Whenever an election campaign draws to an end, especially if the outcome is too close to call, opponents of the BJP invariably fall back on their patented war cry, "Secularism in danger!"
Very often there is no basis to substantiate this claim, but this now happens routinely. And Bihar is no exception. So it is not surprising that in the last fortnight,
Mahagathbandhan leaders are crying hoarse that the BJP has communalised the campaign. Equally predictably, sections of the media have echoed this contention at mounting decibel levels.
Pray, what is the evidence of the alleged communalisation of the campaign by the BJP? Only two instances are cited. First, BJP president Amit Shah's claim that celebratory firecrackers would go off in Pakistan if BJP lost the election. And second, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's assertion that the 'Grand Alliance' is conspiring to reduce the quantum of reservations for OBCs and SC/STs and transfer this to minorities. Also, the current national obsession with beef has not escaped attention, but in this case it is Lalu Yadav who brought the issue to the forefront with his bland assertion, "Hindus too eat beef".
In every election, Pakistan is often targeted by politicians to underline their own nationalistic credentials while questioning those of their opponents. Such remarks draw loud applause at public meetings because a bit of Pakistan-bashing always goes down well with crowds. It is not the BJP alone which indulges in this; other parties too make similar jingoistic and rhetorical remarks. Obviously, these are meant to be a humorous aside rather than a grave diplomatic policy statement. It can at best be described as unnecessary overstatement, but how can it be inferred as communal?
Arguably crackers are unlikely to be burst in Pakistan were the BJP to lose a state election in India. But assuming for a moment that this indeed happens, what would that indicate? It would suggest that some people in Pakistan would rejoice at the BJP's defeat if that happens. But does it suggest anything about Bihar? If you stretch this argument and say that Pakistani Muslims (anyway, people of other faiths are hardly found in Pakistan any more) dislike Narendra Modi, does it have any implications for Bihar? Had Amit Shah suggested that Indian Muslims too would be happy to see the BJP lose, he could have been accused of seeking to polarise voters on communal lines. But he made no such inference. It is the communalised mindset of the BJP's opponents that is exposed by their reaction to the BJP chief's remark.
What Amit Shah said would be clear even to a 10-year-old child: Pakistanis may not like Narendra Modi as he is known to be a tough leader who will not bend backwards to please the Islamabad establishment in an elusive pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize unlike his predecessor. So, many people in Pakistan would be happy if the Indian Prime Minister and his party suffer a setback in the Bihar election. What does it have to do with communalism?
For years, the Congress played the communal card overtly wooing Muslims while doing nothing for their economic or educational uplift. Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh went to the extent of publicly declaring that the first right on India's national resources belonged not just to minorities as a whole but Muslims in particular. Few would forget the claim by Congress spokespersons that Sonia Gandhi shed copious tears when a young Indian Muslim doctor was wrongly identified as a co-conspirator in the Brisbane airport bombing and labelled a terrorist by Australian authorities before the truth was revealed and he was set free. These symbolic utterances of a communal nature were clearly intended to consolidate the Congress party's vote bank which had been shaken in the aftermath of the Babri Masjid demolition.
Generally speaking, rightly or wrongly, many Muslims do not vote for the BJP, but whenever die-hard pro-Muslim regional parties like the Samajwadi Party in UP or Trinamool Congress in West Bengal seem to be a good option, Muslims prefer not to vote for the Congress. Public memory may be short, but in Bihar it is not short enough to forget the systematic massacre of over 1,100 Muslims in Bhagalpur in 1989 under a Congress government. Bihari Muslims, like their Hindu brethren, are a highly politicised community and well informed of current events. They also remember the Congress's track record when it comes to fostering communal elements and even riots in Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and several other states through the 1970 and 80s. Therefore, the party has no option but to demonise the BJP as communal to make Muslims insecure. And so, the so-called secularists are compelled to blow out of proportion the tragic killing of a Muslim in Dadri over beef rumours, hoping that would absolve them of the sins of Muzaffarpur and umpteen communal riots under a "secularist" Government.
The
Mahagathbandhan also found a handy card in RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat's statement seeking review of the entire policy of reservations followed hitherto. He had sought a review to ensure that only the most backward classes, and not those already empowered, derive quota benefits. But this aspect of his statement and subsequent clarifications got lost in the din created by the Mandalite parties. The Prime Minister repeatedly asserted that quotas derive legitimacy from laws enacted by Parliament and no power can snatch them away. But it served the Mandalites to obscure this.
Gathbandhan leaders went a step further to promise quotas to minority communities too, but couched it in "secular" terminology saying that Dalit Muslims and Christians should also benefit from reservations. But where would these quotas come from? Obviously, these would have to be hived off the existing Dalit and OBC quotas. When the BJP pointed this out, the
Gathbandhan leaders panicked, ran to the Election Commission against the BJP's newspaper advertisements and had them banned. Meanwhile, they raised an outcry saying the BJP was trying to communalise the poll campaign.
This is really strange. Those who say backward Muslims and Christians should also get a share of quotas are not communal, but those who point out that reservation on religious lines are not constitutionally permissible are. So, who is communalising the Bihar campaign, the BJP or the so-called secularist parties?
Luckily for Bihar, the beef issue did not acquire the same dimensions that it did in TV studios in the country, although Lalu Yadav did his best to kickstart a controversy with his claim that Hindus too eat beef. Well, there is no exact count but it is known that some jet-setting, five-star-types indeed consume cow's meat, if not within India but often abroad. But Lalu ended up scoring a self-goal with this remark as rural Yadavs, being engaged mainly in agricultural and pastoral activities, revere the cow and would recoil at the thought of consuming even buffalo meat, leave alone cow. It seems the RJD chief had hoped for a frenzied BJP reaction to his remark which would have communalised the atmosphere and helped him consolidate the M component of his MY (Muslim-Yadav) vote bank. But the BJP played it down, allowing the widespread disbelief among Hindus to play out and isolate Lalu Yadav, rather than raise the pitch and be charged with communalising the campaign.
On balance, therefore, it must be said that far from falling into the communal trap laid for it by its opponents, the BJP acted maturely throughout the campaign. But for the so-called secularists, the BJP is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. So, it is burdened with the cross of allegedly fomenting communalism regardless of its actions.
(Dr. Chandan Mitra is a journalist, currently Editor of The Pioneer Group of Publications. He is also BJP MP of the Rajya Sabha.)Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.