For nearly a month now, Delhi has been speculating furiously about whether Prime Minister Narendra Modi approves of the gharwapsi programme and the communal articulation of Bharatiya Janata Party’s MPs. What has triggered the speculation is the silence of Modi, who has doggedly refused to spell out his own position on the contentious issues.
The ongoing speculation is an eloquent testament to the popular perception of Modi as a leader who does not hesitate to voice his opinion. This perceived trait of his has imparted ambiguity to his silence, which has been consequently subjected to varying interpretations.
Silence, however, suffers from a severe limitation: you cannot ever reach a definite conclusion on its precise meaning. The endeavour of Delhi’s political class to analyse Modi’s silence has only yielded theories, each of which is rebutted incisively. In this sense, Modi has courted silence as a political choice.
There are five theories, each propounded by a school of thought, to comprehend the meaning of Modi’s silence.
Theory No. 1: Silence as approval
This theory is most popular among those who subscribe to the Left-liberal ideologies. They believe it is naiveté that has pundits distinguish Modi from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has been a quintessential pracharak most of his life, as steeped as any in the ideology of the RSS. His past is proof of this – for instance, he played a significant role in organising the rath yatra BJP leader L K Advani so destructively embarked upon in 1990.
Worse, it was under him that the Gujarat riots of 2002 occurred. He undoubtedly milked it for political dividends, stereotyping religious minorities and stoking fear about them. Therefore, argue the proponents of this theory, it is inconceivable that Modi would suddenly become disapproving of the Sangh Parivar’s programme to convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism.
They see in his silence a political design – an arrangement crafted between him and the Sangh to ensure he does not incur opprobrium for endorsing those spearheading the ghar wapsi programme or speaking in favour of Nathuram Godse. This strategy the Sangh is pursuing out of compulsion, they argue, as India still remains centrist, evident from the middling 31% of votes the BJP polled. A chunk of the 31% votes Modi bagged because of his stated agenda of good governance and development.
Thus, for an overwhelming number of Indians, Modi’s open endorsement of the divisive Hindutva agenda would seem irresponsible, and could in the long run erode his popularity on which the BJP partially has to depend for its electoral success. In other words, Modi’s silence is a win-win situation for both – he retains the veneer of non-partisanship and the Sangh persists in pursuing its task of making India a Hindu nation.
Theory No. 2: Silence as disapproval
This school of thought has come into existence because of its critique of Theory No. 1. It says no political entity is a monolith in which all members are programmed to obey orders from the top, regardless of their own individual interests. This is as true of the Sangh Parivar. The proponents of Theory No. 2, therefore, say that Modi may have been a typical pracharak once, but as prime minister his interest and the Sangh’s do not always converge.
They say Modi is conscious that he has become immensely popular because he has dexterously combined in his persona the image of being the Hindu Hriday Samrat and that of Mr Development. This fine balance he must maintain to ensure his popularity does not wane. But the Sangh’s provocative programmes threaten to destabilise society, frighten foreign investors, and undermine his development agenda. This school of thought, therefore, interprets his silence on ghar wapsi as his refusal to put his formidable weight behind it.
Obviously, a more telling way of communicating this is to articulate his worries. School No. 2 say Modi’s silence is pragmatic. Open opposition would inspire his rivals in the Sangh to band together against him and whittle down his power. As such, it is said, “Modi has no friends in the BJP, he has only foes or servants.”
Modi will strike against the Sangh hotheads at a moment of his own choosing, School No. 2 hopes, reminding critics of how he had marginalised Vishva Hindu Parishad’s Praveen Togadia in Gujarat.
Theory No. 3: Silence as strategy
This school of thought says the Sangh is applying pressure on Modi because of its awareness that even a committed pracharak in power is inclined to plough his own furrow. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani are prime examples, both of whom tried to reinvent a liberal image for themselves in the hope of winning the approval of those known to be disdainful of the Sangh.
This tendency, School No. 3 says, can be discerned in Modi too – he is in thrall to his image of Mr Development. Over the six months in power he has not spoken on the hot button Hindutva issues, apart from glorifying the mythical scientific achievements of India in the ancient times and appropriating leaders who died decades ago. This school, therefore, argues that the ghar wapsi programme is aimed at reminding Modi about the promises he must keep.
Aware of the Sangh’s anxiety, Modi does not want to heighten it further through public criticism of its Hindutva programme. The moderate and extremist factions the Sangh must balance, just as he must remain Mr Development and the Hindu Hridaya Samrat simultaneously. This school asks: why do you think Rajeshwar Singh, the ghar wapsi pointsman in western Uttar Pradesh, has been banished?
For the moment, both RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and Modi need each other. The former controls the Sangh hotheads, the latter provides pracharaks ample scope to influence government policies. From this perspective, Modi’s silence is his method of preserving truce and buying time for his agenda.
Theory No. 4: Silence as anger
This school says Modi’s silence over the hard Hindutva line being pursued is indeed a reflection of his seething anger, but it is largely on account of the negative headlines swamping his efforts at imparting a positive spin to his governance. The Sangh’s troubling tamasha has darkled the feel-good mood Modi had assiduously created.
Had it not been for the adverse response of the media, and even the people – “love jihad” did not prove a winning card in the Uttar Pradesh by-elections, for instance – Modi would not have been averse to implementing the Hindutva line. School No. 4 points to the fact that the BJP fielded Mahant Adityanath as the star speaker in the debate on communalism in the Lok Sabha. Then again, Modi was quick to explain, in however a ham-handed way, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s haramzadaon remark to ensure the logjam in Parliament was broken.
However, the issue of “reconversion” is of another order. To apologise for it or explain it would mean alienating the Sangh hotheads. To endorse it would run the risk of triggering media outrage and public outcry. He has courted silence, yet ensured the Hindutva issues are pushed on the backburner.
It is because of Modi that Rajeshwar Singh has been banished, School No. 4 argues, pointing to a marginal shift in the debate – from obsessing about “reconversion”, the media has taken to discussing the slew of ordinances promulgated recently. Then follow the Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas celebrations and President Barack Obama’s visit to India. The ground has been paved for Modi to dominate the headlines again.
Theory No. 5: Silence! Parivar is here
Union Minister Venkaiah Naidu recently told the Congressmen in Parliament, “You are proud of your parivar and we are proud of our parivar.” It also implies the BJP cannot speak against the Sangh, just as the Congressmen cannot against the Gandhis. Manmohan Singh did not break the code of omerta and lost his credibility. In this lies a lesson for Modi. Silence is ambiguous but when courted for an inordinately long period, it is popularly interpreted as acquiescence.
Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His book The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, will be available in bookstores from this week.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The ongoing speculation is an eloquent testament to the popular perception of Modi as a leader who does not hesitate to voice his opinion. This perceived trait of his has imparted ambiguity to his silence, which has been consequently subjected to varying interpretations.
Silence, however, suffers from a severe limitation: you cannot ever reach a definite conclusion on its precise meaning. The endeavour of Delhi’s political class to analyse Modi’s silence has only yielded theories, each of which is rebutted incisively. In this sense, Modi has courted silence as a political choice.
There are five theories, each propounded by a school of thought, to comprehend the meaning of Modi’s silence.
Theory No. 1: Silence as approval
This theory is most popular among those who subscribe to the Left-liberal ideologies. They believe it is naiveté that has pundits distinguish Modi from the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. He has been a quintessential pracharak most of his life, as steeped as any in the ideology of the RSS. His past is proof of this – for instance, he played a significant role in organising the rath yatra BJP leader L K Advani so destructively embarked upon in 1990.
Worse, it was under him that the Gujarat riots of 2002 occurred. He undoubtedly milked it for political dividends, stereotyping religious minorities and stoking fear about them. Therefore, argue the proponents of this theory, it is inconceivable that Modi would suddenly become disapproving of the Sangh Parivar’s programme to convert Muslims and Christians to Hinduism.
They see in his silence a political design – an arrangement crafted between him and the Sangh to ensure he does not incur opprobrium for endorsing those spearheading the ghar wapsi programme or speaking in favour of Nathuram Godse. This strategy the Sangh is pursuing out of compulsion, they argue, as India still remains centrist, evident from the middling 31% of votes the BJP polled. A chunk of the 31% votes Modi bagged because of his stated agenda of good governance and development.
Thus, for an overwhelming number of Indians, Modi’s open endorsement of the divisive Hindutva agenda would seem irresponsible, and could in the long run erode his popularity on which the BJP partially has to depend for its electoral success. In other words, Modi’s silence is a win-win situation for both – he retains the veneer of non-partisanship and the Sangh persists in pursuing its task of making India a Hindu nation.
Theory No. 2: Silence as disapproval
This school of thought has come into existence because of its critique of Theory No. 1. It says no political entity is a monolith in which all members are programmed to obey orders from the top, regardless of their own individual interests. This is as true of the Sangh Parivar. The proponents of Theory No. 2, therefore, say that Modi may have been a typical pracharak once, but as prime minister his interest and the Sangh’s do not always converge.
They say Modi is conscious that he has become immensely popular because he has dexterously combined in his persona the image of being the Hindu Hriday Samrat and that of Mr Development. This fine balance he must maintain to ensure his popularity does not wane. But the Sangh’s provocative programmes threaten to destabilise society, frighten foreign investors, and undermine his development agenda. This school of thought, therefore, interprets his silence on ghar wapsi as his refusal to put his formidable weight behind it.
Obviously, a more telling way of communicating this is to articulate his worries. School No. 2 say Modi’s silence is pragmatic. Open opposition would inspire his rivals in the Sangh to band together against him and whittle down his power. As such, it is said, “Modi has no friends in the BJP, he has only foes or servants.”
Modi will strike against the Sangh hotheads at a moment of his own choosing, School No. 2 hopes, reminding critics of how he had marginalised Vishva Hindu Parishad’s Praveen Togadia in Gujarat.
Theory No. 3: Silence as strategy
This school of thought says the Sangh is applying pressure on Modi because of its awareness that even a committed pracharak in power is inclined to plough his own furrow. Atal Bihari Vajpayee and L K Advani are prime examples, both of whom tried to reinvent a liberal image for themselves in the hope of winning the approval of those known to be disdainful of the Sangh.
This tendency, School No. 3 says, can be discerned in Modi too – he is in thrall to his image of Mr Development. Over the six months in power he has not spoken on the hot button Hindutva issues, apart from glorifying the mythical scientific achievements of India in the ancient times and appropriating leaders who died decades ago. This school, therefore, argues that the ghar wapsi programme is aimed at reminding Modi about the promises he must keep.
Aware of the Sangh’s anxiety, Modi does not want to heighten it further through public criticism of its Hindutva programme. The moderate and extremist factions the Sangh must balance, just as he must remain Mr Development and the Hindu Hridaya Samrat simultaneously. This school asks: why do you think Rajeshwar Singh, the ghar wapsi pointsman in western Uttar Pradesh, has been banished?
For the moment, both RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat and Modi need each other. The former controls the Sangh hotheads, the latter provides pracharaks ample scope to influence government policies. From this perspective, Modi’s silence is his method of preserving truce and buying time for his agenda.
Theory No. 4: Silence as anger
This school says Modi’s silence over the hard Hindutva line being pursued is indeed a reflection of his seething anger, but it is largely on account of the negative headlines swamping his efforts at imparting a positive spin to his governance. The Sangh’s troubling tamasha has darkled the feel-good mood Modi had assiduously created.
Had it not been for the adverse response of the media, and even the people – “love jihad” did not prove a winning card in the Uttar Pradesh by-elections, for instance – Modi would not have been averse to implementing the Hindutva line. School No. 4 points to the fact that the BJP fielded Mahant Adityanath as the star speaker in the debate on communalism in the Lok Sabha. Then again, Modi was quick to explain, in however a ham-handed way, Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti’s haramzadaon remark to ensure the logjam in Parliament was broken.
However, the issue of “reconversion” is of another order. To apologise for it or explain it would mean alienating the Sangh hotheads. To endorse it would run the risk of triggering media outrage and public outcry. He has courted silence, yet ensured the Hindutva issues are pushed on the backburner.
It is because of Modi that Rajeshwar Singh has been banished, School No. 4 argues, pointing to a marginal shift in the debate – from obsessing about “reconversion”, the media has taken to discussing the slew of ordinances promulgated recently. Then follow the Pravasi Bharatiya Diwas celebrations and President Barack Obama’s visit to India. The ground has been paved for Modi to dominate the headlines again.
Theory No. 5: Silence! Parivar is here
Union Minister Venkaiah Naidu recently told the Congressmen in Parliament, “You are proud of your parivar and we are proud of our parivar.” It also implies the BJP cannot speak against the Sangh, just as the Congressmen cannot against the Gandhis. Manmohan Singh did not break the code of omerta and lost his credibility. In this lies a lesson for Modi. Silence is ambiguous but when courted for an inordinately long period, it is popularly interpreted as acquiescence.
Ajaz Ashraf is a journalist from Delhi. His book The Hour Before Dawn, published by HarperCollins, will be available in bookstores from this week.
