Recently, in a televised debate, former student leader Kanhaiya Kumar asked a BJP politician to clarify whether or not he was “Godse-virodhi” [against Nathuram Godse]. The BJP veteran, who had earlier parried Mr. Kumar’s charge that he was a “fascist” by asserting that he was actually a “nationalist”, eventually admitted, “No, I am not against Godse”.
If this banal exchange was interesting, it was only because of the ease with which Mr. Kumar was able to demonstrate that for today’s self-proclaimed nationalist, it has become a risky proposition to even publicly disown the man who killed the Father of the Nation. Seven years ago, the risk would have been the other way around — of appearing to endorse the man who killed Mahatma Gandhi. But now, BJP spokespersons can be seen as supporting Godse without fear of being thrown out of the party.
At another level, with every passing day, life is getting tougher for the average BJP supporter, who is discovering that she is faced with the same binary that the party likes to impose on everyone else: either you are a Modi loyalist or you are an anti-national.
The non-ideological supporter
There is a tendency to paint all BJP supporters in the same shade of saffron — that would be a mistake. The party’s core base consists of two kinds of saffron: those sympathetic to the Hindutva ideology of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and those who identify with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But beyond this dual core processor that drives BJP politics, there are a great many who, for various reasons, including those of political expediency, professional advancement, cultural capital or material benefit, chose to throw in their lot with the BJP. Their ideological past may have been hostile or indifferent to the Sangh agenda, but they nonetheless ventured to publicly climb on to the Sangh/Modi bandwagon.
These include individuals with an independent professional identity that preceded their association with the BJP — economists, historians, statisticians, diplomats, journalists, and all kinds of specialists whose loyalty to the truth of their domain expertise would, under normal circumstances, trump their allegiance, if any, to the regime in power.
For many of them, who do not wish to be blind followers of Mr. Modi, the going has not been easy. Many are individuals who, starting from mid-2013, deployed their cultural capital to help build a narrative that Mr. Modi is an economic wizard who would usher in the long-awaited ‘big bang’ reforms. As for Mr. Modi’s political leanings or social track record, these professionals pretended that they didn’t exist. In their heads, Mr. Modi was someone who, as Prime Minister, would dedicate himself solely to the project of making India fulfil its economic destiny.
This fantasy received its first pinprick when the lynchings started. But these non-ideological co-travellers argued that such criminal acts were the handiwork of “fringe elements” and that the Prime Minister could not be held accountable for them.
And then came the first big shock: demonetisation. It should have been evident that this was a hare-brained idea that would decimate the economy. But the believers put their faith above reason. While some of the co-travellers bailed out, a large section of the middle-classes as well as the influencers among the elites hung on, preferring to see it as a political masterstroke rather than as a body blow to the economy that it was.
Demonetisation was followed by the botched roll-out of the Goods and Services (GST) tax. The two together felled the informal sector, which, as it sank, took the formal sector with it. But the regime’s co-travellers — eminent economists among them — kept the faith. What this government needed was more time, they said. Besides, if not Mr. Modi, then who?
The government returned in 2019. But growth did not. Modi 2.0 was not about, as the non-ideological faithful expected, getting on with the business of good governance. Instead, what emerged was a regime shorn of the mask of developmentalism. Its singular focus: implementing the Hindutva agenda. So, first came the criminalisation of triple talaq (instead of making it a civil offence). Then came the dilution of the special status enjoyed by Jammu and Kashmir. And then, in early December, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019. The legislation, and the proposal for a countrywide National Register of Citizens, sparked massive protests that resonated across religious divides.
Defending the indefensible
With the protests showing no signs of abating, the BJP’s co-travellers are everyday being called upon to defend the regime and the party, even as its actions and positions become increasingly tough to justify – from a law that discriminates on the basis of religion, to violent police action against students and minorities. The latest is the announcement by the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh that raising the ‘Azaadi’ slogan would attract the sedition charge.
Not surprisingly, the regime’s recent outreach to Bollywood on the CAA issue received a lukewarm response. Recent international coverage of the Modi regime has been unrelentingly critical. Later this week, the European Parliament will vote on six resolutions that charge India with violating international human right norms. And for all that, the principled Modi supporter is caught in a bind, with little room for principled disagreement.
On the one hand, the economy is showing no signs of revival. On the other, as if to set in relief its dithering on the economic front, the Modi regime has shown itself to be clear-eyed and bold in pursuing its ideological agenda. So much so that it has now become almost impossible for anyone to claim to be a BJP voter or a Modi supporter without also taking ownership of the Hindutva agenda.
Perhaps tragically, the non-ideological co-traveller of the BJP now finds herself at the crossroads: either defend the indefensible and risk your credibility, or break ranks and risk the wrath of the saffron brigade, which controls nearly every arm of the state apparatus. This is not an easy place to be. Those who have gained from tactically boarding the BJP bandwagon – who owe their position to political patronage – have no option but to toe the line, as some university appointees facing social boycott are discovering.
Lastly, it is not as if polarisation only offers benefits to the right-wing. It also exacts a price, by setting off a concatenation of cracks and breaks. These do not stop with the division of families and loss of friendships. The deepest schism – and the most difficult to acknowledge – is the one within the psyche. Of the legions that currently enjoy saffron-hued power, there are many who, their outward bluster notwithstanding, wake up every morning to a self divided against itself.
sampath.g@thehindu.co.in
