Opinion Who’s afraid of moving on?

In her book,Producing India: From Colonial Economy to National Space,historian Manu Goswami has traced the tussle for the idea of India,between a universalistic nationalism and a more particularistic,sectarian one. What transpired in Gujarat,in 2002,severely tested the universalistic idea of Indian nationhood. Mobs ran riot for weeks,and the state government,at the very least,allowed this brutal “majority principle” to play out. And yet,the administration that oversaw the riots is still in office,democratically re-elected.

Of the several prisms to evaluate the aftermath of the 2002 riots,the most crucial is,perhaps,the issue of justice through the courts. What the courts finally conclude would matter profoundly — to what extent can governments be held accountable when “law and order” break down?

Riots weren’t invented in 2002 by the BJP. Congress rule has seen several riots and prejudiced police forces waging war with minority religious groups and Dalits since the 1960s. But the Congress,apart from having paid a political price for it,has expressed much contrition,and then pragmatically cast itself as an upholder of the peace.

In 2002,in power in Gujarat and at the Centre,the BJP was unable to offer the “federal” excuse. It offered the BJP the chance to transcend what its critics think is its mission — that of replacing the universalistic idea of India written into its Constitution with that of a Hindu nation that is unitary,not necessarily united. Yet,it was the Congress,whose reputation as a secularising force was badly dented at the time,that gained most from the BJP’s inability to grasp this chance. It facilitated an unprecedented coalition with the Left,in 2004,and gave them an enduring positioning formula.

The BJP,though,has been stuck with the Gujarat albatross,unable to declare a PM candidate,to let Narendra Modi even campaign without many reservations,and yet,refusing to deal with the scars of 2002. It became a liability for its erstwhile allies. Forces like the Trinamool,AIADMK or BJD feel more powerful having disengaged from the BJP (though Mamata Banerjee was twice an NDA cabinet minister). Even Nitish Kumar is at pains to portray himself as “independent”.

Indian politics has space for a right-wing “nationalist” party,but the BJP isn’t looking there — it remains stuck with being called a “communal” and otherwise “mudda-viheen” party. It tries to reinvent Modi as a force of “governance”,responsible for everything but the riots. The irony of the walls of Juhapura versus stories of municipal success escapes the BJP’s spin-doctors.

Meanwhile,in the eight years the BJP has been out of power,the Muslim story has changed in quiet but dramatic ways. The “Muslim vote” was never a monolith,but with the focus shifting away from the BJP alone,the bloc cracked further to reveal the various moods,diversities,aspirations and colours of Indian Islam — all signs of a growing self-confidence. 13.5 per cent of India doesn’t want to behave like a flock.

The Sachar committee first destroyed the appeasement myth — much to the chagrin of the RSS and the BJP — but it also forced Muslims to introspect,and assume greater agency. The committee’s revelations underscored,for young Indian Muslims,the urgency of fixing the fundamentals. A maulana in Saharanpur in UP recently made a telling comment,on how only the poorest chose a madrasa education: “zara sa bhi theek thaak ho jaaye,to woh doosre school mein bhejte hain”.

Of course,a lot of what looks like aspiration is a response to desperate circumstances. But Muslims increasingly link the political process to a change in their daily lives. Ask leaders of parties who woo Muslims today,and they will speak in terms of jobs and schools. Ask Muslim leaders,and they too talk of “hamare liye kya kiya”,reflecting the pressure of rapidly rising aspirations within the community. Of course,the struggle with stereotyping,especially by the police,goes on. But the post-2002 situation,with a non-BJP dispensation at the helm,has seen other regional parties broadening the zone so that a non-BJP opposition can be an “alternative”. The impact of economic reforms has also been fully felt by closed communities,pushing Muslims out of the box.

A powerful idea,floated some time back,has been to urge victims of various situations to “move on”. The Sikhs have heard about “moving on” from 1984,the Maliana riot-affected (still arguing their case more than 20 years on) have heard it,as have those chased out from Bhiwandi,Kandhamal or Anantnag. What is noteworthy is that victims of communal carnage have indeed moved on,preferring to be termed “victim-survivors” now. They have greater control over their choices,even as they hope for better,and continue the legal struggle.

And those who suggest that they “move on” have failed to follow that logic themselves. For all the bluster,the chances of Narendra Modi being able to “move on” from Gujarat appear dim,10 long years later.

seema.chishti@expressindia.com