Modi, media and the illusions of Lutyens Delhi
(Fictional scene from a private conversation in Lutyens, Delhi)
Journo # 1: So Modi is responsible for progress in Gujarat?
Journo #2: But, 2002 happened on his watch!
Journo # 1: So now Muslims vote for the BJP?
Journo #2: But, 2002 was really bad, no?
Journo # 1: Congress hasn’t been secular in Delhi, Assam, Nellie, Bhagalpur, Hyderabad etc.
Journo #2: But, 2002 should not be forgotten!
Journo # 1: Hasn’t Modi done enough to answer his critics?
Journo #2: But, 2002 is etched in my (oops) OUR memory!
(News flashes that allegedly ‘Advani ji is against anointing Modi’)
Journo # 2: So this proves that Advani is a secular leader and brave enough to stand up for what is right.
Journo #1: But weren’t you against Advani ji ideologically? Haven’t you called him a fascist leader before, and by the way, since when did you start calling him ‘ji’?
Journo # 2: No Advani (ji) is a leader of great stature; he stood up to Modi and made his stance clear. He was BJP’s inclusive leader. He tried to take everyone along.
(News comes in again and this time ‘Advani ji blesses Modi and shares a stage with him’)
Journo #2: ADVANI HAS BEEN A FASCIST LEADER SINCE 1992. I HAVEN’T FORGOTTEN!
Journo#1: But didn’t you just say…?
Journo #2: No! Advani and Modi are communal.
Journo # 1: So what about stature and all that you just said?
Journo #2: 2002! 2002! 2002! 2002! You are an ignorant Internet Hindu. I don’t want to talk to you. You are MODIFIED!
The above conversation is a story in almost every newsroom in India. Does that mean I am calling all journalists immoral and corrupt? No I am certainly not; I do believe that a lot of journalists in India have been doing groundbreaking work.
But in some cases when we mention the name Narendra Modi, they lose all their so-called objectivity and in some cases even their common sense. More often than not, they get dissuaded by columnists and activists who have a certain ideological persuasion and base their essays on them.
Now, I am not suggesting that they adopt a favourable approach to Modi. I don’t think they should stop criticising him. In fact, I would welcome all criticism and respectfully consider it. But in the past years and especially in the last few months, ever since the rise of Modi in the BJP became imminent, these idiosyncrasies have become common with a motivated section of the Indian media. You have certain journalists from regional newspapers with no perspective whatsoever and who are only called on to national prime time TV because they do a better job of defending the ruling party and of vehemently opposing the BJP than party spokespersons. I support journalists having a political leaning but I would like for them to make it clear rather than sound like a hypocrite when they proclaim to be neutral.
This brings me to two articles that I read. The first one was by Aakar Patel: Why the BJP and Modi are bigger threats than the Congress. I respect Aakar Patel for his principled stand on many issues and the fearlessness with which he addresses them. But in this article, he gets it wrong – completely wrong. Not only is the article based on fallacious assumptions, it defies logic and represents a dangerous trend that is developing in the media lately. Along with Aakar Patel, we had one other – Harbans Mukhia – writing this nonsense masquerading as an opinion where he compares Modi to, hold your breath, Aurangzeb.
Aakar Patel says, “Over the decades BJP had polarised the State.” This is far from the truth. Congress had ruled Gujarat for most of the time prior to 1995. Riots in Gujarat have taken place in Gujarat in 1969, Navnirman (1970s), and parts of the 1980s. Has Aakar Patel ever mentioned that the riots in 1969 had allegedly been done at the behest of Indira Gandhi according to this Hindustan Times report. He doesn’t mention Chimanbhai Patel (The person who let Gujarat burn during the Navnirman agitation) or even Madhavsinh Solanki who, apart from being one of the worst Chief Ministers of Gujarat, was also involved in the notorious Bofors scandal). These Ministers will be conveniently left out and so will the Congress which had ruled the State for 30 years and polarised it.
Harbans Mukhia goes one step further and uses all sorts of nonsensical assumptions to justify his atrocious theory. Normally, such articles don’t behoove a response, but for long this kind of ridiculous journalism has been allowed to pass scot free in the mainstream media. He compares a democratic process in the BJP to choose a Prime Ministerial candidate to the brutal murders that Aurangzeb committed to rise to the throne. Nothing could be further from the truth, Modi is a democratically elected Chief Minister of Gujarat, that too three times. This fact is completely ignored by people like Harbans Mukhia, who have a fixed theory on Modi based on their ideology.
The only regime overthrow that reminds me of dictatorial policies was when a certain president was locked in the bathroom of a party headquarters till a certain family took over. But obviously Harbans Mukhia won’t remember this since in the name of phony secularism, anything is permitted by that party and since it is close to his ideology he will choose to ignore it. He has talked about Advani and Keshubhai forgetting that both have given Modi his blessing on the PM nomination. Such is the bias of these writers that they resort to these desperate motives to further their ideological hatred for Modi.
Aakar Patel also claims, “Under Sonia Gandhi, we have had a magnificent gesture to Sikhs in the face of Manmohan Singh. His two terms as Prime Minister have done much to heal feelings of Sikhs and non-Sikhs offended by the way the community was treated in Delhi.”
I haven’t seen a poorer defence of the Congress than this one. If, by appointing a Sikh as a PM, the Congress has done enough then the BJP appointed APJ Abdul Kalam barely three months after the riots! So going by Aakar Patel’s bizarre logic, BJP did in three months what took Congress 20 years to do.
Such tokenism should never be used as a barometer and in his argument he conveniently leaves out the fact that these riots happened under the watch of a Sikh President appointed by the Congress. Thus, if India has to operate on such logic then we have a very dark future ahead. Healing comes from development and empowerment. And the BJP, under Modi after 2002 has ensured development of all communities irrespective of their religion and has thus made the community prosper. I am not saying that he has achieved a 100 per cent success but he has strived for it and the results are there for all to see.
As far as the argument of seats in Punjab is concerned, the BJP has had a lot of Muslim legislators elected and has gotten majority in Muslim dominated areas such as Salaya and so forth in Gujarat. A sizable portion of the Muslim population has voted for the BJP in the 2012 Assembly election. Whether that number will go up or not I do not know and neither do you, but I am still willing to give him a chance rather than jump to conclusions like these. As someone who was 13 when the riots took place, I remember everything that happened and have also seen the spin that the media put on this issue. Evidence has been concocted and witnesses have emerged from nowhere with ‘proof’ which has been refuted by the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court.
My intention is not to disrespect you, nor stamp my opinion over you. You have the right to your opinion as much as I do to mine. It’s just that I refuse to see Indians from the paradigm of caste and class and look at them only as Indians. I respect all religions and strongly believe in the pluralism of India. But to say that Congress is a better choice after Nellie, Bhagalpur 1989, Assam 1912, Mumbai 1993 and Delhi 1984, I’m sorry to say I vehemently disagree with that opinion.
