India, the Mother of Democracy, blushed when Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi asserted with no proof that if Congress-I came to power they would take the wealth of Hindus, including Mangalsutras of Hindu women, a re-distribute it among Muslims aka ‘ghuspaithiye’ ie intruders aka those with many children. The latter two terms are synonyms used by the Hindu right for Muslims. Mr. Modi and his ilk have a penchant for birthing bigoted synonyms for Indian Muslims – earlier he had claimed ‘anti CAA protesters are identifiable by their clothes’. The ghuspaithiye speech was made on April 22 this year during an election campaign speech in Rajasthan.
Like everything Modi does, this speech captured India’s maind-space. Modi supporters gleefully welcomed and praised the speech claiming that Modi was finally coming into his own, some chose to ignore the bigotry by suggesting the speech was in response to former PM Dr Manmohan Singh’s 2006 speech which they maintain indicated Muslim appeasement at the cost of Hindus.
However, they were once again deviously attempting to force a circle into a square by twisting the following part of Dr. Singh’s speech at the National Development Council – ‘I believe our collective priorities are clear: agriculture, irrigation and water resources, health, education, critical investment in rural infrastructure, and the essential public investment needs of general infrastructure, along with programmes for the upliftment of SC/STs, other backward classes, minorities and women and children. The component plans for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will need to be revitalized. We will have to devise innovative plans to ensure that minorities, particularly the Muslim minority, are empowered to share equitably in the fruits of development.’ Others were appalled at the new level of bigotry displayed by India’s Prime Minister who is gunning for a third term.
To them, this speech was a desperate attempt to garner more votes after the first round of voting.
There is a trend over the past few years to not debate ideology and political ideology. Instead, what is debated are actions of their supporters, if not the supporters themselves. Parallelly, the shoulder of ideology and political ideology is used to target opposition parties, political opponents, lay citizens critical of the government, and citizens of other religions.
Modi’s ghuspaithiye speech is a case in point. Instead of faulting the Congress ideology and manifesto he scare-mongers by portraying the a as victim and Muslims as usurpers. He targets Indian Muslims by maliciously contorting and limiting Congress welfarism. By attacking Muslims,a he hopes to corral the Hindu vote and vanquish the Congress.
As the focus of political rivalry has shifted from ideology to individuals, political ideology is taking human form. Thus, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has gone from ‘India Shining’ in 2004 to ‘Modi ka Guarantee’ in 2024. The Hindutva philosophy has morphed into a man. Modi has come to embody everything that Hindutva is.
One cannot blame the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and BJP for creating a persona and foisting him on India. They have learnt well from the Congress-I who are dependent on the Gandhis. Thus, despite Congress having a well thought out manifesto for the 2024 elections, the focus remains Rahul Gandhi – the unofficial prime ministerial candidate.
When ideology is supplanted by a human, the ideology remains stagnant and unevolved or regresses into its basest form. Parallelly one human morphs into a superhuman and others become canon-fodder and collateral damage.
The effort to defeat the individual results in the ideology remaining unchallenged and undefeated. Further, the debate transforms into vicious and malevolent mortal combat where fellow citizens are targeted, witnessed recently in the ghuspaithiye speech made by Narendra Modi India’s current Prime Minister. The virulence and twisted facts in discussions between political spokespersons on news channels is another example.
No wonder then that today many politicians are without ideology. With no moral qualms, they leave one political party for another, irrespective of ideology, when it suits them or when they need to save their skin or attempt to remain relevant. It is not surprising to see Congress-I politicians and spokespersons who once vociferously argued against the BJP and its ideology meekly joining the Party and passionately defending it while denouncing the Party where they cut their teeth. Would they have the gumption to change Party’s if its ideology was defeated by proving its unsuitability for this multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic country?
It would seem that Hindutva’s relevance and unassailability is because of a massive support industry for one man. While secularism is failing to stand its ground because there isn’t a face with a similar presence. Is this any different from living under a monarchy where the King represented what the kingdom stood for?
Many try to copy habits of winners, and use lucky charms. When people instead of ideologies are debated, ideology becomes a lucky charm, and promoting divisiveness a winning habit. It is human and a survival strategy for politicians to shift parties and for political parties to experiment with shades of the ideology with the upper-hand. Unfortunately, this gives the ideology prominence and credence. For example, Congress-I toying with soft-Hindutva resulted in Hindutva getting brownie points.
In India, the many shades of debate are between human emotions of victimhood and therefore hate filled resurgence on one-side and its counter ‘mohabbat ki dukaan’. In this justification-rejection battle, the audience, debaters and moderators forget that hate breeds doubt and distrust. It results in those deploying hate ultimately becoming victims of it. On the other hand, one cannot live on ‘love alone’.
Indians need to discuss ideologies – the pros and cons of an ideology that promotes religious majoritarianism versus and that of an ideology of social welfare and secularism. Which of these two is most suited for India’s rich heterogeneity? It is important to focus on ideology, because a defeated ideology cannot be immediately replaced by a clone. However, the shoes of a vanquished person are quickly filled.
(Samir Nazareth is an author and writes on socio-economic and environmental issues)
