Rushdie & Co on Modi: Passing off prejudice as principle

It is amusing to find “intellectuals” coming out strongly against Narendra Modi. The latest one is a letter penned by 25 academics, artists and writers, including Salman Rushdie, to The Guardian newspaper expressing “acute worry” over Modi’s expected election to the country’s top job.

“Such a failure of moral character and political ethics on the part of Modi is incompatible with India’s secular constitution, which, in advance of many constitutions across the world, is founded on pluralist principles.”

I suppose intellectuals are entitled to their two minutes of grandstanding and bombast. They carry the weight of India’s burdens upon them, and one has to stand in awe of their efforts to make us realise our sins and recant on our unholy thoughts. Unfortunately for them, the people of India have more commonsense and wisdom than the self-appointed guardians of Indian pluralism. The people of India may or may not vote for Modi, but they know what is good for them better than these rootless wonders called intellectuals.

The problem with these so-called intellectuals is that they are often charlatans masquerading as public-spirited individuals. An intellectual, by definition, should be someone who thinks clearly before he or she talks. An intellectual should have an understanding of nuance and shades of grey. Is Modi a black and white character, or is he human – with some faults and some good points? An intellectual should be able to see both positives and negatives in a situation or an individual. Above all, you would expect a degree of intellectual honesty in them.

But our bunch has no such need to think beyond what they like or dislike about Modi. They have decided they dislike him and all their opinions follow from this pre-determined bias. They are thus hectoring bullies who couch prejudice as high principle, intellectual arrogance as genuine concern.

A true intellectual will not lend his name to pamphleteering. Remember, in Modi’s case we are not talking about an individual’s actual actions - but presumptions about how he may act in future based on what he may have done (or may have allowed to happen under his watch) in his past. For them it does not matter that Modi is not seeking to come to power by subverting democracy, but by seeking a popular mandate.

There is no doubt that 2002 was not Modi’s finest hour. His sins of omission and commission will haunt him forever. But so will the mindless pamphleteering of these “intellectuals” who believe in rubbing salt in wounds and reopening old ones.

Let’s analyse their entire statement for what it is worth.

The statement begins, “Without questioning the validity of India’s democratic election process”…

How dismissive can intellectuals get about democracy? We ought to be grateful that they do not question the validity of our electoral process. Nothing would make them happier than to learn that Modi is rigging the elections.

Next, they say “it is crucial to remember the role played by the Modi government in the horrifying events that took place in Gujarat in 2002. The Muslim minority were overwhelmingly the victims of pillage, murder and terror, resulting in the deaths of more than 2,000 men, women and children. Women, in particular, were subjected to brutal acts of violence and were left largely unprotected by the security forces.”

2002 is seared in every thinking Indian’s memory so it is hardly likely that voters will fail to take that into account. But notice that little lie introduced casually – 2,000 people killed. The official figures talk of 790 Muslims killed and 254 Hindus. This detail, I suppose, is not necessary for intellectuals. Surely, they could have acknowledged that these are official figures but that unofficial figures may be higher.

The statement goes on: “Although some members of Narendra Modi’s government are now facing trial, Modi himself repeatedly refuses to accept any responsibility or to render an apology.”

It seems obvious that it is not justice alone that these intellectuals want, but Modi’s head. Thus all the convictions and sentencing on those directly involved in the riots can be dismissed with an “although some members…” preamble, but it is Modi who must be held guilty. Never mind what the long-drawn judicial process has held so far.

Then comes the expression of principle and moral apoplexy. “Such a failure of moral character and political ethics on the part of Modi is incompatible with India’s secular constitution, which, in advance of many constitutions across the world, is founded on pluralist principles and seeks fair and full representation for minorities.”

Let’s assume 2002 displays the “failure of” Modi’s “moral character”.  But haven’t we had fairly strong governance since then? Does that not do something to mitigate the lack of “moral character” in 2002? Moreover, we have had several communal clashes after that – most recently in Assam and Muzaffarnagar - elsewhere. So these incidents do not impinge on the “moral character” of the Chief Ministers concerned?

Wilful blindness to the sins of everyone else speaks more about these intellectuals’ own “failure of moral character and political ethics” than about Modi’s alleged lack of it.

A word about India’s secular constitution and pluralist principles. Surely, India’s pluralist character is not the result of just the constitution? It is inherent in Hinduism and other Indic religions which existed long before the modern Indian state came into being with Ambedkar’s constitution. Secularism is the western antidote to monotheism. It was intended to curb the power of the church in temporal matters, but in India pluralism has been the guiding force all along, thanks to polytheistic Hinduism, and rationalistic Indic religions like Jainism and Buddhism. It is not a gift of the constitution.

Then comes the dire warning of a finger-wagging Old Testament prophet: “Were he to be elected prime minister, it would bode ill for India’s future as a country that cherishes the ideals of inclusion and protection for all its peoples and communities.”

If India can elect a Modi and still remain plural and secular, that is the real test of the idea of India. Obviously, our intellectuals have no faith in India or Indians.