Ever Noticed That Modi Just Can’t Bring Himself To Say, ‘Mitron, Muslims Are Equal Citizens?’
It is now palpable – the Modi government’s
moral paralysis is shaping the destiny of the people of India. It is a time
therefore, for contemplative pause; and in equal measure for constructive
outrage against how diversity as an organising principle of contemporary Indian
society is being challenged, thereby influencing our capacities and intentions
to co-exist as one people.
(And remember, there is not a shred of
evidence from any part of the world, that tax reforms unite people, relentless
advertising notwithstanding.)
Even before nightfall on the very day that
Modi condemned the killing of 15 year old Junaid, Alimuddin Ansari was lynched to
death in another part of India, every gruesome detail of which was recorded by
the perpetrators, and widely circulated, short of being live telecast. The return
of the primitive pleasure in violence and cruelty, all in the name of the
greater good, the nation and the cow.
Prime Minister Modi has almost perforce had
to respond twice (or thrice?) to the nearly 60 incidents of cow related attacks under his watch. His advice and guidance have so far failed to influence the intended
audience. The question that then begs asking, is whether this is merely per
chance? Or is it by design?
Four key performative characteristics of
these rare responses which indicate a design, deserve a close reading. Like in
music, a melody is understood and attributed meaning to, by studying the
intervals between notes and the half notes; so too in political speak.
First, the response time. The prime
minister takes his time to craft a calibrated response, like one would if one
heard of a tragedy of an acquaintance many times removed. He shows no urgency
to respond, as one would if a dear friend or relative was brutally murdered. After the 2015 lynching and murder of Akhlaq
in Dadri, while the whole country was shocked at the brutality, Modi
deliberated over it for 30 days before he exhorted Hindus and Muslims to fight
poverty together, rather than fighting one another. Never mind, that in this
case, Hindu’s were the aggressors and Muslim’s didn’t need to be lectured.
After Junaid’s murder last month, he took almost a week to respond, spurred on
by street protests across many cities.
Second, these responses, and condemnations
were never stand-alone statements. They have been made almost in the passing, a
few ceremonial minutes embedded in a half hour speech about an entirely
different subject. He has never dwelled at any length on the issue of religious
violence and why it has no place in modern India. He has never said anything
weighty or memorable enough to make sure his Muslim audience feels safe under
his watch.
Third, he never honours the dead person by
naming him. His statements condemning violence against muslims are made
euphemistically, in vague generalities, with only just that much of an
indication to locate the peg of his statement, never saying that he is saddened
and sorry that x or y lost his life in such a meaningless and brutal way.
Fourth, he never uses the M word to locate
the vector of the conflict. He and his government hide behind toothless
officialese of ‘no one can take law into their own hands’. However, it is worth
noting that he breaks this pattern when he responds to the lynching of dalit
boys in Una, saying "If you want to attack, attack me, not Dalits. If you
want to shoot, shoot me". But there has been no similar rousing utterance
in support of Muslims. The Prime Minister and his government seem to carefully
avoid participating in the mourning of a muslim death.
These characteristics indicate a
deliberate departure from Modi’s usual method of tutoring his audiences.
He is a master communicator with the
capacity to conjure up new and even far-fetched imagination. He displays great
acumen in ensuring recall. He has displayed his facility for creating mnemonics,
memorable acronyms, and catchy phrases to ensure he can simplify his message
for the lowest common denominator among his voters. He uses the art of
delirious repetition effectively, employs the repeat-after-me technique and the
suitably authoritative question-answer method in large crowds – all to ensure
that his words, his presence and his manner leave an imprint, create a memory.
But he seems to not be able to command this
range of well honed capacities into action when he sends his message of ‘stop
the lynchings, now’ while condemning the murder of muslims.
Modi knows very well that there is zero
recall value to his phrase, ‘no one can take law in their hands’, but he still
uses it when he does finally respond to murders and lynchings. He knows he
leaves little impact when he says Gandhi would not approve of lynching Junaid.
That Modi chooses not to respond by
creating a powerful counter-image in our memory of him squarely chastising the
killers seems, by no means, an innocent omission. Modi’s moral paralysis is
that he cannot bring himself to tell his followers and the RSS cadres that,
listen up Mitron, Muslims are equal citizens and not the second class citizens
that you were told by the pracharaks for the last 50 years.
Is it because he very likely prefers that
the image of the young body of unarmed Junaid being mercilessly and repeatedly knived
into on a running train in front of hundreds of passengers mortified into
silence remains etched in our memory? So that the image suffices as a warning?
Given his political lineage and past
record in Gujarat, does Modi have little moral muscle left to flex on this
issue?
Modi’s moral paralysis is best captured in the words of a mourner present at Alimuddin
Ansari’s funeral in Jharkhand. “They should
declare a Hindutva state and kick us out,” he said heatedly. “It would be
better than killing us off like this one by one”.
The past is never dead, it just re-enters
the present in new ways, especially when the door is left ajar in invitation. Modi
still has two years to shut that door. Will he?
First published on Huffington Post
Comments