The strategy of silence
In politics,
the consummate players have to know when to speak and when to be silent.
Manmohan Singh lost his gaddi because he maintained a studied silence at
all times, hoping that the storms would spend their fury and vanish into the
horizon of comparative calm. Since Rahul found his tongue after the extended
sabbatical of introspection, he has decided to be loud, uproarious, brash and
vulgar, hoping that the pitch and timber of his vocal fury would move some of
his listeners to side with him.
Modi is a flawless
player. He let the entire Lalit Modi affair fade away into the drainage system
of the proverbially short memory of the public. He did not speak a word in
defence. His loyal fans see a deeper strategy behind the master’s silence. The criticism reduced the carefully crafted image of those
party men who could pose a political challenge
in the future, and he let the Opposition perform this odious task for him.
It is not
equally evident why he lets the fringe of the Hindutva crowd get away with
comments that diminish the stature of the NDA Government without even a mild
admonition or rebuke.
There are
several schools of thought to explain away this studied silence. The most
popular belief is that he feels that such hegemonic slogans in defence of
Hinduism tend to solidify the Hindu vote bank, which has traditionally been
fractured into the secularists and the Hindutva lovers. To some extent, those
Hindus who found it morally superior to flaunt a pro-Muslim stance on
contentious issues and personalities of the past may have found it possible to
saunter their way into the motley crowd of Muslim-baiters.
This kind of
volte face might not apply to strong characters like Girish Karnad, who might
even indulge in deliberately provocative stances in order to receive death
threats a la Salman Rushdie. But such exceptions only tend to prove the point.
The second
school of thought avers that the views of the lunatic fringe are an extreme
version of the basic belief held by Modi himself that Hinduism represents the
highest form of civilized thinking over the millennia and across the
continents. The way he has introduced Yoga into the international arena,
persuaded the UN to celebrate the World Yoga Day on 21st June,
patronised the efforts to train millions
of people in Yoga , introduced Yoga
education in the schools and so on is one such initiative.
At the
philosophical level, he is an acolyte of Swami Vivekananda and is a great
votary of Vedanta as being the acme of spirituality. He is a patron of the
Vivekananda Foundation and has drafted some of his top advisers from that body.
The third theory
contends that he was an RSS pracharak all his life and has been
popularising the Sangh ideology by travelling from village to village. Although
he was married, he has led a life of bachelorhood. He deeply believes in the
theory of an Akhanda Bharat and would like India to emerge as a Hindu Rashtra.
Modi’s
opponents contend that his studied silence on crucial issues gives out the
wrong impression that the statements
made by the Sangh functionaries have been averred in the public domain with
blessings from the PM.
This may be
far from the truth. Let us take the declaration about the need for a rethink on
the entire policy of reservation made by
Mohan Bhagwat as an instance. At this point of time, when the waters have been
muddied by statements and counter-statements galore, it is difficult to guess
what Bhagwat meant in the first place and whether it was a casual remark or the result of a carefully thought out
strategy. Did he mean abolition of reservation of seats in educational
institutions and the earmarking of posts
for recruitment to posts under the Government ? If so, it could at best be a
slip of tongue for a seasoned politician like the Sarsanghachalak. And Modi is
no greenhorn to have instigated it or even tolerated it, considering the
potential damage this would cause in the Bihar elections.
If on the
other hand, it was a deeply thought out strategy to fracture the reserved
category vote into families receiving the benefit of reservation for the first
time and those who had already benefitted from it, that would be a completely
different matter. But then Bhagwat should
have made it clear in the very first place. The explanations offered by the
spokespersons might have contained the damage somewhat, but it is undeniable
that the declaration gratuitously allowed Lalu to reap an unforeseen political
dividend .
There are
other instances of Modi’s silence. Take the appointment of the Chairman FTTI
Pune which has snowballed into a long drawn out controversy. It boggles the
imagination as to why the appointment of a nobody like Gajendra Chauhan, who is
neither a celebrated actor nor a notable BJP sympathiser should have been made
a point of prestige by the I&B Ministry.
The
explanation offered that even in the past persons who were close to the
establishment were appointed to such posts ` is neither here nor there. No one
holds the view that a first rate film actor like say Shatrughan Sinha or Hema
Malini would have elicited the same kind of response. It is not clear why a
call from the PMO did not nip the agitation in the bud.
There have
been numerous aberrations perpetrated by the Shiv Sena, which is an uneasy
partner of the BJP in Maharashtra. The Sena has opposed any sports or cultural
contact with Pakistan. Even a discussion on a book did not materialise. Such
antics on the part of the Sena may be acceptable, but not the inability of its
BJP partner to distance itself from such extreme viewpoints and to ensure that
the events took place with the active support of the Govt. and its law and
order machinery.
That brings
us to the murder of a literary figure in Karnataka and its fallout in the
literary world. It may technically be true that the primary responsibility for
maintaining the rule of law rests on the shoulders of the State Government .
But this does not absolve the Centre from its share of responsibility.The
murder of this literary giant sent ripples in the entire community of creative
persons and when the Centre showed complete apathy led to the return of the
Academy awards and other prizes and honours
received by writers, actors, scientists and so on.
The Centre’s
defence of its inaction did not cut much ice. To paint the response of the creative community as
political and confined to the favourites of previous regimes rubbed salt in
their wounds. It was no use pointing out
that the Akademies and other bodies could not be held responsible for the
atmosphere of intolerance , if there was any. The episode could have been nipped
in the bud by registering a CBI case to investigate the murder and giving an
assurance from the highest level that such dastardly acts would not go
unpunished.
That said,
it has to be admitted that India is inherently tolerant because that is the nature of
Hindus.Hindus are taught with mother’s
milk that the whole world is one family and that non-violence is the highest
rule of righteous conduct. Thus Hindus have traditionally suffered repression
and tyranny at the hands of rulers, invaders and conquerors. Many would call
this cowardice, not tolerance.
After
independence too, the Hindus have followed a policy of treating the minorities
with kid gloves. We adopted a version of secularism which favours the
minorities. The received wisdom has been that if Hindus favour the minorities,
they are secular, but if they favour Hindus they are communal. The result is
that the civil code of Hindus has been amended to accord with the modern values
of gender parity, monogamy etc. The civil code of the minorities has remained
untouched. This has caused a
demographic imbalance that has pushed the percentage of Muslims to 19% of the
total population.
Many
observers feel that with the ascension of Modi to power, there has been a qualitative
difference in the way these policies have been adumbrated in the past. The
Hindu right has started asserting itself. For a long time Nathu Ram Godse was
consigned to eternal damnation for having assassinated the Father of the
Nation. Now the Godse apologists have emerged from the woodwork. The defence
statement of Godse has been widely, openly and extensively circulated and there
are several groups who feel no hesitation in criticising the Mahatma for his
pro-British , pro-Muslim policies. They defend the murder on the ground that it
was the only way the Hindu interest could have been subserved.
A strong
lobby is emerging that there should be a quid pro quo in Indo-Pak relations. It
does not see any point in India’s unilateral generosity in granting the most
preferred nation treatment to Pakistan, when it is not willing to reciprocate.
On the issue
of terrorism, this hawkish lobby asserts that we should not allow Pakistan have
the best of both the worlds at our cost. They are sympathetic to the Shiv Sena
ideology. They would not permit cricket matches to be played, Pakistani singers
to visit India on long, lucrative tours, Pakistani actors to play in Indian plays,
serials and films, Pakistani books to be discussed and sold in India and so on
until Pakistan shuts up its terrorists within its own boundaries.
On the issue
of beef, this lobby wants that States which have not yet passed legislation that
prohibits the slaughter of cows should do so at the earliest. Those which have
banned only cow slaughter should extend the ban to bulls, heifers etc. Muslims
should not be allowed to slaughter , keep and even privately eat the prohibited
species.
The Census
figures of 2011 which show a marked jump in the proportion of Muslims have triggered
a debate on the need to change the law relating to marriages. They should not
be permitted to have more than one wife. A special family planning drive should
be launched to limit their growing numbers. There should be a strict vigil on
the borders with Bangladesh to prevent the entry of illegal immigrants into
this country.
Some over
enthusiastic lobbyists have called on the Hindus to boycott the films having
Muslim heroes. Baba Ramdev has gone to the extent of suggesting that Shahrukh
Khan should prepare an estimate of his increased earnings consequent upon the
conferment of awards on him and transfer the hundreds of crores to the PM/s
Fund, instead of merely returning a piece of paper to the Government..
During the
Bihar elections some of these tendencies came to the fore. It was suggested
that if BJP won the elections in Bihar, sweets would be distributed in Pakistan.
It is not uncommon for people pleading the cause of Muslims to be advised
to migrate to Pakistan and let the
Hindus live in peace in India. Some
secularists have had their faces blackened with ink or coal tar.
A few years
back, Francoise Gautier and Konrad Elst had bemoaned the fate of long-suffering
Hindus and put forward the bizarre theory that the Hindus collectively suffered
from a “death wish”. The time had come when Hindus should transform themselves
into a more assertive community and learn
to be aggressive or at least militantly defensive.
Although
Modi is generally silent on all these contentious issues, there are some who
feel that his very presence at the helm of affairs is a tremendous boost to the
Hindu morale. Some of the overt gestures he has made to Hinduism are the
promotion of Yoga and Sanskrit , his adulatory references to Hindu heroes and philosophers, his presentation of Bhagwad
Gita to world leaders, his open acceptance of Swami Vivekananda as his
spiritual mentor, his appointment of persons known to be close to the rightist
ideology etc.He has not broken the arrangement with the Shiv Sena . He has
adopted a somewhat tough posture towards Pakistan.
In
conclusion, one could say that Modi has used the strategy of silence very effectively.
He is not always silent, unlike his immediate predecessor. In fact, on most issues
he is voluble, loud and repetitive. But on contentious matters, he often
descends into a silence that seems uncharacteristic of him and allows his
silence to be variously interpreted both by his admirers and detractors. Therein
resides his consummate skill in communication.
2091 words
S
No comments:
Post a Comment