The term ‘anti-nationalist’ is bandied on television and social media, but does Modi qualify for what constitutes a ‘nationalist’?
Most, not all, of those outraging against Shashi Tharoor for his remark about India becoming a Hindu Rashtra belong to India’s Right-wing. Tharoor further explained his point, saying “…the BJP/RSS idea of a ‘Hindu Rashtra’ is the mirror image of Pakistan: a state with a dominant majority religion that seeks to put its minorities in a subordinate place”.
The Indian Right-wing—of which the Hindu Right is a significant political component—loves to describe any Indian who doesn’t agree with their politics as anti-nationalist. In this framework, the term “nationalist” is discussed not merely as identity but also as politics, as the Hindu Right loves to do it. This meaning emerges every day in television debates and conversations on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
In fact, if you don’t owe your ideological allegiance to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its political wing, the Bharatiya Janata Party, you are likely to be dubbed anti-national on television channels or social media by counterfeit nationalist youths. By the canon of this conversational context, one can argue that Prime Minister Narendra Modi too is not a nationalist. For someone to be a nationalist, the basic assumption is he will act in the nation’s interest. By this criterion, Modi is not a nationalist for the following reasons.
In March, the Modi government introduced an amendment that exempted scrutiny of foreign funding to political parties. The Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, had outlawed overseas corporations from funding parties. The Modi government’s amendment disallowed legal scrutiny of such funds received by parties since 1976. A nationalist, if truly motivated by the nation’s interest, would not do this.
In the 2017 Budget, the Centre introduced electoral bonds to fund parties, ostensibly to ensure transparency in the nation’s politics. But it is not so. The government has been pressing Indians to provide their Aadhaar and PAN details to transfer even small amounts of ₹5,000 through Paytm and other payment systems. But for electoral bonds, there is no requirement to identify the donors and the political parties. A nationalist, if truly motivated by the need to reform the nation’s politics, would not plant such a corruption scheme.
Being in the fifth year of power, Modi has made no effort to appoint a Lokpal. The committee to appoint a Lokpal comprises the PM, the Chief Justice, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the leader of the Opposition, and an eminent jurist. The Modi government’s insistence to invite Mallikarjun Kharge—the leader of the Congress in the Lok Sabha—as “special invitee” instead of as a leader of the Opposition has stalled this process. Democracies run through conventions. A nationalist leader would not stall this appointment. It is not in the nation’s interest. Modi’s government does express the need for Lokpal, but only because an NGO has filed a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court.
At an election rally at Palanpur, Modi made a serious charge that Pakistan was trying to fix the Gujarat elections. A nationalist, who is prime minister of nearly 1.3 billion people, would have ordered an inquiry, since, in contemporary times, foreign powers do interfere in elections. Similar allegations are being investigated in the US But nothing was done after Modi told the nation that Pakistan is fixing elections.
If a nationalist’s job is to ensure transparency in the nation’s governance, Modi fails on this count too. Lokesh K Batra, a former officer of the Indian Navy, filed a Right to Information (RTI) request with Air India to disclose the dates on which bills were raised regarding Modi’s overseas trips. However, the Prime Minister’s Office ordered the state-run airline to not reveal the information. So much for transparency.
Fake nationalists accuse Muslims of not integrating in India. This would imply that one should, therefore, strive towards making such integration happen. But, all through the years, Modi ruled Gujarat, his government enlarged the scope of the Disturbed Areas Act, preventing Muslims from buying property in Hindu areas and vice versa. His government effectively partitioned Gujarat’s towns along religious lines. This sectarianism is no nationalism.
Democracies run through institutions. But the Modi government has no regards for institutions. One of its ministers even spoke of rewriting the Constitution. For the Gujarat elections, the election commission, known for independent integrity, was pressured to delay the poll date so that nationalists could announce pre-election sops.
The conception of nationalism among India’s people is “Bharatiyata”. Everyone who lives in these lands is a Bharatiya. Pluralism and dharma (moral code) are the fundamental tenets of both democracy and Bharatiyata. On both these counts, Narendra Modi fails. This is also why Shashi Tharoor is right. The RSS/BJP is creating a Hindu political community and promotes a sectarian view of nationalism, which differs from the inclusiveness inherent to Indian democracy.
It is not incidental that under them, cow vigilantes were encouraged. We might have entered an era of counterfeit nationalism in which the nation’s interest is not relevant to politics.