Political Diary
New
Delhi, 6 May 2019
Communal Speeches
SEASON OF POISON
By Poonam I Kaushish
Democracy is a
conflict of interests masquerading as a contest of principles in this theekha-dhoondhar election season. A
saying which aptly nails our politicians’ lies as they go about spewing
vitriolic accusations, threats and coercion against their rivals spiced with
the right caste and communal combinations. All depending on which side of the Hindu-Muslim
coin one is. Swaying to the heady tinkle of money, cheap thrills and seetees, with the devil taking the
hindmost!
The power of
rhetorical public abuse by our candidates underscores political discourse is
only rabble rousing, devoid of substance, spreading hatred and widening the communal
divide on religious lines to garner votes. First of the mark was UP Chief
Minister Yogi who asserted Hindu and Muslim voters are in an “Ali-Bajrang Bali”
contest and then called an SP rival ‘Babar
ka aulad’. Countered BSP’s Mayawati, “I want to make an open appeal Mere Muslim bhaiyoin apne vote humain de….Ali
is ours, so is Bajrang Bali.”
Stepped in Prime Minister Modi, “Rahul
is scared of contesting from constituencies dominated by the majority
population and is
taking refuge
in places where the majority is in a minority….Hindus will teach the Congress a
fitting lesson for coining the term “Hindu terror”. Adding fuel to fire BJP
President Amit Shah wondered whether Rahul’s Wayanad rally was in “Pakistan or
India” referring to Congress ally Indian Union Muslim League’s green flags. Later tweeting: “We will remove
every single infiltrator (Muslim) from the country except Buddhists, Hindus and
Sikhs”
More communal-speak.
Union Minister Maneka Gandhi said she would be disinclined to help Muslims if
they do not vote for her. “I am winning the election…But if I win without help
from Muslims….Then when Muslims come seeking jobs, I will think let it be, what
difference does it make? After all, jobs are a kind of trade. We are not like
Mahatma Gandhi — that we will keep on giving, and then keep getting beaten in
elections.”
Responded AAP’s
Kejriwal, “BJP considers minorities as ‘infiltrators’….mob lynchings is taking
place in the county under the guise of cattle theft which is actually organised
murder.” Added Telangana
Chief Minister Chandrashekar Rao, “These (self-proclaimed) Hindus are useless
and disgusting…They want to stoke fire in the country and belong in the
gutter.”
Punjab Minister Sidhu
went a step further and brazenly solicited Muslim vote as did J&K Congress
leaders who asked voters of a “particular religion” to vote for the Party. Topped
by SP leader Azam Khan’s repugnant remark on BJP rival Jaya Prada, “she wears a
khaki (RSS colour) underwear.” Sic.
Purely
shock value? Scoring brownie points? Not at all. The nastier and hateful a
speech, the better. In one fell stroke all trashed the Election Commission’s
Moral Code of Conduct clause: “There shall be no appeal to caste or communal
feelings for securing votes. Mosques, churches, temples or other places of
worship shall not be used for election propaganda.”
Unfortunately,
instead of asking rivals what they bring to the table and their vision about
India’s future all are falling prey to poll exigencies. Nobody wants to address
questions on why discourses are becoming more venomous and toxic? Can such
intemperate language which blatantly deepens religious cleavages by pitting
Indians against each other be condoned as said in ‘the heat of the moment’ or
dismissed as all is fair in love and war?
Clearly, the blame
for this descent of political discourse lies squarely with Parties. Quick to
crack the whip and complain to the EC all shy away from demanding the same
discipline for crude and repulsive swipes at rivals. Barring a warning or ban
on electioneering for two-three days the EC’s action against communal hate
speeches totals a mere rap on the knuckles.
Who does one fault?
Given our netas have perfected
intemperate language to inject poison in society over the years. Namely, dangerous
and diabolical machinations of vote-bank politics, pitting Hindus against
Muslims, creating fissiparous tendencies resulting in a communal divide.
The Congress accuses
the BJP for engineering a Hindu majoritarian communal style of politics in
India by using tactics like attempting to electorally marginalise Muslims to
patronising communal violence, especially around the emotive issue of cow
protection and love jihad. The
Hindutva Brigade slams its rival as a ‘Muslim party’ part of the “tukde-tukde gang” which protects
terrorists and is “working on Pakistan’s agenda” and belongs there.
Undeniably, we are
watching cut-throat communalism at work. Whereby, our netas have made nationalism and the Hindu-Muslim vote-bank the tour de force of politics. With every
leader propounding his self-serving recipe of ‘communal’ harmony harbouring the
same intention: To keep their gullible vote-banks emotionally charged so that
their own ulterior motives are well-served. Never mind, the nation is getting
sucked into the vortex of centrifugal bickerings.
Raising more
questions: How does one control the hate mongers and blunt them? Has our polity
realized the ramifications of their actions? Would it not only further divide
the people on creed lines but is also antithetical to hope of narrowing India’s
burgeoning religious divide, thereby unleashing a Frankenstein.
Clearly, in a milieu
of competitive democracy, if caste politics ensures convergence of electoral
booty, politics based on religion has better chance of polarising voters via
vicious poison tongued speeches inducing raw emotions of hostility and hate.
Who cares if it is destructive and stokes communal violence and sows the seeds
of rabid communalism.
Importantly, no
quarter should be given to those who fan hatred among people and communities.
Be it a Hindu ‘messiah’ or a Muslim ‘mullah’. Both are destroyers of the
State, which has no religious entity. Thus, our moral angst cannot be selective
but should be just, honourable and equal.
In a mammoth one
billion plus country there would be a billion views whereby one cannot curtail
people’s political beliefs and rights. One is free not accepting another’s view
as it is a matter of perception. A statement objectionable to one might be
normal for another. However, no licence should be given to anyone to spread
hatred or ill-feeling towards any community or against atheists who do not see
themselves as Ram-Rahim-Jesus children.
In this dog whistle
politics of surcharged communalised election campaign with dangerous ideas
expressed in fissiparous and communal language which appeal to baser emotions
and promises unapologetically sectarian and communal beliefs, the time has come
for our petty-power-at-all-cost polity to think beyond vote-bank politics and
look at the perilous implications of their insidious out-pourings which inject
poison in society.
Today, the country is
facing an existential crisis --- a pluralist, inclusive India is defending
itself against communal divisive electioneering. Our new representatives in
Parliament should adopt a zero-tolerance stance on offensive and disruptive
language. The message has to go out clearly that no leader belonging to
community, caste or group can spew hatred, and if they do, they lose their
democratic right to be heard. Such rhetoric has no place in a civilised polity.
In the ultimate netas need to realize a nation is
primarily a fusion of minds and hearts and secondarily a geographical entity.
India is a big country with enough room for all to live in peace and goodwill.
The aim should be to raise the bar on public discourse, not lower it any more.
India could do without leaders who distort politics and in turn destroy
democracy. They must desist from using caste and creed as pedestals to stand on
to be seen. Will they heed? ---- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|