All the perfumes of Arabia

People clamouring for Narendra Modi should realise the only policy
which can take India on the path of progress is equal respect and
treatment for all communities

Narendra Modi is being projected by a large section of Indians as the
modern Moses, the one who will lead the beleaguered and despondent
Indian people into a land of milk and honey, the man who is best
suited to be the next Indian Prime Minister. And it is not just the
Bharatiya Janata Party and RSS who are saying this at the Kumbh Mela.
A large section of the Indian so-called 'educated' class, including
many of our 'educated' youth, who have been carried away by Mr. Modi's
propaganda is saying this.

I was flying from Delhi to Bhopal recently. Sitting beside me was a
Gujarati businessman. I asked him his opinion of Mr. Modi. He was all
praise for him. I interjected and asked him about the killing of
nearly 2,000 Muslims in 2002 in Gujarat. He replied that Muslims were
always creating problems in Gujarat, but after 2002 they have been put
in their place and there is peace since then in the State. I told him
this is the peace of the graveyard, and peace can never last long
unless it is coupled with justice. At this remark he took offence and
changed his seat on the plane.

The truth today is that Muslims in Gujarat are terrorised and afraid
that if they speak out against the horrors of 2002 they may be
attacked and victimised. In the whole of India, Muslims (who number
over 200 million) are solidly against Mr. Modi (though there are a
handful of Muslims who for some reason disagree).

Dubious spontaneity

It is claimed by Modi supporters that what happened in Gujarat was
only a 'spontaneous' reaction (pratikriya) of Hindus to the killing of
59 Hindus on a train in Godhra. I do not buy this story. First, there
is still mystery as to what exactly happened in Godhra. Secondly, the
particular persons who were responsible for the Godhra killings should
certainly be identified and given harsh punishment, but how does this
justify the attack on the entire Muslim community in Gujarat? Muslims
are only 9 per cent of the total population of Gujarat, the rest being
mostly Hindus. In 2002 Muslims were massacred, their homes burnt, and
other horrible crimes committed on them.

To call the killings of Muslims in 2002 a spontaneous reaction reminds
one of Kristallnacht in Germany in November 1938, when the entire
Jewish community in Germany was attacked, many killed, their
synagogues burnt, shops vandalised after a German diplomat in Paris
was shot dead by a Jewish youth whose family had been persecuted by
the Nazis. It was claimed by the Nazi government that this was only a
'spontaneous' reaction, but in fact it was planned and executed by the
Nazi authorities using fanatic mobs.

In terms of historical evolution, India is broadly a country of
immigrants and consequently, it is a land of tremendous diversity.
Hence, the only policy which can hold it together and put it on the
path of progress is secularism — equal respect and treatment to all
communities and sects. This was the policy of the great Emperor Akbar,
which was followed by our founding fathers (Pandit Nehru and his
colleagues) who gave us a secular Constitution. Unless we follow this
policy, our country cannot survive for one day, because it has so much
diversity, so many religions, castes, languages, ethnic groups.

India, therefore, does not belong to Hindus alone; it belongs equally
to Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees, Jains etc. Also, it is not
only Hindus who can live in India as first-rate citizens while others
have to live as second or third rate citizens. All are first-rate
citizens here. The killing of thousands of Muslims and other
atrocities on them in Gujarat in 2002 can never be forgotten or
forgiven. All the perfumes in Arabia cannot wash away the stain on Mr.
Modi in this connection.

It is said by his supporters that Mr. Modi had no hand in the
killings, and it is also said that he had not been found guilty by any
court of law. I do not want to comment on our judiciary, but I
certainly do not buy the story that Mr. Modi had no hand in the events
of 2002. He was the Chief Minister of Gujarat at the time when
horrible events happened on such a large scale. Can it be believed
that he had no hand in them? At least I find this impossible to
believe.

Let me give just one example. Ehsan Jafri was a respected, elderly
former Member of Parliament living in the Chamanpura locality of
Ahmedabad in Gujarat. His house was in the Gulbarga Housing Society,
where mostly Muslims lived. According to the recorded version of his
elderly wife Zakia, on February 28, 2002 a mob of fanatics blew up the
security wall of the housing society using gas cylinders. They dragged
Ehsan Jafri out of his house, stripped him, chopped off his limbs with
swords and burnt him alive. Many other Muslims were also killed and
their houses burnt. Chamanpura is barely a kilometre from a police
station, and less than two kilometres from the Ahmedabad Police
Commissioner's office. Is it conceivable that the Chief Minister did
not know what was going on? Zakia Jafri has since then been running
from pillar to post to get justice for her husband who was so brutally
murdered. Her criminal case against Mr. Modi was thrown out by the
district court (since the Special Investigation Team appointed by the
Supreme Court found no evidence against him and filed a final report),
and it is only now (after a gap of over 10 years) that the Supreme
Court has set aside the order of the trial court and directed that her
protest petition be considered.

I am not going into this matter any further since it is still sub judice.

Mr. Modi has claimed that he has developed Gujarat. It is therefore
necessary to consider the meaning of 'development'. To my mind
development can have only one meaning, and that is raising the
standard of living of the masses. Giving concessions to big industrial
houses, and offering them cheap land and cheap electricity can hardly
be called development if it does not raise the standard of living of
the masses.

Questionable progress

Today, 48 per cent of Gujarati children are malnourished, which is a
higher rate of malnourishment than the national average. In Gujarat,
there is a high infant mortality rate, high women's maternity death
rate, and 57 per cent poverty rate in tribal areas, and among
Scheduled Castes/Backward Castes. As stated by Ramachandra Guha in his
recent article in The Hindu ("The man who would rule India", February
8) environmental degradation is rising, educational standards are
falling, and malnutrition among children is abnormally high. More than
a third of adult men in Gujarat have a body mass index of less than
18.5 — the seventh worst in the country. A UNDP report in 2010 has
placed Gujarat after eight other Indian States in multiple dimensions
of development: health, education, income levels, etc.

Business leaders no doubt claim that Mr. Modi has created a business
friendly environment in Gujarat, but are businessmen the only people
in India?

I appeal to the people of India to consider all this if they are
really concerned about the nation's future. Otherwise they may make
the same mistake which the Germans made in 1933.

(Markandey Katju, a former judge of the Supreme Court, is Chairman of
the Press Council of India)
THE HINDU

Narendra Modi — India’s Nixon?

The illiberal face of the liberals is seldom commented upon in India
because if you do, the pack labels you as illiberal. That is their
power.
Few Indians today remember Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President
of the US. He broke US law by obstructing justice and was forced to
resign in 1974, halfway through his second term.

But today, by common consent, he is regarded as one of the three most
successful 20th century US Presidents. But at the time the liberals
got after him — even before he had broken the law.

Only those who have been persecuted by liberals know that when they
get after you, they become almost entirely illiberal. There is no one
more dangerous than a liberal out on a fox hunt. Ask Indira Gandhi.

Indeed, the utter illiberality of the liberals is one of the greatest
paradoxes of our time. Academics have pondered long and deep over it
and failed to come up with a solution. They seem as helpless as when
trying to explain the depravities of the deeply devout.

What happened to Nixon is very similar to what has been happening to
Narendra Modi since 2002. In a nutshell, the American liberals had
decided that Nixon was unfit to govern the US and went after him.

In exactly the same way, the urban Indian liberals have decided that
Modi is unfit to govern India. And they have been going after him,
prepared like the Americans in the 1970s, to accept incompetents
instead.

Modi's mulishness
I have spoken to Modi only twice in my life. The first time was when,
after reading something I had written in November 2009
(http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/will-manmohan-acknowledge-the-modi-model/article1068726.ece),
he called me up and spoke at length about his government's
achievements.

The second time was a year later. I was visiting my cousin in
Ahmedabad and, taking up his invitation, I called on him.

Mainly, I wanted to find out why he was shying away from cultivating
the liberals of Delhi. It seemed to me that exactly like Nixon, Modi
too seemed to have an inferiority complex and that this was preventing
him from engaging with the liberals.

He insisted he would not come to Delhi to meet them. Then let them
come to Gujarat, I said.

Organise stay-over seminars twice a year in remote places from where
they cannot run off. Spend a weekend with them. But just as Nixon
didn't budge, Modi too has remained adamant.

Nixon paid a heavy price for this obstinacy in terms of his
reputation, just as Modi is paying. Nixon could do nothing right, just
as Modi can't.

Silence of the lambs
This illiberal face of the liberals is seldom commented upon in India
because if you do, the pack labels you as illiberal. That is their
power.

To see just how illiberal the liberals can be, you only have to
compare Rajiv Gandhi's first week in office in 1984, when the
anti-Sikh riots took place, with the Gujarat riots of 2002. In four
days, over 3,000 Sikhs were killed by Hindus. Rajiv's government, till
late on Day Four, simply stood by and watched.

In 1998, after Sonia Gandhi became Congress President, a slow
'liberal' whisper began in Delhi. It said it was on Home Minister
Narasimha Rao's advice that Rajiv had not called out the army on Day
One. It is now the received wisdom amongst the liberals of Delhi.

The differences between Rajiv and Modi are many, including crucially
of class. But as far as reputation is concerned, there has been only
one deciding factor: While Rajiv engaged with the liberals, Modi, like
Nixon, detests them.

It helped that Rajiv was from Delhi and Modi isn't. He even got away
with persecuting an old Muslim lady, Shah Bano. Nixon was also not
from the Eastern establishment.

Liberal labels
So who is a liberal, then? A liberal, by my reckoning, is a person
designated as a liberal by other liberals, usually on a single
communal sub-criterion. As a result, the most liberal person can be
labelled illiberal by liberals and the most illiberal as liberal.

For instance, as long as Arun Shourie was raging against Indira
Gandhi's governments, he was a liberal. But when he attacked Rajiv's
government, he was labelled illiberal. The irony was that Shourie had
himself played this game in his time.

He sealed his fate when he wrote those three books about — and not
against, as the liberals will have it — Ambedkar, fatwas and
Christians respectively.

I know him well and it was not he who changed. It was the liberals who
changed their minds about him.

It is in this sense of shifting definitions that one has to sympathise
with Nixon's and Modi's approach to liberals. Their shifting goalposts
for defining a liberal make the effort seem pointless.

But is it really?
Most Indian liberals are wannabes. They are anxious to 'belong' and
see selective liberal-certified illiberalism as the entry ticket to a
certain type of social acceptability.

Their numbers may be small but can potential leaders of countries
afford to treat them with contempt? I don't think so.

Modi has probably already left it a bit too late. But there may just
be enough time for him to build some bridges to the liberals. If
nothing else, it will help him overcome his complex and he can fight
another day.

But that's his problem. What worries me is that after Nixon, the US
got two highly ineffective Presidents, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
Who will we get?

What? Who did you say? No! You can't be serious!
TCA Sirinivasaraghvan Businessline