India’s political leadership faced a choice in the horrific moment when the Pahalgam attack happened, when civilians were marked and killed by terrorists. All parties had to confront the crisis. This included the ruling BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
It was the moment when the Modi government could have put on hold its vote-catching strategy configured as “Ek Hain to Safe Hain” and “Batenge toh Katenge” — aimed at consolidation of the Hindu vote by instilling fear and encouraging voters to huddle together on religious identity lines. It was also the moment when the PM could have raised himself above the rest to speak of unity in a crisis.
To do that, the PM needed to publicly draw a line separating internal or domestic politics from foreign policy and national security. Polarisation based on religious identity that transforms Indians who are Muslims into enemies of Hindus and the State has instead, unfortunately, kicked in, conflating the internal with the external, made it a means to poll politics with limited ends.
The present ecosystem has nurtured a belief that extreme polarisation is the goal of power, where words are weaponised to serve political agendas. In Karnataka, BJP’s Leader of the Opposition R. Ashoka charged chief minister Siddaramaiah with being a “puppet” of an enemy nation. By branding the CM as an agent of Pakistan for cautioning “there should not be an immediate war”, Ashoka did two things; first denied a voice to others who see the crisis but think it should be handled differently; and, second, intensified the politics of polarisation by insisting “nation must rise above politics and speak in one voice”.
In Kashmir, the response of the people, the mosques and the Omar Abdullah government was a unified declaration best summed up as “Not in Our Name”. Mr Abdullah’s call to “take proper steps” is a demand to the Modi government to act sensibly, after the public expressions of “people’s outrage against the terror”, which the chief minister believes “is the beginning of its finishing if we take proper steps”.
In other places, the public is taking control of the narrative in dangerous ways; in Rajasthan, BJP MLA Balmukundacharya and his bhakts plastered Jaipur’s Jama Masjid on Friday, April 25, with hate posters linking mosque-goers to the terrorists responsible for the Pahalgam carnage; one Manoj Chaudhary, a “gau rakshak” (cow protector) from the Kshatriya Gau Rakshak Dal, killed a biryani seller on April 23 in Agra. The no-rules-apply mood has resulted in the blowing up of at least nine homes with explosives by the security forces of people who were on the list as linked to active terrorists from well before Pahalgam. Kashmiri students have been targeted by vigilantes across BJP-ruled states.
The all-party meeting in Parliament by the collective political leadership of India, including the Congress and other Opposition parties, gave the Modi government unconditional support. What the Prime Minister does with it is what matters.
All the parties that gathered in Parliament on April 24 did so in their capacity as representing the people of India; by excluding himself, as Prime Minister, from this meeting, by failing to go to Kashmir to reassure India there was an inclusive government that was in control, Mr Modi chose to insulate himself and his politics from taking responsibility. In those moments, he denied India the opportunity for choosing reconciliation instead of murder and retribution against biryani sellers, namaz goers and everyone who did not want to “speak in one voice”.
The Prime Minister, who should have been there, stayed out. He turned up in Jhanjhar, in Madhubani district of Bihar, where he thundered banalities about “India’s blood boiling” and declared “India will identify, trace and punish every terrorist, supporter and conspirator. We’ll pursue them to the end of the earth”. The public and India recognised the familiar spiel for what it was: empty rhetoric.
Even the flourish was vacuous: “They will be punished beyond their imagination.” By travelling to Bihar to deliver his address to the nation and the world, Mr Modi made it clear that he was willing to represent only one section of India which he believes will vote for him and by extension the BJP.
If the retribution that Mr Modi has promised provokes more terrorist attacks on select vulnerable targets, he will have no excuses left and no one to blame either. The challenge is not the punishment India will inflict on Pakistan. The test for Mr Modi’s claims that India has been safer under his watch will be how he handles the safety of the five lakh-plus pilgrims who are due to go on the Amarnath Yatra pilgrimage in July. He must make travelling safe for tourists who are returning to Kashmir as a destination, after the Pahalgam tragedy. Money talks and the people who paid for holidays and pilgrimages want to get the maximum out of it.
It is not the Prime Minister’s role to use every crisis as a campaign input. There are moments, as in the post-Pahalgam situation, when he has to step up to speak to Indians and speak to the enemy.
Tragically, his words and his actions have been interpreted by his party leaders and vigilantes as a message that India’s enemy is not Pakistan, but one part of Indians, both Muslims and non-Muslims, the pious and the non-believers.
Some people, inspired by “bulldozer politics” and labelling of dissent as anti-national, anti-Hindu and pro-Pakistan have come to believe that they have immunity from consequences. The social media has been segmented into outpourings of hate messages against specific targets: Pakistan, Indian Muslims, Kashmiri Muslims, anti-nationals, anti-Hindus — the purpose of which is intensification and amplification of emotions around polarisation. What does not make sense are the conspiracy theories and a common, shared understanding that Pahalgam, instead of being a national tragedy, is an incident that must be weaponised to rake in support for the crucial Bihar Assembly elections.
The split in the nation is between supporters of Mr Modi and his party and the rest. The polarisation over religious identity and the denial of legitimacy to anyone who does not speak in the same “one voice” confirms one thing: this is how the BJP and Mr Modi want to play at politics; not as Indians, but as demagogues, with all the associated negatives. The Modi government cannot ensure the safety of travellers to Jammu and Kashmir, the people who live there and migrant workers by polarisation and politics. He has to climb off the perch where he has stationed himself or else allow someone else to do what he cannot.
