My response to the Nalin Mehta blog in TOI. The blog is pasted after my response.
Dear Nalin,
It is naïve to explain away the BJP’s surge in polarized UP by
saying that the young voters of today “vote for what suits them best materially
in a given local context”. More than a negative vote for the Samajwadi Party,
it was a positive vote for whatever the BJP stands for today. The BJP had its
way, the opposition didn’t.
BJP’s Hindutva credentials were never in doubt as far as the
media and the people were concerned. The BJP itself was perhaps in doubt. Why
else did it shy away from naming a CM candidate who would carry the Hindutva
flag with pride? Was the BJP worried that it wouldn’t get into triple figures
if it had announced the Mahant as the CM
face before the polls? None of us know the answer. It was not an “audacious”
gamble on BJP’s part. In fact I don’t think the truth has really come out on
whether the Modi-Amit Shah combine chose the Mahant or the latter thrust
himself upon them.
I am at my wit’s end trying to digest your assertion that Hindutva
and development go hand in hand. Hindu-ness is not Hindutva. Doing dirty things
to Muslims, as the good old Mahant was fond of saying in the past while
addressing protagonists of his ilk is not Hindu-ness. It is Hindutva. I suppose you know that?
A worrisome aspect of political commentators these days is
the arrogance with which they talk about stuff they hardly saw first-hand.
Caste is not talcum powder for any political outfit to rub off whenever it
chooses. It is again naïve to believe that the BJP did not include caste as a
criterion for giving tickets. LoL. Homogeneity by definition does away with the
need for appeasement and you are right: homogeneity is the message the BJP wants
to give to the entire country by 2019. Keep only Hindus in the picture, there’s
no question of appeasement at all!
See, even you weren’t able to digest the Hindutva pill all
the way. The liberal in you, however small, must have pricked you into saying
that Hindutva can do anything “but within the bounds of constitutionality”. You
are certainly able to see the possibility of Hindutva cocking a snook at the
constitution if it so wishes. Yet.
It must have taken something for you to step out of the
confines of dignity to brashly define Muslims as the ”mullah constituency”. But
then that is the influence of Hindutva! You seem to be, if I am not wrong, of
the view that whoever woos a community on religious lines is secular. So, if
Mayawati is secular because she woos Muslims, the BJP is secular too for wooing
Hindus! Or what!
I am compelled by your impetuous anger against Muslims and
Muslim appeasers to quote the entire paragraph which encapsulates your feelings
about them:
“From the notorious Shah Bano case in the1980s to the
promotion of stereotyped meat-trader-musclemen candidates in 2017, nothing has
been more damaging to the cause of secularism than repeated cynical
manipulations of the Muslim vote by avowedly secular leaders themselves. From
Azam Khan to clerics whose only aim is to protect a more obscurantist view of
the shariah than practised in many Muslim countries witness the debate on
triple talaq secularism has long been an empty slogan.
Its degeneration from its lofty origins as a principle to
defend cultural plurality , to a fig leaf that ended up protecting the
backward-looking Muslim religious right, damaged its legitimacy . Little wonder
then that invocations to secularism, like critiques of demonetisation before
it, may excite well-heeled drawing rooms in Delhi but elicit little enthusiasm
where it matters: on the political streets.”
I leave it to you to explain to your worthy readers, when
you are of a calmer mind, what exactly, if at all, you mean by what you wrote.
I, for one, a measely liberal, could not make head or tail out of it other than
recognize the bile for what it is – bile.
In a couple of more paragraphs you have painted the Mahant
not as a poisonous anti-Muslim rabble rouser that he was but as a custodian of
common sense and with keen administrative sense to boot. The clue that swayed
you, perhaps, is his parliamentary record that includes a question on Bhojpuri.
As I gather, the Mahant seems to have kept a tight leash on his anti-Muslim
tongue when in the haloed hall of the Lok Sabha. Till date.
As all good things have to come to an end, so does your
write-up, concluding with the condition : “…As long as he can keep polarisation
from spiralling into violence…” That, I suppose, presupposes the fact that the
BJP polarized UP in the run-up to the elections and secondly, that polarization
can undauntedly lead to violence. If I got it right, then non-violent polarization
is quite okay, isn’t it?
Nobody would have grudged you, Nalin, embracing Hindutva, but
it needn’t have been at the cost of abusing liberals! Unless you were prompted
to do so.
The Blog:
blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/academic-interest/face-up-on-yogi-liberals-miss-the-point-framing-politics-as-secularism-vs-hindutva-alone-wont-cut-it-politically/
Face up on Yogi: Liberals miss the point, framing politics as secularism vs Hindutva alone won’t cut it politically
Liberals, predictably, are incensed at the anointment of Yogi Adityanath as chief minister of Uttar Pradesh. The sight of the saffron-clad Peethadeeshwar of Baba Gorakshnath Peeth in the top seat in Lucknow has turned their incredulous disbelief at BJP’s massive UP mandate into snorts of self-righteous derision.
The intellectual response to the Yogi has ranged from dire predictions of a looming end of the republic, to renewed calls for a hallowed battle in defence of secularism versus Hindutva, to Rajmohan Gandhi’s evocative invocation of Tulsidas and his portrayal of a ‘virath’ Raghubeera (chariot-less Ram) girding up in the Ramayana’s final battle against a ‘rathi’ (charioted) Ravan.
Talking chiefly to the converted, these angry responses – calling for a renewed defence of what liberals see as a huge breach in the great wall of Indian secularism – may make them feel better about their notions of resistance. But, politically speaking, they miss the plot entirely.
First, highfalutin talk of ideological battles is always intoxicating and comforting to one’s own self-image. But election after election has shown that a large section of Indian voters are not ideological any more. They, and especially the younger ones who make up the bulk of our electorate, vote for what suits them best materially in a given local context.
BJP’s Hindutva credentials have never been in doubt. With its audacious gamble on Adityanath, who was among its most popular state leaders in pre-poll internal surveys, the party has done nothing more than pin its own colours to the mast, making a clear play for a Hindu consolidation leading up to 2019. Critics saying with horror that the saffron party is Hindu don’t tell voters anything they didn’t know already.
With Yogi as its political UP mascot, BJP’s political signalling couldn’t be clearer. Hindutva is not something we use only instrumentally to get votes, the party seems to be saying, and then junk after winning elections. It is intrinsic to its development focus too, with a notion of progress that is intertwined with notions of Hindu-ness. The two are inseparable, not separate compartments to pick and choose from.
No appeasement, no apologies, no double meaning: this is the political message. The collapse of UP’s caste praxis and the Mandal vote has led to a hard calculation that the party has very little to lose from such a gambit.
It is betting that those who don’t like it ideologically will never vote BJP anyway and the rest of the voting public won’t care as long as developmental gains keep coming, and as long as Hindutva aims are pursued within the bounds of constitutionality.
Second, the secular versus Hindutva fault line has lost its power as a rallying cry because of the sheer hypocrisy of the secular side of the argument. Mayawati’s unambiguous pursuit of the mullah constituency, politically discredited clerical voices like the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid and criminal types was a case in point.
From the notorious Shah Bano case in the 1980s to the promotion of stereotyped meat-trader-musclemen candidates in 2017, nothing has been more damaging to the cause of secularism than repeated cynical manipulations of the Muslim vote by avowedly secular leaders themselves. From Azam Khan to clerics whose only aim is to protect a more obscurantist view of the shariah than practised in many Muslim countries – witness the debate on triple talaq – secularism has long been an empty slogan.
Its degeneration from its lofty origins as a principle to defend cultural plurality, to a fig leaf that ended up protecting the backward-looking Muslim religious right, damaged its legitimacy. Little wonder then that invocations to secularism, like critiques of demonetisation before it, may excite well-heeled drawing rooms in Delhi but elicit little enthusiasm where it matters: on the political streets.
Third, a saffron-clad monk holding political office is not new by itself. Uma Bharti preceded Yogi Adityanath. In the end, he will be judged by what he does in office.
From leading the love jihad campaign to asking those who didn’t do the surya namaskar to leave India, the founder of Hindu Yuva Vahini has long been seen as embodying the fringe. But his parliamentary record is interesting.
The five-time Lok Sabha MP has participated in 55 debates since mid-2014 and asked 284 questions. The documented record shows only eight of these debates (14.5%) and two questions (0.7%) were related to Hindutva-related causes. The majority pertained to other issues, on topics ranging from inclusion of Bhojpuri in the Constitution’s Eighth Schedule to encephalitis.
This indicates that the firebrand political monk is more than a one-trick pony. The real question is, which side of his will be dominant in running UP?
From chasing illegal slaughter-houses to setting up Romeo squads, Adityanath has done nothing so far that BJP did not promise in its manifesto. His publicly stated course-correction after the negative feedback on harassment of couples by Romeo squads shows tactical awareness and most of his first detailed speech since taking office focussed on BJP’s developmental objectives, including Rs 6,000 crore of farm loan-waivers.
As long as he can keep polarisation from spiralling into violence, like that seen at a meat shop in Hathras, demonising the Yogi plays into the old anti-Modi model. The more you criticise, the more it strengthens his vote base.
Liberals need a new narrative and a fundamental rethink, that goes beyond the old secular rhetoric.
