-lines. Their default argument is 'Remember to Hate Muslims'. Resentment and revenge are the only motives they purvey to the Indian people, and they will continue to whip up these emotions in the drive for total power. Their ideal political system is an ideocracy - the tyranny of a ideology. The damage this can cause (and has caused in the past) is obvious, but it is equally obvious that the leaders of the Sangh Parivar do not care. Liberty can be preserved only by an alert and active citizenry. If we fail to speak up and resist this shameless rhetoric by none other than India's Prime Minister, we will be laying the foundations for dictatorship and tyranny. Mitali Saran's opinion piece speaks directly to this urgent need to protect our laws and our country. DS
The conduct of the Prime Minister of India during the Gujarat election should set alarm bells ringing. Narendra Modi’s innuendo in an election speech in Banaskantha, in which he strung together communal canards and conspiracy theories, marks a new and dangerous low in Indian politics. It is perhaps a sign of the times, the new normal, that the demeaning of the office of the prime minister, low level demagoguery or even communal canards will not bother many citizens. In fact, these are now the central elements of the PM’s mystique, eclipsing whatever other promises he might have made about development. But these innuendos also show a prime minister creating the wildest conspiracy theories, not because they serve the national interest, but because they satiate his need for claiming monopoly over patriotism, perpetual scapegoating and playing the politics of victimhood. God help the country whose prime minister is now in such a frame of mind.
Mitali Saran's Response To Pratap Bhanu Mehta's Assessment Of Modi
Third, deniability is a political strategy that rests on the credibility of the denier. Denial does not make things go away. Fig leaves merely hide what everyone knows is there. We have always been a conservative society hostile enough to minorities, gender justice, and individual rights that maintaining constitutional principles is an uphill battle. It seems to me that Mr Modi first threw off the fig leaf in 2002. Since 2014, the BJP, backed by a brute majority and with RSS loyalists seeded in every institution, imposing food bans, encouraging religious bullying, and subverting individual rights, has been its truest self. This isn't new.
Fourth, we assume that this government was sworn in to protect the constitution, but anyone who didn't see this as the wolf entering in sheep's clothing is deluded. It is committed to a religious Hindu chauvinist state with a defined social structure, not to India's Western-inspired, pluralistic, individual rights-based constitution. How can we say this? Because that's the definition of Hindutva. Please, good people, read V Savarkar and MS Golwalkar. The latter's "Bunch of Thoughts" is filled with prettily phrased hate that will enable you to draw a straight line from the RSS's revered 'Guruji' to what we're seeing now: forced citizen subjugation via things like Aadhaar and vigilantism; the nexus between power and godmen; the domino-like capitulation of institutions; the trampling of rights; and minority and gender intimidation through violence.
It is a mistake to respect and submit to office and institution solely on the assumption that they must surely deserve it. Office and institution are only as good as the people who occupy them, and they do not inherit respect; they must constantly earn it. Vigilance and straight talk will make us a better country. I'll leave you with a useful cliche: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you can't or won't relate to that very Western idiom, just think of the story about the Brahman and the snake.
Now Mr Modi has suggested that India's former Prime Minister, along with senior retired diplomats and Army officers attended a dinner whose purpose was to hatch a conspiracy in league with Pakistan against his party in the Gujarat elections. Really, Mr Modi? As India's most powerful executive official, it is not merely in your power, but it is your duty to register an FIR against Manmohan Singh and others for the crime of high treason. Why aren't you doing it? Or do you just shoot your mouth as and when you please and say whatever comes to mind?
It is clear that the RSS/BJP has little else to say other than stoke up wounds along communal fault-lines. Their default argument is 'Remember to Hate Muslims'. Resentment and revenge are the only motives they purvey to the Indian people, and they will continue to whip up these emotions in the drive for total power. Their ideal political system is an ideocracy - the tyranny of a ideology. The damage this can cause (and has caused in the past) is obvious, but it is equally obvious that the leaders of the Sangh Parivar do not care. Liberty can be preserved only by an alert and active citizenry. If we fail to speak up and resist this shameless rhetoric by none other than India's Prime Minister, we will be laying the foundations for dictatorship and tyranny. Mitali Saran's opinion piece speaks directly to this urgent need to protect our laws and our country. DS
The conduct of the Prime Minister of India during the Gujarat election should set alarm bells ringing. Narendra Modi’s innuendo in an election speech in Banaskantha, in which he strung together communal canards and conspiracy theories, marks a new and dangerous low in Indian politics. It is perhaps a sign of the times, the new normal, that the demeaning of the office of the prime minister, low level demagoguery or even communal canards will not bother many citizens. In fact, these are now the central elements of the PM’s mystique, eclipsing whatever other promises he might have made about development. But these innuendos also show a prime minister creating the wildest conspiracy theories, not because they serve the national interest, but because they satiate his need for claiming monopoly over patriotism, perpetual scapegoating and playing the politics of victimhood. God help the country whose prime minister is now in such a frame of mind.
The innuendo that
former Pakistani officials were showing undue interest in supporting Ahmed
Patel, that the former Prime Minister of India somehow held secret talks at the
residence of Mani Shankar Aiyar during the Gujarat elections, whose purpose was
to hatch some anti-national conspiracy, would be laughable if it were not
shameful and dangerous. Think of all the dangers inherent in the prime minister
himself not just putting his weight behind this story, but conjuring it out of thin
air. It was an uncalled for attack on former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
In a democracy there
will be deep disagreements, there will also be attacks on particular leaders’
competencies, and sometimes their decisions will be questioned. True or false,
these things are par for the course in a competitive democracy. But for a prime
minister to paint a picture of a former prime minister as part of some social
cabal in cahoots with foreign powers to meddle in the Gujarat elections is
despicable. Whatever your political views, former Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh’s quiet, exemplary and thoughtful patriotism is self-evident and needs no
defence. For Manmohan Singh, patriotism was not, as it has become for Modi, a
scimitar to cut down political opponents and claim monopoly of nationalism. For
a PM to suggest that his political opponents are doing something bordering on
treasonous is to open the floodgates of a new viciousness.
If unhinged conspiracy
theories about possibly treasonous socialising were not enough, this story was
dripping with communal canards. The entire Gujarat campaign has been, even by
the low standards set during the last three years, dripping in communal
innuendo. At points, the BJP campaign has presented our only choices as being
between Mandir and Masjid. The arguments over history, from Khilji to Babar,
the pet themes of this election, are not about history: They are about Hindu
majoritarianism wanting to make Muslims increasingly irrelevant to India’s
history.
But perhaps Modi did
us a favour. You could say that in this campaign, he has, at last, broken his
silence on the communal poison spreading through Indian political life. He now
wants to shed whatever last veneer of deniability was left and claim
full-throated responsibility for spreading this poison. By stringing together,
in a crass case of loaded free association, Ahmed Patel, Congress and Pakistan
in a seamless social web, Modi betrayed a whole series of prejudices that are
unworthy of the Prime Minister of India: That Indian Muslim political leaders
are always going to be under the pall of suspicion that they are in league with
Pakistan. It is once again to raise the bogey that when it comes to patriotism
a senior Muslim politician will be guilty of association with Pakistan until
proven innocent. The consequence of this marginalising of the political agency
of members of a community for Indian constitutional values are going to be
profound.
Whether we will any
longer be shocked by the degradation of public discourse, by the
diminution of the moral stature of the office of the prime minister, by open
communalism, is an open question..
read more:
http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/power-and-insecurity-prime-minister-narendra-modi-gujarat-elections-communal-innuendos-4979986/Mitali Saran's Response To Pratap Bhanu Mehta's Assessment Of Modi
Here are some thoughts
about a recent column by Pratap Bhanu Mehta.
Mehta's piece, 'Power and Insecurity' (Indian Express), is spot on. He excoriates the Prime Minister's Gujarat campaign as "dripping in communal innuendo", and says the PM "now wants to shed whatever last veneer of deniability was left and claim full-throated responsibility for spreading this poison." He talks about "the diminution of the moral stature of the office" and that "the politics of hope have been replaced entirely by the politics of fear". He says that "A combination of great power and a deep sense of insecurity does not bode well" and that Mr Modi, "instead of navigating constitutional values, ordinary decencies of discourse and civility, to safe harbour, is now bent on creating new storms...In shoring his power through conflict he is taking India down the road to ruin."
Every word is true. But these words come out of some assumptions which we must learn from, if we are to reverse and pre-empt majoritarianism.
First, we seem to assume that high office has a salutary effect on those who hold it. Prime Minister Modi and President Trump in the US are excellent examples of the fact that the office does not make the person - the person reshapes the office. How did a snarlingly communal, pseudo-nationalistic, anti-intellectual, misogynistic, Hindu chauvinist party like the BJP get a crack at reshaping the country in its own image, so that Indian democracy is in what feels like a death spiral? In part, because it does reflect a large section of society, but also because many, whose job it is to speak truth to power, failed to do so. Many people told themselves that Mr Modi wouldn't dare to be himself once he was Prime Minister; that treating him like a Prime Minister would make him prime ministerial material. You cannot downplay inconvenient truths and just hope that things will work out.
Second, we falsely invest position with moral authority. Power does not come pre-loaded with morality-it is only power. The people who wield it determine its stature. Yes, Mr Modi has demeaned the office, but then he has a long track record of personal attack. Yes, he dripped communal innuendo, but he's done that in every election. Yes, he uses the politics of fear, but fear and hate are the wellspring of Hindutva. Yes, he is insecure, as is every person with a lot to lose, and every pride-hungry Hindutvavadi. No, he isn't into constitutional values, and neither is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh where he was politically raised. All of this was very well known and well demonstrated by the time he came to campaign for the 2014 general election.
Mehta's piece, 'Power and Insecurity' (Indian Express), is spot on. He excoriates the Prime Minister's Gujarat campaign as "dripping in communal innuendo", and says the PM "now wants to shed whatever last veneer of deniability was left and claim full-throated responsibility for spreading this poison." He talks about "the diminution of the moral stature of the office" and that "the politics of hope have been replaced entirely by the politics of fear". He says that "A combination of great power and a deep sense of insecurity does not bode well" and that Mr Modi, "instead of navigating constitutional values, ordinary decencies of discourse and civility, to safe harbour, is now bent on creating new storms...In shoring his power through conflict he is taking India down the road to ruin."
Every word is true. But these words come out of some assumptions which we must learn from, if we are to reverse and pre-empt majoritarianism.
First, we seem to assume that high office has a salutary effect on those who hold it. Prime Minister Modi and President Trump in the US are excellent examples of the fact that the office does not make the person - the person reshapes the office. How did a snarlingly communal, pseudo-nationalistic, anti-intellectual, misogynistic, Hindu chauvinist party like the BJP get a crack at reshaping the country in its own image, so that Indian democracy is in what feels like a death spiral? In part, because it does reflect a large section of society, but also because many, whose job it is to speak truth to power, failed to do so. Many people told themselves that Mr Modi wouldn't dare to be himself once he was Prime Minister; that treating him like a Prime Minister would make him prime ministerial material. You cannot downplay inconvenient truths and just hope that things will work out.
Second, we falsely invest position with moral authority. Power does not come pre-loaded with morality-it is only power. The people who wield it determine its stature. Yes, Mr Modi has demeaned the office, but then he has a long track record of personal attack. Yes, he dripped communal innuendo, but he's done that in every election. Yes, he uses the politics of fear, but fear and hate are the wellspring of Hindutva. Yes, he is insecure, as is every person with a lot to lose, and every pride-hungry Hindutvavadi. No, he isn't into constitutional values, and neither is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh where he was politically raised. All of this was very well known and well demonstrated by the time he came to campaign for the 2014 general election.
Third, deniability is a political strategy that rests on the credibility of the denier. Denial does not make things go away. Fig leaves merely hide what everyone knows is there. We have always been a conservative society hostile enough to minorities, gender justice, and individual rights that maintaining constitutional principles is an uphill battle. It seems to me that Mr Modi first threw off the fig leaf in 2002. Since 2014, the BJP, backed by a brute majority and with RSS loyalists seeded in every institution, imposing food bans, encouraging religious bullying, and subverting individual rights, has been its truest self. This isn't new.
Fourth, we assume that this government was sworn in to protect the constitution, but anyone who didn't see this as the wolf entering in sheep's clothing is deluded. It is committed to a religious Hindu chauvinist state with a defined social structure, not to India's Western-inspired, pluralistic, individual rights-based constitution. How can we say this? Because that's the definition of Hindutva. Please, good people, read V Savarkar and MS Golwalkar. The latter's "Bunch of Thoughts" is filled with prettily phrased hate that will enable you to draw a straight line from the RSS's revered 'Guruji' to what we're seeing now: forced citizen subjugation via things like Aadhaar and vigilantism; the nexus between power and godmen; the domino-like capitulation of institutions; the trampling of rights; and minority and gender intimidation through violence.
It is a mistake to respect and submit to office and institution solely on the assumption that they must surely deserve it. Office and institution are only as good as the people who occupy them, and they do not inherit respect; they must constantly earn it. Vigilance and straight talk will make us a better country. I'll leave you with a useful cliche: You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If you can't or won't relate to that very Western idiom, just think of the story about the Brahman and the snake.
