[Reader-list] Allow normal politics to prevail in Gujarat by Swapan Dasgupta

[Bipin Trivedi]

http://www.freepressjournal.in/FPJ/FPJ/2010/04/06/ArticleHtmls/06_04_2010_00
5_026.shtml?Mode=1

 

Hostile public reaction may well force the Congress to call off its hounds
and allow normal politics to prevail once again. That would be prudent. If
nothing, there is a cruel irony behind embracing the vicious logic of the
very rioters who equated the Godhra arsonists with an entire community.

Indian jurisprudence is based on the presumption of innocence unless proved
otherwise by law. 

In the case of the Chief Minister of Gujarat, a clutch of determined
activists have turned the principle on its head. The starting point of the
liberal' discourse on Gujarat is that the law is an ass and Narendra Modi is
guilty of `genocide', `mass murder' and organising an `antiMuslim pogrom' in
2002. 

This epidemic of hyperbole would not have mattered had the abuses been
confined to routine political sparring. Never mind Cgrade politicians who
love embellishments, even India's intellectuals have a tradition of
overstating their case Lord Curzon once rued it as the Indian penchant for
what the English called a `mare's nest'. "Very often", he noted bitterly, "a
whole fabric of hypothesis is built out of nothing at all. Worthy people are
extolled as heroes. Political opponents are branded as malefactors. 

Immoderate adjectives are flung about as though they had no significance.
The writer no doubt did not mean to lie...As he writes in hyperbole, so he
tends to think in hyperbole, and he ends by becoming blind to the truth."
Curzon made that observation to the Calcutta University convocation in 1905.
A hundred years later, we had the curious spectacle of one of India's
leading historians comparing the CPI(M)'s high-handedness in Nandigram to
the Jallianwala Bagh killings! The `truth' that Curzon felt Indians had
scant respect for is, of course, a matter of perception. In statecraft,
however, there is a wall that separates political rhetoric and the legal
process. In the case of Modi, that distinction has been sought to be
obliterated by shrill group-think. Modi may well be politically culpable for
the administration's failure to prevent the retaliatory killings of Muslims
after the Godhra outrage of February 2002-and this was a sub-text of the
2002 and 2007 Gujarat Assembly elections-but this is different from the
unproven assertion that he conspired with the killers. 

It is important to distinguish between political failure and criminal
conspiracy. The inability of his opponents to defeat Modi electorally on two
separate occasions has prompted them to seek a legal recourse, using moral
indignation and media outrage as pressure points on the judicial system. 

Modi's detractors failed to influence voting behaviour in Gujarat but they
succeeded in creating a polarised environment and unilaterally pronounced
him personally guilty of mass murder. Eight years after the riots and
despite many of 

the cases going to the Supreme Court, there is no FIR or charges against
Modi. The Special Investigation Team which questioned the Chief Minister
exhaustively last Saturday can, of course, recommend that Modi has a legal
case to answer but till that happens and till a court pronounces him guilty,
the Chief Minister is innocent. This fundamental principle of jurisprudence
holds good for every citizen of India, however exalted or lofty. 

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the SIT may conclude that
there is no evidence to link Modi to a criminal conspiracy. Will that
satisfy the activists or his political opponents? The answer is well known.
Those who persist in describing Modi as a `mass murderer' will continue to
do so regardless of what the SIT or courts decide. The unending abuse of
Modi by those who see themselves as enlightened may well be political
grandstanding. But through sheer persistence, and some official patronage
that began with Atal Bihari Vajpayee and has continued with the UPA, they
have distorted the discourse to ensure that everything in Gujarat, including
its spectacular economic progress, is viewed through the prism of the 2002
riots. Some NGOs even invoked the 2002 riots to denounce the Tata decision
to shift its Nano manufacturing unit from Singur to Gujarat. 

Sanctimonious shrillness, it would seem, has overwhelmed civilised
conversation. The incredibly petty blacklisting of Amitabh Bachchan, and
even his son Abhishek, by the Congress is in line with this wave of hysteria
and intolerance. The owners of the Congress have their personal reasons for
shunning the Bachchan family-the inside story of the great GandhiBachchan
fallout remains a subject of salacious gossip. In the normal course, this
feud should be of little concern to the great unwashed. 

Nor has it affected the fortunes of the two families: both are distinguished
in their own spheres. However, when a family feud is cynically linked to the
standards of activist-determined correctness, it becomes a source of worry.
By charging the brand ambassador for Gujarat Tourism with implicitly
endorsing the 2002 killings, the Congress has signalled a ban on any
association with Gujarat. 

Despite their personal misgivings, Congress Chief Ministers have rushed to
oblige someone's flight of whimsy. 

Conversely, as the Republic Day awards showed, Modi-baiting has become the
route to a Padma honour and a compensation for forfeiture of deposits in
elections. The issue is not Bachchan. The Congress has imposed sanctions on
a Gujarat that is celebrating the Golden Jubilee of its statehood. 

Last week, an attempt was made by activists, with the backing of the
Congress, to prevent the Chief Justice of India from sharing the dais with
the Chief Minister. Thankfully it didn't work and Constitutional decorum was
maintained but the message was unmistakable: any association with Modi's
Gujarat will incur the Centre's displeasure. 

It was also a message to the Ambanis, Tatas and Adanis too. 

An integral part of India has been declared a rogue state for having the
temerity to elect Modi. 

Bachchan has the standing and perhaps even the self-confidence to withstand
official pressure. 

Given the hostile public reaction to the Congress' churlishness, the
controversy may even help him get back some of his sheen. But many lesser
beings may wilt under the threat of official pressure. In the liberal
discourse on Modi, there is no pretence of balance: the khap pan

chayat of liberalism has pronounced him guilty. The clamour is for the
Indian courts to endorse the verdict; those who resist, risk abuse and
accusations of bigotry.
For the indefatigable Chief Minister, there is a definite sunny side to the
Congress' targeting of the Big B.
By equating the promotion of Gujarat with the deification of Modi, the party
has added weight to the Chief Minister's attempt to become synonymous with
his state. An assault on Bachchan is certain to be regarded as an attempt by
the Congress to deflate Gujarat. The resulting outburst of regional pride is
calculated to give Modi's political standing a further fillip. In the past,
he has cleverly translated the 'secular' indignation over the riots into an
attack on the self-respect of Gujarat. The Bachchan episode may help the
veteran marginally but it has given Modi a brush to paint his opponents as
petty and spiteful. 

For India, however, there is a heavy price to be paid for the Congress'
ham-handed overkill. Competitive politics has hitherto been governed by a
set of club rules that the mainstream parties have agreed to follow. The
Congress has chosen to break the liberal assumptions of Constitutional
politics by setting bizarre standards of intolerance. Those with long
memories will recall the unwritten ban on broadcasting Kishore Kumar songs
during the Emergency because the singer had the temerity to refuse to
perform at a Youth Congress rally. 

Hostile public reaction may well force the Congress to call off its hounds
and allow normal politics to prevail once again. That would be prudent. If
nothing, there is a cruel irony behind embracing the vicious logic of the
very rioters who equated the Godhra arsonists with an entire community.