My article on DailyO on false narratives and Arun Shourie.
You can read a version of the article below:
The ongoing "intolerance" debate reminds me of my
Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) days when leftist organisations (SFI in those
days) would come up with a charter of demands and go on hunger strikes. After
about five days, the strike would be called off with the mediation of
"Left-oriented" JNU professors and a message would be sent out to the
student community that the administration had considered many demands which
will be fulfilled in the near future. In this backdrop, they would fight
elections and win.
The Left organisations created a narrative which was in
favour of most students and comprised issues like more hostels, scholarships,
placement cell, fear of the right-wing and so on. With this they would become
"champions of the downtrodden" and saviours of the minorities.
Two important points here are: The SFI-AISF won elections
till 2005 but started losing when their parent organisations, the CPM and CPI,
joined the co-ordination committee of the UPA government. Second, the issues
they championed never got resolved and exist even today. However, they
successfully constructed a narrative and the students bought it.
Something similar is happening in India today. Many
narratives have been coined in the last few weeks against the backdrop of the
Bihar elections. These narratives are of "Hindu Pakistan",
"forces of intolerance", and the "situation is worse than
Emergency". The people campaigning on these lines are decidedly anti-Modi
and have propounded these theories when the formation of a Narendra Modi-led
government at the Centre started looking imminent. Many of them had then
claimed that they will leave the country if Modi became the prime minister.
Like true followers of Karl Marx, these "secular-liberal" intellectual
elites started with a conclusion and all their arguments now are directed at
proving it.
This same campaign had been run right before the Delhi
elections. A narrative of insecurity was created for the middle class and
minorities. There were reports of theft at some Delhi churches which became
front page news in all the national English dailies and got editorial mention
in international newspapers. The "secular-intellectual" elite and NGO
activists came out on the streets to save the "secular" credentials
of the country. Prime Minister Modi personally called upon the Delhi police
commissioner and HRD minister Smriti Irani even visited a missionary school in
south Delhi. All this happened in the backdrop of the Delhi elections. Since
the poll results, no newspaper has reported a single case of theft or attack on
Delhi churches.
The point is simple. First, the narratives like "forces
of intolerance" are planted with the intention of creating an environment
of fear. Second, the anti-Modi forces are desperate to break the personality
cult of Modi who after a year in office has established himself as
incorruptible. The aim of these narratives is to trap the prime minister; if he
responds he will by implication accept his fault, and if he does not, he
acquiesces with the so-called forces of intolerance. Third, the anti-Modi
alliance had been a beneficiary of the last regime and the members share a
certain level confidence.
They are very uncomfortable under the present government,
its lexicon and style of functioning. Fourth, many of them waited for 16 months
to make inroads into the present regime and decided to stand in opposition when
that did not materialise.
Fifth, many of them are spent forces and are simply paying
the price of loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family. It is not just a coincidence
that the whole debate of #AwardWapasi began with Nayantara Sahgal who is not
just a beneficiary but a member of the Nehru family.
While constructing and deconstructing narratives according
to convenience is not a new tactic, it is disheartening is to see a fine mind
like Arun Shourie getting trapped by it and, knowingly or unknowing, becoming a
pawn.
On India Today TV, Shourie claimed that Modi is turning
India into a Pakistan, that Modi had failed as the moral leader of the country,
that the Dadri lynching was the worst thing to have happened in independent
India, and that there is an Emergency-like situation in the country.
What is sad is not that Shourie chose to criticise, but that
an individual known for original thinking had to borrow from a ghost narrative
in his criticism of the government. The phrases used by him have been the
talisman of the "secular-liberal" intellectual elite for the last
three to four weeks. With the "secular" narrative losing its old
sheen, the buzzword is now "rationalist" and with "Sanghis"
failing to evoke either sniggers or disgust the jumla is "forces of
intolerance".
It is a rather creative game of words that keeps the
unsuspecting constantly in a state of doubt and nodding. It can also be seen
that there is no direct or indirect involvement of RSS organisations in the
events mentioned by the "secular-liberal elite" as symbol of
intolerance.
While the use of such narratives is expected, I am surprised
how Shourie could get himself to call Dadri "the worst incident of hatred
in independent India". He spent his life writing against a certain brand
of politics but has sadly decided to toe the the "secular" line now.
With an increasing list of people like Shourie - NR Narayana Murthi, Kiran
Maumdar-Shaw, Raghuram Rajan – who have been taken in by the new narrative, it
is time for the government to think of engaging those who started as
well-wishers and ended up on the other side.
No comments:
Post a Comment