What does Modi’s idea of a ‘Congress-mukt Bharat’ mean? Demagoguery often precludes the possibility of substantive argument. Therefore, it would be difficult to adduce direct ‘evidence’ of what Modi means by a Congress-mukt Bharat. One can only guess at its meaning by inference. It is tempting to fit the Modi discourse in traditional dichotomies of the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ or ‘secular’ and ‘communal’. But we need to look beyond these dichotomies. Modi’s anti-Congress stand represents the classical sensibilities characteristic of Hindutva. These sensibilities have two core elements. One is a deep-rooted suspicion of the Muslim community (often culminating in a rejection of ‘minority’ claims and a tendency to uphold a majoritarian approach to democracy). The other is the middle-class dream of a strong Indian nation—without much concern for internal faultlines and the practical nitty-gritty of development and social asymmetries. Both are articulated in the language of ultranationalism—something that is internally exclusionary (if not outright intolerant) and externally belligerent.
Let us be clear: the slogan of a Congress-mukt Bharat has nothing much to do with what today’s Congress says, does or stands for. It has nothing to do with the reality called the Congress, but about the normative frame within which democratic politics in this country has been historically shaped. Political Hindutva always sought to move our democratic politics to a vacuous ultranationalist position sceptical of the minorities. Today, without necessarily and openly targeting the minorities, Modi’s BJP aims at shifting the political terrain towards a majoritarian form of democracy.
The effort under way is to produce a new consensus around which political competition in the next couple of decades would take place. Already, the Congress has vacated the space it once occupied; it has stopped appropriating the consensus which it once shaped and presided over. Through the ’90s, India’s democratic politics has been accidentally stumbling over a semi-consensus, primarily based only on contingent pragmatism. Modi’s BJP seeks to seize this moment of intellectual and political chaos—combined with acute deinstitutionalisation and the non-performance of the UPA government—and turn it into a building block for the new consensus political Hindutva has always dreamt of.
Then why does Modi speak about a Congress-mukt Bharat, instead of claiming that he wants to shape a new consensus? For one, as a party ruling the country for a decade, it is easy to blame the Congress not just for the current crisis of governance but for the fundamentals with which sections of the middle class have been very uncomfortable. Two, the previous consensus was far too much associated with the Congress of yesteryear—the Nehru-Indira Congress, rather than the Indira-Rajiv Congress. Historically, political Hindutva has always positioned itself as the true alternative to that consensus. Three, in the public imagination, the remnant of the previous consensus is somehow associated with the Constitution and Modi dares not say that he wants to redefine the constitutional consensus.
So for Modi, to talk of a Congress-mukt Bharat is a convenient strategy because it resonates well with the current mood of disenchantment and also allows him to shape and strengthen sensibilities that are deeply at odds with the historical consensus that facilitated the march of democracy in India.
The author teaches political science at the University of Pune
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
A struggling middle-class and a beleaguered nation can fight corruption and inflation under constitutional democracy, but how will the country prosper under a Gujarat “police state” model of development with simmering communal tensions ever ready to flare up in a majoritarian tilted democracy.
In NDA there are politicians who crave for a MODI-MUKT NDA.
With tagodia and Giri I think there is a likelyhood of polarisation
after election. The thrust is to resist a fascist.
>> Interposing religion in a discussion of politics, will always come up with any stuff to oppose anyone who supports secularism in India.
The discussion is about secularism vs communalism, not secularism vs religion. No need to bring in matters of faith (Rama, Muhammed, Jesus, Quran, Gita, Bible etc) in political discussions. All attempts to do so have so far been in a very hateful or supremacist spirit, especially when one has no better argument to make.!
11D 52 : nterposing religion in a discussion of politics, will always come up with any stuff to oppose anyone who supports secularism in India,
If you are discussing secularism in a country or the lack of- are you not already interposing religion and politics?
You seem to be too focused on the rebuttals! Dont you see that you are diluting your own post thereby?
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT