Gujarat wins battle in hate

Once again it has been proved, if any proof was needed, that democracy has struck deep roots in India. The election in Gujarat was free and fair. As happens in a democratic state, the Central Election Commission was supreme, and it rightly kept a tight rein on political
parties. For example, the BJP and the Congress were admonished for the intemperate language some of their leaders used during the campaign.
Yet, India failed because Chief Minister Narendra Modi defeated its ethos: pluralism. Democracy and secularism are the two sides of the same coin. Democracy without pluralism has little meaning because the participation of people, without any distinction of religion and caste, is essential.
By creating hatred against a particular community, Modi created an atmosphere of bias and fear. Elections were free, but people had been brainwashed. The result was that the BJP, led by Modi, secured 117 seats in the 182-member house; five less than the 2002 election held after the Gujarat carnage.
Like the last time, he successfully played the anti-Muslim card and equated terrorism with Muslims. A poor second was the Congress with 62 seats. However, it increased its tally by 11 seats by winning in the riot-affected area, central Gujarat. The party bungled over selecting candidates, fielding many who, in the eyes of voters, are BJP men.
The Congress never presented a clear-cut alternative to Hindutva because it was too much on the defensive and too ready to compromise. On the other hand, the BJP and Modi did not hide their philosophy of saffronising India. What the party and Modi did was an antithesis of the freedom struggle, which was waged not only to oust the British but also to establish a democratic, secular polity.
These principles were ensconced in the constitution. Hindutva was never envisaged, and Mahatma Gandhi declared after partition, in the midst of communal riots, that Hindus and Muslims were his two eyes.
Even when it was clear that Pakistan would be an Islamic republic, the resolve in India was to convert it into a secular state. If the nation wanted to have a Hindu rashtra, nobody could have stopped it from doing so because 80 percent of the population in the divided India was Hindu.
Still, the proposition was not even discussed because the ethos of freedom struggle was secularism. All communities had participated in the movement, and they wanted to sustain a multi-cultural and multi-religious society.
The tragedy about Gujarat is that it wants to pursue a parochial agenda, which is not acceptable to the rest of India. Diversity is the country's strength, and it can even break up if it is weakened. The reason why a big country like the Soviet Union disintegrated was the suppression of diverse communities in the name of communism. Modi is busy destroying India's integration and the BJP is trying to implement Hindutva, whatever it costs in terms of unity.
Still, the BJP is impaled on the horns of a dilemma. It cannot win India unless it sheds anti-Muslim bias. At the same time, it does not want to give up the Hindutva plank because its parochial line has given it dividends in some parts. It has its governments in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh, Uttrakhand and Jharkhand and coalitions in Punjab and Bihar.
Since the party was nowhere near the independence movement, it never understood, much less appreciated, the ethos of pluralism that inspired the freedom struggle.
L.K. Advani, a top BJP leader, got rapped on his knuckles by the RSS, the party's mentor, when he praised Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah for having reflected a secular outlook in the speech after partition, that Pakistan and India were two nations; Muslims and Hindus can go freely to their mosque or temple and should not mix religion with politics.
The RSS never forgave him, and, he, on his part, was on the defensive and practically withdrew his remark. When it comes to Hindutva, the RSS brooks no dissent. In fact, the re-election of Modi, with the margin he has secured, is going to influence the BJP's strategy of tomorrow.
The party's position on Kashmir may become more intractable because it would not like
compromising on such an issue, particularly when even the comparatively liberal Atal Behari Vajpayee has withdrawn to the shadows. The main casualty of Modi's victory may be the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), the platform on which different regional parties have come together to prove a majority in the Lok Sabha.
Vajpayee ruled the country for six years through this alliance. Now Advani is looking forward to it.
Regional parties may not like to sup with Modi, who spews hate because they have their Muslim supporters to reckon with. BJP president Rajnath Singh may go on repeating that the party has won in Gujarat, and Modi may also be saying so. But the fact remains that Modi kept even the party leadership out.
Like a camel, he has entered the tent. He is going to ask for space, which the central leadership will have to concede. Advani's remark that Modi's election is a turning point in national politics may well be true. But the turning point is going to be the re-thinking on the part of BJP's allies.
Except the Shiv Sena from Maharashtra, there does not seem to be any party siding with the BJP. They have secular credentials. They cannot go to the voters with Modi as the BJP mascot. The Muslims command 15 to 18 percent of the electorate, and it is crucial in about 150 Lok Sabha seats.
Modi's advantage begins and ends in Gujarat, because the Muslim vote in the state is only eight percent. That is the reason why allies of the BJP appealed to it not to send Modi when they were fighting their election for the assembly.
The Congress is still learning its lesson from Gujarat. Party president, Sonia Gandhi, is a crowd puller but not the vote catcher. No use re-emphasising that Rahul Gandhi is not making any impact. Younger leaders in the Congress, and persons like Lalu Prasad Yadav who is on the side of the Congress, might have done better if they had campaigned.
Yet the biggest drawback with the Congress is that -- this is not in Gujarat alone -- it does not come out as an unequivocal exponent of pluralism, as it should. The party gives the impression of being Hindutva's soft version. Considered to be carrying the ethos of freedom struggle, the Congress cannot afford to compromise on the ideals. The BJP is understandably against secularism, but a diluted, half-hearted Congress can do only harm. It is sad that the party is not conscious of that.
Kuldip Nayar is an eminent Indian columnist.