BJP victory and Indian secularism

The tea seller son was undaunted. He and his team used a blend of religion and economics to carve out one of the most spectacular electoral victories ever in Indian political history. Narendra Modi started his election campaign in Varanasi and chose the religious capital of Hindu India as one of the two seats from which he contested in the elections. He celebrated the BJP victory in that city. He campaigned with the Hindu fundamentalism as his trademark. When he entered the parliament after the BJP victory, he prostrated himself at the Lok Sabha door like a devout Hindu would do while entering a Hindu temple.

What does the BJP and Narendra Modi use of the Hindu fundamentalist card say about the India that the rest of the world has been led to believe to be the cradle of secularism in the non-western world? Also, what lies ahead for the future of Indian secularism now that the Indian voters, 814 million of them, have dumped the party that has made the single most important contribution to establishing India secular credentials? The answers to these questions cannot be given forthright. The answers would also not be coming any time soon.

Nevertheless, it would be useful to examine what the answers could be. One possible answer could be that the BJP and Narendra Modi have used what was always there for any party/leader to use. The much-vaunted secularism of India is simply the veneer of Indian nationalism where Hindu fundamentalism has always been the substance of India nationhood. Many of the great leaders of the Congress in the pre-independence days were educated in the British system and traditions who accepted the British ways like the hand fits in the glove and with all those, these Congress leaders had also accepted British/western secularism as the main foundation upon which to build government and governance. In so doing, the Congress never abandoned its roots with the religion of its supporters, namely Hinduism.

The Congress use of Indian nationalism subsumed Hindu fundamentalism. In fact, the Congress used Indian nationalism so craftily that most Indians believed that it was being done for the sake of Hinduism. The Pakistan movement, based on Islam, was a great help to the Congress because it allowed the party to unite the Hindus under Indian nationalism without having to overtly use the religion to do so. The Congress, after independence, thus used Indian nationalism to win votes at home without the need to play the Hindu card and used secularism to build for India the image that gave the country a head start in its development efforts. In contrast, Pakistan, suffered because it was branded as a religion based state in the western world.

India used to witness a major Hindi-Muslim riot every year as long as the Congress hold on India was unchallenged. The riots were never pre-empted but always successfully controlled by the Congress government that earned recognition for India as a country that did not tolerate communalism. There was always the nagging suspicion that those riots were inspired by the Congress to kill two birds with one stone; to give the Muslims the impression that the Congress was their only saviour and the majority Hindus, the confidence that it was looking after their interests including the religious ones. In fact, through the riots, the Congress killed three birds in one stone because it also enhanced India reputation in the west for its commitment to secularism.

The decline of the Congress did not immediately lead to rise of Hindu fundamentalism, as it should have because meanwhile India witnessed the rise of regional parties that put its own agenda over that of the centre. India was focussed for a while in centre/province conflict. The BJP successfully used Hindu fundamentalism in 1999 to win power but then lost touch with the base with its economic successes. Their slogan for the 2004 elections of shining India was ill advised. India overwhelming majority of rural Hindu voters considered that slogan as a mockery of their economic plight and voted the BJP out.

That mistake brought the Congress but the BJP did not forget the reason why it lost. It tried with Hindu fundamentalism in 2009 but could not win because it did not have the right leadership. Narendra Modi in a sense was as the clich goes, the right person in the right place for the 2014 elections. In Gujarat, Modi had earned the credentials that Hindu India was yearning for, a Hindu fundamentalist leader without any pretensions of secularism with the added qualification of an economic miracle maker. Narendra Modi was the answer to the BJP prayer for a leader who would be able send a message to the Indians that if they trusted in him, he would replicate the success he had achieved in Gujarat on the larger Indian canvas and that he would do that riding the Hindu fundamentalist chariot. Corporate India and a super-genius IT savvy campaign team combined to send Narendra Modi in a train blended in economics and Hindu fundamentalism to New Delhi and sent the Congress to the political wilderness.

Therefore one way of looking at the Modi phenomenon is to consider that the Hindu fundamentalist base of Indian nationhood has finally come out of the veneer of secularism. Or, to put it another way, the veneer of secularism was no longer able to resist the push of Hindu fundamentalism and just gave in for the BJP and Narendra Modi to take the advantage. Nevertheless, few serious analysts are looking at the Indian elections in such a context. Very few seem to be concerned about the fate of the millions of Muslims in a Hindu India. If a Muslim country in South Asia or elsewhere were to fall to religious fundamentalism, hell would have broken over it in the media.

The Congress government saw little wrong in the January 5 elections because as its Foreign Secretary had stated to HM Ershad, it was necessary to keep the Islamic fundamentalists at bay! The secular forces of Bangladesh also saw little ill at this and supported India interference in Bangladesh internal affairs for the sake of secularism. The irony about such a line of thought is that in Bangladesh, the Islamic fundamentalist forces have no chance in a thousand years to capture political power. Yet, just on the belief with little basis to support that they may become a force, the Congress government interfered in Bangladesh internal affairs in unbelievable ways to encourage the government and its secular forces not just to demand the banning of the fundamentalist forces like Jamat but to physically eliminate them!

It is time for the AL led government and the secular forces Bangladesh to revisit their premises against Islamic fundamentalism in the light of victory of Hindu fundamentalism in India. In doing so, they would do themselves a favour if they considered that alarm bells have not rung in secular India at the Hindu fundamentalist BJP winning power because of the rule of law and democracy in the country although there is also no reason for complacency. India is on a new course and its rule of law would now be tested.

The AL led government and the country secular forces would need to reconsider their approach to Islamic fundamentalism and deal with their fears of religious fundamentalism by strengthening democracy and establishment of the rule of law, both now not visible in the public domain of the country. In such an approach, they would have one comfort that India did not have; that the religious fundamentalists in Bangladesh have almost non-existent chances of ever assuming power, if there is democracy and rule of law in the country.