Future events often cast their shadows before, as they say. Since 2014 when the BJP swept to power in Delhi, there were strong emotions on the new Modi era that’s settled in. No doubt there was BJP rule earlier but it didn’t bring with it so much expectations and so much anxiety. There was Gujarat to fall back on to study the lessons of Modi’s regime there, and despite the loud noises on the development of the State there were skeptics who looked at the Gujarat model with different lens.
The first term in Delhi went without much hassles but it was closely watched and monitored by non-partisan journalists and academics. The report card wasn’t without blemishes but overall Modi seemed to remain without big stains on his white kurta. He waded away with less trouble but he nevertheless had raised enough questions.
One cannot dismiss Modi’s charisma and his oratory. Helped by an army of well-trained and Internet-savvy team, he marketed himself well, avoiding the pesky journalists. No press conferences, lest he exposes himself to hard questions and stumbles his way. He courted the friendly media, and there were enough to pay homage to the new king. With this sort of well-calculated image and persona, Modi played identity politics to the hilt. Obviously, he knew where his core base lay and he nurtured it with populism and d political rhetoric. Driving nails deep into the body politic of the Congress paid dividends at the hustings.
In this second term, he rode high with his sancho-pancho besides him. Amit Shah was both Chanakya and humble servant, and he was apt at playing the political chessboard. That he came to occupy the second important ministerial post is no surprise but the latitude he enjoyed within the party and government gave him superman status. The stars aligned perfectly, and he hasn’t stopped rearranging them, just as he has begun remapping India and recharging the nation towards a new direction — the Hinduvta path.
The way the BJP went on dismantling the non-BJP government, either by hook or by crook, is not out of the democratic playbook. We have seen the swashbuckling sideshow in Karnataka and Goa and the tantalising drama in West Bengal. As the theatrics in some of the States kept dying down, came the showstopper in Kashmir. It seemed like a cloak and dragger episode with Kashmir no longer the Kashmir it was in 1994 by a stroke of a pen.
The State has seen lot of action, including three wars, and this new transformation will likely see much more action.
That the government dared to devolve the state of Article 370 and with its other provisions under Article 35A.
It was a shot across the Kashmir bow, and however much the government would want to justify it, the act can only be considered dishonourable and treacherous. One shouldn’t believe that the government acted in sincerity to “integrate” Kashmir into the Indian nationhood. It was always been after the Treaty of Accession. It’s another matter that Kashmir hasn’t seen peace on ethnic lines, the Hindus and Muslims, with Pakistan playing a mischievous role to keep the issue burning.
But what guarantee that this high-handedness of the government will not spin out of control and Kashmir will ignite with fires of hatred? It will make the political culture of the State volatile and dangerous for its citizens. The government may have thought that doing away with Art 370 would calm things down, but there’s inherent fear that Kashmir will remain the flashpoint it has been. The valley has seen rivers of tears and the Himalayan range will keep on weeping. It’s unlike other states, more of a nation-state. The POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir) sticks out like a sore thumb. A graphic showing a saffron shawl on the northern crown of India provides a clue to what may come sooner or later.
The BJP hasn’t disowned its Hinduvta ideology. Getting Kashmir into its fold and egging the Pandits to return could see a turnaround in the political makeup of the State. Ever since its birth, the RSS hasn’t stopped dreaming of a Hindu Rashtra. In recent times, we hear echoes of it, though faintly. It’s political posturing to say that a “historical wrong” has been righted. In these trying times, it’s a crime to criticise the government and today the government has empowered itself to call anyone a terrorist on the slightest pretext.
As many, I too was called “anti-national” in Toronto, Canada, after I wrote a report for a community newspaper regarding the then Consul-General, Chandra Mohan Bhandari, doing a video-taping of an arts exhibition held by a group with close ties to the Safdar Hashmi (the killed playwright) group in India. This was more than 30 years ago, and today it’s become a common denominator for anyone saying or writing against the Indian government or its representatives in foreign countries.
One Gujarati blasted me for saying that I have read that the Gujarat model was flawed. We were having a discussion at the gym, and suddenly he turned towards me and said, “Oh, you say that because you’re a Christian.” One cannot get into a debate with such persons who have a narrow-minded perspective on what India is and what India hopes to remain as in the comity of nations. Time now to audit Indian democracy, particularly its pluralistic features and whether they would stand the test of time in the future as it has withstood since that fateful day, August 15, 1947.
(Eugene Correia is a senior journalist)
