Two Gods, One Message
By Vidya Subrahmaniam
15 November, 2004
The HinduNarendra Modi sees his own vindication in George W. Bush's triumphalist seizing of a second term against fervent worldwide hope that challenger John Kerry would do something, anything, to wrest the White House from the neo-cons. Said Mr. Modi: "I see a lot of similarity between [Mr.] Bush's election speeches and my election speeches during 2002. [Mr.] Bush took up the issue of terrorism, something that I too did during my gaurav yatra. [Mr.] Bush warned off America's enemies while I warned Gujarat's enemies. I challenge political pundits to analyse that."
Challenge? Where is the challenge in making a comparison that is so self-evident? There is no doubt that Mr. Modi bought into Mr. Bush's take on terrorism. Why, the two men even shared a passion for conjuring up terrorists. Mr. Bush saw the Al-Qaeda in Saddam Hussein and taught him a lesson. Mr. Modi saw terrorism in Mian Musharraf's Indian "progeny" and taught them a lesson. Both sought retribution knowing the enormous human cost of revenge.
Post-9/11, Mr. Bush promised to "smoke out" Osama bin Laden but wound up in Iraq, inflicting monumental suffering on a people already under 10 years of crushing sanctions. The Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld team's gung-ho war cry started a death and devastation cycle that continues to this day. The Iraqi civilian death count as of last week was estimated at 14,272 (source:Iraqbodycount.net). Post-Godhra, Mr. Modi swore "reaction" for "action" but rather than home in on the real culprits, he turned on innocent Muslims in a pogrom that was without equal in its savagery. Deaths in the region of 2,000-2,500 aside (source:Jagori), there was injury to body and soul that was beyond repair. A whole community was rendered refugee on its own soil.
Now the part about warning enemies. Who can forget that Mr. Bush made support to his "war on terror" the litmus test for deciding who was America's friend and who its foe? On September 20, 2004, Mr. Bush identified the enemy: "Every nation now has a decision to make. You are with us or you are with the terrorists." Mr. Modi set a similar yardstick for distinguishing between Gujarat's friend and foe. Riding his pre-election gaurav yatra, he thundered that criticism of the post-Godhra violence was criticism of Gujarat and Gujaratis. Those who had hurt the pride of "paanch karor (five crore)" Gujaratis would pay for it, he said.
In fairness to Mr. Bush, he chose his targets in far away countries whereas Mr. Modi used his own backyard for the crackdown. Yet the ideological oneness is striking. Mr. Modi returned to power on the back of a majoritarian campaign centred on Hindutva, terrorism, security and Muslim-bashing. Mr. Bush returned to the White House on the back of a majoritarian campaign centred on religion, family values, terrorism, security and gay-bashing. In both the elections, poor incumbency record sunk against claims of moral and political righteousness.
There is more. Mr. Bush is loved and hated with near-equal passion. Analysts are aghast that the recent election cleaved America into two. One liberal, plural and pro-choice, the other ultra right, evangelical and almost fundamentalist in its opposition to gay and women's rights. Like Mr. Bush, Mr. Modi too was both hero and villain. And like Mr. Bush, he plunged his country into an identity crisis. Post-Godhra, there were two Indias: One proudly Hindu and the other diffidently secular. The first lustily applauded each time Mr. Modi threw a taunt at Muslims.
For his part, the Gujarat Chief Minister reinforced every single myth about the community: Aside from being terrorists, Muslim men also married four wives, each of whom produced five children. "Hum paanch, hamare pacchis (we five, ours 25)," he would say, perversely twisting India's once-upon-a-time family planning slogan. The liberal plea that this was a canard, that statistics showed Muslims were the least polygamous of all Indian communities fell on deaf ears. Mr. Modi's fan club — and this extended right into posh, super-rich urban homes — remained convinced of the moral legitimacy of the Chief Minister's "action-reaction" thesis.
The losers in both campaigns received advice asking them to empathise more with majoritarian concerns. Christian values there and Hindutva here. The liberal media in both the countries also came under attack.
After Mr. Modi's re-election, the "Gujarat experiment" became the watchword in political circles. Pundits prophesied its replication across the country. Even the verse-loving Atal Bihari Vajpayee was swept away by the frenzy. At the height of the violence he had asked the chilling question: "kisne lagayee aag (who lit the fire?)" If the 2004 general election did not become a Modi project, it was less because of the Sangh Parivar's lack of energy for divisive causes than on account of its realisation that Gujarat happened under specific laboratory conditions, which were not easily replicated. The victories the Bharatiya Janata Party secured in November 2003 in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh reinforced this belief. The success of "bijli, sadak, and paani" in turn spawned the extravagantly mounted "India Shining" and "feel-good" campaigns. Hindutva and affiliated concerns were noticeably absent from the BJP speeches of this period.
But no longer. Mr. Modi has retreated but Modi-ism might never have gone away. The BJP's rout in the general election and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's reassertion of its primacy vis-à-vis its political offspring have combined to place the party once again on the well-trodden track of Hindutva, cultural nationalism and minorityism. At the party's first post-defeat introspection meet in Mumbai, the BJP circulated a "tasks ahead" paper with a direction to senior party functionaries widely to relay the message. The first item on the paper: "Restoring the primacy of ideology and idealism." The paper advocated a strong "counter-offensive against all those who reject Hindutva as the basic identity of the Indian nation."
Significantly, "pseudo-secularism" made a comeback in Lal Krishna Advani's first press conference as party president. As did the threat of a "third Islamic state" arising from a "demographic invasion" by Bangladeshis. That Mr. Advani would need to go further right became clear at the RSS meet in Hardwar. Indeed, if Mr. Advani had any reservations on this score — he does seem aware that the path could hurt the BJP's image and its coalitional future — he was not given a chance to express them. The BJP's spiritual mentor issued a "cooperate or else" ultimatum to Mr. Advani, the "or else" being a Hindu party floated by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The RSS meet also passed a political resolution high on anti-minority rhetoric: infiltration, uncontrolled population growth and so on.
India is fortuitous in having been able to vote in a Government that talks the language of inclusion, even if that commitment remains to be fully tested. In many ways, the Bush-Kerry contest mirrors the Indian electoral battle between the alliances led by the BJP and the Congress. Religion, family values, jingoism and opposition to gay and women's rights form a worldview that is shared by the Sangh Parivar. The Republican Party's vote base too is comparable to the BJP's: both draw their highest support from well-to-do men of the majority community. Sixty-two per cent of White men, 63 per cent of the highest income earners, and 11 per cent of African-Americans voted for Mr. Bush as against 37, 35 and 88 per cent for Mr. Kerry. The picture is similarly contrasting between the BJP and the Congress, with the former doing its best among the `upper' castes and the upper classes and the latter among the minorities, underprivileged and the lower castes.
The BJP's post-9/11 vocabulary on terrorism borrowed heavily from the Bush-Rumsfeld terror lexicon. The assumption, of course, was that the Vajpayee Government could deal with its enemies as the Bush administration did with its. Buoyed by the electoral endorsement he has received, Mr. Bush is certain to take the neo-con agenda further. Had the BJP too won in May 2004, it is a fair bet that it would have pursued its ultimate dream of a U.S.-Israel-India axis. It is comforting then that India's current Prime Minister has outlined a vision for the country that comprehensively rejects the notions of "us and them" and ideological clashes between civilisations.
If Manmohan Singh prevaricated on the question of ideology in his first press conference, and was more enthusiastic than perhaps required in greeting Mr. Bush's re-election, he forcefully made up for it in a recent speech on the subject of "India and the World." To quote: "The idea of a `clash of civilisations' goes against the grain of our civilisation. [Ours is] a land of diversity where modern democracy has come to be built on the notion of pluralism and inclusiveness. Admittedly, there are those even among us who do not share this syncretic view of India. They not only believe in the `clash of civilisations' but wish to encourage it." If the Modis of the land are to be kept at bay, Dr. Singh must ensure that these do not remain pious words said at a seminar. He must also make it clear that while India must and will engage the U.S., it will do so from its own inclusive perspective.
